HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-02 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 2, 1993
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 2,1993, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7.30 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
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none.
Item No. 2 was approval of the minutes of the October 5, 1993, and October 19, 1993, Evening
Meetings. Mery Lapin moved to approve the minutes of the October 5,1993, and October 19,1993,
Evening Meeting Minutes, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning 7.710 acres
from Agricultural and Open Space, Section 18.32 to Low Density Multi -Family, Section 18.16 located
between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B. The applicant was Town of Vail/Vail
Housing Authority. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan Pritz requested this item be tabled
because Jen Wright, Housing Authority Chairman, was not present due to illness. Mery Lapin
moved to table Ordinance No, 21, Series of 1993, first reading, until December 7,1993, with a second
from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993, second reading, an annual appropriation ordinance:
adopting a budget and financial plan and making appropriations to pay the costs, expenses, and
liabilities of the Town of Vail, Colorado, for its fiscal year January 1, 1994, through December 31,
1994, and providing for the levy assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due
for the 1993 tax year and payable in the 1994 fiscal year. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full There
was brief discussion regarding previous years' budget formats which had included line item
definitions and the outcome based budgeting process. Steve Thompson advised cost accounting
procedures would begin January 1, 1995. Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 26, Series
of 1993, on second reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance providing for the
establishment of Special Development District No. 31, Golden Peak House; adopting a Development
Plan for Special Development District No. 31 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal
Code; rezoning a portion of Tract E from Agricultural and Open Space Zoning to Commercial Core
I Zoning, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicants were Golden Peak House
Condominium Association/Vail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Mayor
Osterfoss read the title in full. Mike Mollica noted the applicants had eliminated 455 square feet of
floor area overall since first reading, and he reviewed further modifications. He indicated the
changes requested for Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, on first reading, had been made for second
reading. Those changes included detailing what each of the four co -applicants were responsible for.
Discussion followed, particularly with regard to Section 8, item 3 of the ordinance related to Council's
desire for more definite language regarding the open space dedication for the Mill Creek stream tract
and/or the Pirate Ship Park area of Tract E. Bob Buckley felt VA would have problems with a
permanent restriction on Pirate Ship Park because of new technologies and ski area operations. Gerry
Arnold, representing VA, explained VA's concept of conveying the area under discussion as a
"dedication parcel" to TOV, rather than permanently restricted open space area, and that dedication
would occur prior to the issuance of a building permit by TOV. She reviewed a letter to Council
from VA dated November 2, 1993, regarding the proposed open space parcel dedication. In that
letter, VA stated they understood the concern of Council regarding the reconfiguration of the
"dedication parcel" and had done a preliminary study for a walking path from Hanson Ranch Road
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11PM
to the bicycle path south of Cyranos. Based upon that study, VA was willing to adjust the
configuration of the "dedication parcel" to a revised configuration calculated to be approximately
3,370 square feet. A map outlining the proposed "dedication parcel" was included as part of VA's
letter. Jim Shearer noted VA also owned the east side of Mill Creek and asked Ms. Arnold if VA
would consider a walking path on both sides. She did not think VA would object, but advised she
would need to take that back to VA management for further discussion. Tom Steinberg expressed
strong objection to an invisible line down the middle of the stream. It was suggested Ms. Arnold
contact VA during this meeting for an immediate answer, however Bob Buckley and Clark
Willingham both objected to Council asking Ms. Arnold to do that. Diana Donovan, speaking as a
member of the PEC, discussed the minutes from their last meeting, noting public benefits. She
indicated the PEC recommended the "dedication parcel" should include the entire stream path, not
just the area up to the bike path. Mr. Willingham stated VA had given triple what the PEC had
requested and felt Council was holding up the entire project for the expanded "dedication parcel."
Jim Lamont felt Mr. Willingham was receiving over and above the established GRFA and asked why
VA could not unilaterally dedicate the Mill Creek stream tract over the phone. Mayor Osterfoss
noted that TOV's and VA's goals were basically the same.
At the time of this meeting, letters of opposition to this project had been received from Barbara C.
Welles, Dolph Bridgewater, Frances E. Gunn, Foxhall A. Parker, Robert W. Galvin, Jim Lamont,
Monica G. Benderly, Sara A. Newsam, Joy Hilliard, and Konard G. Prem. The opposition to
designation of the Golden Peak House (GPH) as an SDD primarily related to its exceeding all zoning
standards for the Commercial Core 1 zone district, that the existing building exceeded all zoning
standards, that expansion of the building beyond zoning standards or an expansion of a non-
conforming condition was a grant of special privilege not generally available to all property owners,
that unfashionable architecture or failure of the property owners to maintain properly a building was
insufficient cause to exceed zoning standards, and that expansion of the building encroached into the
Vail Village View Corridor.
Lengthy discussion regarding EHUs, short-term rental program details, at -grade improvements,
proposed declarations of public access, establishment of timelines, and view corridor encroachments
led to further language changes in Section 8, items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the ordinance relating to
developer agreements with requirements .which were a part of TOV's possible approval of the
establishment of SDD No. 31. Glen Healand, current lessee of Cyranos, had questions about deed
restrictions. Bill Whiteford, Cyranos Building owner, inquired about a lease with TOV regarding the
trash building on Tract E. Tom Moorhead advised that lease had been entered into under the
mistaken idea that TOV owned that land. As it did not, that lease was void. Jim Lamont was
concerned that conditions were being set before issuance of building permits and felt they should be
set at the time of issuance of building permits.
Tom Steinberg asked if there was a view corridor on Bridge Street looking south. Mike Mollica
stated that View Corridor No. 2 looked toward the base of the ski mountain and chair No. 1. Rob
LeVine directed staff to redraw that view corridor. Tom Steinberg advised that the view corridor be
set up based on known elevations. Mr. Willingham did not feel amending View Corridor No. 2 was
appropriate. Tom Steinberg wanted to set up a whole new view corridor, but Mike Mollica felt
• surveyors could not do that based solely on the drawings of this project. Mayor Osterfoss suggested
the amended view corridor be established simultaneously with the construction of the project. Jim
Lamont stated people were resentful of projects like the Christiania and wanted set limits. Paul
Johnston, owner of the Christiania, advised there was no adopted view corridor when his project
(Christiania) was built, and that view corridor was established after construction was complete. Mr.
Willingham admitted the GPH project would encroach on View Corridor No. 1 and added the
existing building already encroached on View Corridor No. 1, not View Corridor No. 2. Mery Lapin
asked why there was worry about View Corridor encroachments when there were more and more
encroachments allowed all the time. Mr. Willingham felt that was because projects met certain
criteria in order to be permitted encroachments. Kristan Pritz felt the view corridor in this case was
improved by the new building. Bill Wilto voiced support of the project.
Jim Lamont asked what kind of signal each one of the SDDs sent. He called for responsible action
on the part of owners to maintain their buildings and was frightened that this project and the
proposed Vail Athletic Club SDD were setting harmful patterns. He read a portion of a letter dated
November 1,1993, from Dolph Bridgewater, Jr., "The Special Development District was a sound idea
in concept, that has been ruined by excessive exploitation by development interests, and weak and
flexible review by responsible authority. Excessively large structures of the sort proposed by the Vail
Athletic Club and the Golden Peak House considered separately are seductively attractive, but
collectively they have a special malignancy all their own... each requiring the next structure to be
• larger and to eliminate a little more of our view and our open space. A line of responsibility will
have to be drawn somewhere at some time. Will you please seriously consider drawing it here and
now...
After further discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, on second
reading with Section 8, items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 amended and with the entire Section 8 to read as
Vail T" Council Evening Meeting Minute. ll!"'
follows:
SECTION 8
The developer, jointly and severally, agrees with the following requirements, which are a part of the
Town's approval of the establishment of this SDD No. 31:
1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the construction of SDD
No. 31, GPH Partners, Ltd. shall cause to be permanently restricted, two off -site, two -bedroom,
employee housing units per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. Each unit shall be a minimum
size of 700 square feet. The units shall meet the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance requirements and
such units shall be within the Town of Vail.
2. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the redevelopment project,
the Golden Peak House Condominium Association will contribute $32,000.00 towards the redesign
and redevelopment of Seibert Circle. The $32,000 contribution towards the redevelopment of Seibert
Circle shall be credited towards the Golden Peak House, should a future Special Improvement
District be created for this project.
3. That prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the redevelopment project,
Vail Associates, Inc., will dedicate open space to the Town. The minimum area of open space shall
be at least an equivalent area, to that of the area of the Tract E "overhang and deck" easements. A
portion of the Mill Creek stream tract will be dedicated to the Town of Vail as permanent open space
and the Pirate Ship Park area of Tract E will be leased to the Town of Vail for the purpose of
maintaining the park. The terms of the lease are to be agreed upon by the parties.
4. That the Golden Peak House Condominium Association and Vail Associates, Inc. shall
reserve a public pedestrian access, across Lot C, which is located between the Golden Peak House
and the Hill Building, by declaration to be recorded with the Eagle County Recorder. Such
declaration shall be permanent and only revocable upon written agreement with the Town of Vail.
The declaration of public pedestrian access shall occur prior to the Town's issuance of a building
permit for the project.
3. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the
redevelopment project, GPH Partners, Ltd. shall deed restrict two three -bedroom dwelling units
(Units 201 and 401) to be included in a short-term rental program, at comparable market rates, at all
times when said dwelling units are not occupied by the owner or his guests.
6. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the
redevelopment project, GPH Partners, Ltd. shall deed restrict, the remaining two lock -offs in the
building (or equivalent), to be included in a short-term rental program, at comparable market rates,
at all times when said lock -offs are not occupied by the owner or his or her guests.
7. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the
redevelopment project, GPH Partners, Ltd. shall deed restrict, the two accommodation units (or
equivalent) in the building, to be included in a short-term rental program, at comparable market
rates, at all times when said accommodation units are not occupied by the owner or his or her guests.
8. That the Golden Peak House Condominium Association, or their successors in interest,
shall participate in, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, any improvement district(s) which
may be established by the Town of Vail for the purposes of constructing improvements as set forth
in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and/or the Vail Transportation Master Plan, if and when
• an improvement district(s) is formed.
9. That the Golden Peak House Condominium Association and GPH Partners, Ltd. shall
cooperate with, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, any efforts by the. Town of Vail to
establish additional view corridors or amendments to existing view corridors as enhanced by the
project. Such changes and additions shall be pursuant to the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
10. That the pedestrian arcade (which was originally proposed over the first floor retail
windows on the north elevation), and that the original ground floor plan, which does not include the
curved retail windows along the eastern portion of the building, be reviewed by the Design Review
Board and included in the final building design, if required by the Design Review Board.
11. That GPH Partners, Ltd. further articulate the first floor "retail windows", by adding
divided lights to the large single panes of glass.
12. That the Design Review Board review the proposed roof form over the main entry
on the north elevation, and determine if the roof form needs to be lowered.
13. That the proposed tar and gravel roof for the building is acceptable.
In addition, Jim Gibson's motion included a new Section 9 to read as follows:
SECTION 9
Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved
by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in
• accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060 and 18.40.100. Amendments which do change
the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by Town Council after the
above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what
constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan, and that Section 10 of the ordinance
be amended to read as follows:
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1112M
SECTION 10
The developer must begin construction of the Special Development District within three (3) years
from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. The
developer must meet the requirements of Section 18.40.120 of the Municipal Code of the Town of
46 Vail.
Rob LeVine seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg felt that due to the number of changes to the ordinance, the
ordinance should be tabled until November 16, 1993. Jim Shearer agreed and asked again if Ms.
Arnold would contact VA regarding dedication of both sides of the stream. Jim Gibson felt it was
wrong to hold the project up because of a fear of loss of leverage on that issue. Bob Buckley agreed.
Rob LeVine agreed with Bob Buckley and added he was very much in favor of the project. Mery
Lapin advised he intended to vote against the project because of the same reasons he addressed on
first reading. He felt the SDD process was being overused. It was noted the Regular Municipal
Elections were on November 16, 1993, and Council consensus was reached to review the final
ordinance language during a work session on November 9,1993, before its publication. Jim Gibson
called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Tom Steinberg and Mery Lapin
opposed.
Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance approving a Special
Development District (known as SDD No. 30, The Vail Athletic Club) and the development plan in
accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and Setting forth details in regard thereto.
The applicant was JWT/1987 Vail Limited Partnership, aka, The Vail Athletic Club. Mayor Osterfoss
read the title in full. Kristan discussed changes in the ordinance since first reading, including parking
specifics, landscaping specifics, and streetscape specifics. Kristan noted that there was an issue with
the concern of an adjacent property owner in the Mountain Haus, Joan Lamb, about the dormers
impacting her view of the Gore Range. Stan Cope and Rohn Robbins would further review this issue
under discussion. Kristan also pointed out that Council had received letters of opposition from
Barbara C. Welles, Robert W. Galvin, Ronald A. Prem, Foxhall Parker, Frances E. Gunn, Joy R.
Hilliard, and Jim Lamont on behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association, Inc.
Mery Lapin asked if any resolution to Mrs. Lamb's view obstruction concern had been reached. Stan
Cope advised that, per Council's request, he had met with Rohn Robbins, Jim Morter, and architect
Michael Barclay, but during those meetings it had become apparent that there was no relatively
minor design change to alleviate the concern of Mrs. Lamb. Specifically, Mrs. Lamb was concerned
with a portion of her view of the Gore Range being blocked, and the only way not to block that
portion of the Gore was to essentially eliminate six of the dormers across the north side of the project,
effectively completely changing the project. Mr. Cope noted there had also been discussion as to
whether there was some other settlement that could be made, and, until midday the date of this
meeting, Mr. Cope advised Mrs. Lamb's answer to any settlement had been no. She had continued
to press for removal of the project's dormers. Then, Mr. Cope indicated, he received a financial offer
from Mrs. Lamb to remunerate her approximately $150,000. Mr. Cope said he did not have an
appropriate response to that number in order to begin any negotiation. With a model, he
demonstrated and discussed details of the building in relationship to Mrs. Lamb's unit in the
Mountain Haus. He noted Mrs. Lamb's view was not a protected view. It was not part of any view
corridor in Vail. He stated the underlying zoning would have allowed this building to have been
built in such a way that would have blocked that view at any time without an SDD. He said he had
researched where the property line was for the Mountain Haus, and it appeared that the Mountain
Haus had no setback. He discussed the affected view in Mrs. Lamb's unit and stated it was
extremely small. A picture of the potentially affected view was shown and discussed.
Mayor Osterfoss asked Mstan Pritz if, based on public accommodation zoning, someone could have
built a building in the location of the blocked view. Kristan said that the current building would
have had to remove GRPA to meet the zoning, but assuming that was done, the building could have
been re -built in that location. Kristan said the GRFA was being allowed to increase through the SDD
process.
Mery Lapin asked what the requirements were for TOV to protect private individual's views. Kristan
Pritz said there was no established view corridor in the area under discussion, but she felt it was
important to look at the criteria which addressed design compatibility and sensitivity to the
immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale,
bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity character, visual integrity, and orientation. To her, that
criteria was important; how neighbors would be impacted needed to be considered. Kristan added
• that with most SDDs, there would probably be some view blockage from some vantage point with
any project. That was inevitable with the construction, but she said staff felt, given all of the other
elements of the SDD, the project merited approval. Diana Donovan said this view concern was not
discussed in depth at PEC, but at anytime when more building occurs, someone's view would most
likely be affected, but she noted there were no private view corridors in this area. Diana felt impacts
could be minimized when possible, but there was always going to be some impact with respect to
Vail Town Council Evening M—tmg M —t.e I1ID93
views.
Rohn Robbins, representing Mrs. Lamb, said there was a very clear view of the Gore Range from that
property, and he felt that Mr. Cope's representation that the southern view was primary was without
question, but that in no way diminished Mrs. Lamb's spectacular view from the east. Further, Mr.
Robbins felt Mr. Cope's representation that there was no reasonable accommodation to Mrs. Lamb's
concern was right, determining what was considered reasonable. He discussed various project
reconfigurations that he felt should be considered. He agreed a settlement demand had not been
presented to Mr. Cope until the afternoon of this meeting. There was further lengthy discussion
about the specifics of Mrs. Lamb's impacted view situation. Mr. Robbins stated he wanted to correct
comments made earlier by Mr. Cope. Mr. Robbins said part of what Mr. Cope said was correct, and
that was that a settlement demand was not presented until the afternoon of this meeting, however
those discussions had begun on the Friday, October 29,1993. Mr. Robbins stated his client was very
adamant about preserving this view corridor, and she was not initially seeking a financial settlement.
He said the afternoon of the date of this meeting, she agreed to seek one. Mr. Robbins said Mr. Cope
was right that the substance of that settlement amounted to approximately $150,000, however, in
terms of cash settlement, his client was seeking $70,000, not $150,000. The difference of $70,000 and
$150,000 included health club membership at the Vail Athletic Club (VAC), which he felt would cost
the VAC essentially nothing, and dining privileges in the restaurant contained within the hotel, which
would incur some cost to VAC, but it was not a retail cost. He said the cash settlement they
proposed was $70,000 plus attorney's and architectural consulting fees amounting to under $7,000,
so the total cash package was something under $77,000. He said that should be taken in light of the
fact that the appraised value of Mrs. Lamb's unit was diminished at an absolute low value of
i $100,000 by the view taking, and at a maximum of $400,000. He said they had asked for a cash
settlement less than the lowest amount, and they felt that was reasonable. He also brought to
Council's attention that it was his understanding that the VAC hotel did not plan to commence
construction until 1995, and he wondered what the rush to grant this SDD was. He felt there were
reasonable alternatives to be considered in reconfiguring areas to accommodate problems. He felt
if there was any hurt to be absorbed, it should be absorbed by the people who stood to profit, not
by the neighbors whose view corridors were being taken. Mr. Robbins felt neighbor's in the
Mountain Haus had purchased their units believing that that view corridor was open, they had paid
a price for that view corridor being open, and if this proposal was granted, that would be taken from
them. He asked Council to deny the proposed SDD until such time as everyone could be
accommodated properly. At least, he asked that any decision about this ordinance be delayed since
there was no rush to construction and since he did not feel all alternatives had been fully explored.
He also did not think that the applicant's had given full justification for not absorbing losses
themselves.
Mery Lapin asked if there was any legal basis for the TOV to respond to this issue. Tom Moorhead
said he was not aware of any basis to respond. Mr. Moorhead believed the negotiations were
properly where they belonged, between the developer and the property owner.
Oscar Tang said he was present on his own volition to speak for Joan Lamb. He said Mrs. Lamb had
spoken with him the previous evening. He stated the value of this piece of property was important
in terms of her financial situation. He felt perhaps the SDD was justified in certain circumstances,
but he asked Council to take into consideration the individual rights of a person who was
representative of the people who make Vail what it was, other than locals and the people who serve
the Town. He felt, when normal zoning was exceeded, which he believed was what was happening
in this SDD, it was important to take into consideration the individual rights. He felt in Mrs. Lamb's
case, it was very clear that she could be dismissed very easily, but he said Mrs. Lamb was.a woman
who had taken great pains, hired a lawyer and an architect to represent her because she felt it was
important to the preservation of the value of her piece of property. It seemed to Mr. Tang, at a
minimum, this whole thing had happened fairly fast. He understood the applicants had indicated
she had agreed, against her will, to come to a financial settlement. He asked the approval of this
ordinance be delayed until there was a reasonable chance to work out any settlement. He hoped,
at a minimum, that another look at the design would be done.
Mr. Cope clarified that this project was started in February,1993. Significant changes as a result of
many work sessions with the PEC, all of which had been publicized, had been made. He said Jim
Morter had attended numerous meetings with the applicants architect, the plans were changed
dramatically to benefit the Mountain Haus owners on the southeast corner, they reduced the west
ridge line, and pulled the dormers back significantly. At the PEC's final hearing, he recalled a one
or two sentence protest about possible views being blocked at the Mountain Haus. The PEC passed
the project unanimously. He came to a work session with Council, and nothing was said, and then
• on first reading, the view issue had somehow become a major problem. 'He did not feel they
suddenly proposed this project as an onerous way of approaching what was now being called
someone's rights. He believed the rights which were normally referred to as established property
rights were done within the various zoning and how view corridors were examined within TOV's
planning and approval process. He said they had been sensitive to their neighbors in this process,
not only with Jim Morter but with Jim Lamont, noting their input was solicited. He discussed some
Vail Town Cotmml Emiing Meeting Minutes 1112M
of the details of the redesign and what some of the space in their plan was to be utilized for. He
noted the negotiations he had with co -owners in the building were not taken lightly, particularly the
penthouse owners. He said they had come to agreement with those owners and their needs had to
be respected inside the building as well. Further, as he said he had mentioned to Mr. Robbins, it was
possible they would not start this project until 1995, but that was not a given. It was their intent,
originally, to start in April,1994. There was a good chance it would not, but that was not necessarily
true. They would be examining contractor's bids, timelines, and the ability to do this project
effectively in 1994, and to be in a position where the whole project could be thrown out and tabled
after $100,000 worth of fees and six to seven months worth of hard work, he did not think tabling
this was a reasonable suggestion. He also took exception to the appraisal figures given by Mr.
Robbins of Mrs. Lamb's unit. There had not been a formal appraisal done of this unit. It was
approximately 1370 to 1400 square feet. In 1993, the highest square foot price sold in the Mountain
Haus was $310/square foot leading to a value of less than $500,000. He discussed the orientation
of Mrs. Lamb's unit's views, and added he did not think the impact to the unit was that significant.
He felt the benefits of the project far outweighed the impacts.
Jim Lamont said Mr. Cope was right, they had been in communication and Mr. Lamont felt his group
had been very forthcoming and continued to argue their point that within the envelope of this
building additional GRFA could be built and they would all be better off if any additional GRFA
remained within the existing shelf of the building. He felt this particular argument was a perfect case
in point. When this building was approved in 1977, particular attention and concern was paid by
the Council at that time to protect the views from the neighboring property. That was one of the
criteria that was discussed. He stated he had quite a bit of respect for the architect, Michael Barclay,
in this project who had gone the extra mile to try to address all the questions about it, and he
thought if the challenge to accommodate neighboring views was presented, it could be met by the
architect. He felt people feared losing their views to SDD projects. He felt there was a reasonable
argument to make by noting that under SDDs there should be extraordinary circumstances to protect
views. In this case, a demonstrable view was being damaged and he felt Mr. Cope, through the
process, should have been aware that this issue needed to be addressed before getting to Council.
Kristan Pritz reviewed a memo to Council from the Community Development Department dated
October 19, 1993, addressing the parking history for the VAC.
Mr. Robbins stated adjacent property owners felt confident views would be protected because so
many variances had been granted on the original project. He asked Council again to table the
ordinance and consider reasonable alternatives.
Tom Moorhead believed this was an issue between the developer and the property owner. He felt
the developer should be willing to indemnify the TOV.
Bob Buckley noted the SDD process was a lengthy one and felt that adjacent property owners should
have brought this issue up sooner, not at the last minute. He was in favor of the project.
Rob LeVine felt Bob was right. He felt the applicant was in this for the long run, which was in the
. Town's best interest, the accommodation units were in the Town's best interest. It was a good project
and he did not think it was appropriate to expect the redesign of a building for the view that was
being impacted. He was concerned that Mrs. Lamb's view would be impacted, particularly given
that the building was out of the norm in terms of zoning, that being an SDD, but he was comforted
by the fact that even a building within the normal zoning could have the same impact on the view
and that mitigated his concern. In his final analysis, he still felt Mrs. Lamb was due some
compensation, but he did not want Council to be made responsible for making that determination.
He hoped that could be done between the developer and Mrs. Lamb. He said he would put the
decision off a couple of weeks with the hope that that decision could be reached, or at least a
reasonable offer could be made on the part of the developer. He asked Mr. Cope how he felt about
tabling the ordinance. Mr. Cope felt November 16, the date of Vail's regular municipal elections,
would be a difficult day to bring something of this nature forward, and it would be quite onerous
for the applicant to continue second reading with what would obviously be quite a new Council.
He felt if this Council indicated they were not going to support it, he would table it for lack of
anything else. He felt part of the planning process of the SDD that may not be fully understood by
some of those who had spoken was that they were talking about a major change which would
require them to go back to day one of the PEC. Mr. Cope said this was not an SDD ordinance if they
had to start altering the building as had been suggested. Further, there was $100,000 already
invested in legal and architectural fees already. He was opposed to returning to square one. He
hoped the ordinance would be passed tonight. Rob again said he did not feel it was appropriate to
. expect the redesign of this building, however some compensation - financial or otherwise - seemed
to him to be a fair way to resolve the problem with Mrs. Lamb, and he hoped that could happen.
He stated if the vote was forced tonight, he would vote for the project and hoped that a resolution
was still made between the developer and Mrs. Lamb, but he would rather see that resolution
happen first. Mr. Cope noted that part of the settlement agreement offered to them was a $61,000
twelve year arrangement for food in the VAC restaurant. He said the athletic club membership was
Vail Town Connell Evening Meeting Minutes U/M
something he brought up with Mr. Robbins as something they might talk about. The tradeoff was
something they would like to work out with the Mountain Haus, so he preferred not to table the
ordinance. He felt what needed to happen was for the SDD process to be concluded and have any
compensation arrangements left up to Mr. Robbins, himself, and the owners of the property. Rob
felt he did not want to see the rest of the criteria and the rest of the work done on this SDD
overshadowed by this point. He felt very comfortable with the project and wanted to see it happen.
Mery Lapin said he would continue to vote against the project, however he addressed the issue
concerning Mrs. Lamb. He felt the views and how they affected neighbors was extremely important
especially when a project was allowed to go over underlying zoning. However, under an SDD, and
because an SDD was something that was always out there, and because zoning could always be
changed, he did not feel it was appropriate for Council to be involved in a potential lawsuit or
potential negotiations. Unfortunately, in his opinion, there were SDDs, but he felt there were some
good uses for SDDs. He did not think the degree to which they had been used in Vail was good and
he did not think this specific application was one where an SDD should be used. But his primary
problem with the project was with the size of the project in terms of what the underlying zoning was
and what should be on that site in size with respect to mass and bulk. He also was concerned about
the deficit in parking. He felt letting this go with the applicant only paying for three spaces when
the deficit was forty-six spaces was a terrible precedent because it would be faced over and over
again with projects that were within CCI and CCII that could legally ask for that. Now it was being
given to a project that was not even in that zone district. He did not see any need to expand square
footage on the outside of the building and increase its mass or bulk at all.
Tom Steinberg recalled he had voted for this ordinance on first reading predominantly because TOV
was getting accommodation units. He stated he was torn at this point. He stated he was inclined
to put the decision off until two weeks from this meeting to allow further negotiations which TOV
should not be involved with.
Jim Gibson felt the ordinance should pass at this time. He sincerely hoped that the Vail Athletic Club
and Mrs. Lamb could work out their differences. He said he had a great deal of empathy for her
because of personal experience. But, he believed Mr. Cope and his associates at the VAC were fair
people who expressed concern with this view and they were prone to try to work out an
arrangement.
Jim Shearer felt this was a good project, and he shared the empathy expressed by Council concerning
Mrs. Lamb's situation. He encouraged W. Cope and his group to reach an agreement, but felt
Council should take Tom Moorhead's advice to add the requirement for indemnification to the
ordinance.
Mayor Osterfoss felt the level of detail, time, and energy that went into these SDD discussions was
incredible. She felt the pluses for this project included that it was addressing in a very substantial
way streetscape improvements, not only on the Meadow Drive side of the building, but additionally
was providing public access to the stream tract. Additionally, there was an employee housing
component to this. Kristan Pritz clarified the new employee housing was for six units, in addition
• to four single units on -site. Mayor Osterfoss noted obtaining additional local housing had been a
major goal of this Council and she felt this project moved positively in that direction. She was also
impressed with the architect's ability to increase GRFA without a substantial addition to bulk and
mass in the building and she was among those who believed there was a demand for additional
accommodation units. She felt one of the greatest threats to Vail was losing market share to
accommodation units located in other parts of the Valley, which also lead to other problems such as
traffic and transportation challenges. She felt there were several strong positives offered by this
project. Mayor Osterfoss stated she felt sad about Mrs. Lamb's situation, yet she recognized that
Council was faced with a situation of trying to balance the pluses and minuses of a project and come
up with a decision that took into account the interests of the entire community. She felt Mr. Robbins
made an impressive argument from Mrs. Lamb's perspective. But, Tom Moorhead had advised
Council that the issue between Mrs. Lamb and the owner's of the VAC was a matter that needed to
be resolved and she was in favor of taking Mr. Moorhead's advice on that point, including the
indemnification because TOV could not involve itself in that negotiation. It was not TOV's usual
practice to protect private views. She admitted it was an SDD where Council tried to address all
concerns, but she felt this went beyond Council's scope in the balance of other pluses of the project.
She saw no reason for delaying this, and although there were pluses and minuses, this was a fine
project and she was in favor of it.
Jim Gibson moved for approval of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, on second reading. He stated
it did meet the nine requirements of an SDD with the inclusion of the indemnification. Bob Buckley
seconded the motion.
Mery Lapin asked that Jim Gibson's motion include under Section 6 that the developer must begin
construction of the SDD within three years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently
toward completion of the project and that the developer must meet the requirements of Section
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11/2M
18.40.120 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Further, an additional section regarding
indemnification should be added. Tom Moorhead, having heard no objection to the inclusion of
indemnification of the TOV by the developer, suggested language for that additional section: "The
developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Town of Vail, including attorney's fees,
in any cause of action or suit which joins the Town of Vail concerning the issue of taking any part
of an individuals, view." Jim Gibson added that wording to his motion, and Bob Buckley seconded
the amended motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Tom Steinberg and Mery Lapin, opposed.
Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance granting a franchise by
the Town of Vail to Public Service Company of Colorado, its successors and assigns, the right to
furnish, sell and distribute gas to the Town and to all persons, businesses, and industry within the
Town and the right to acquire, construct, install, locate, maintain, operate and extend into, within and
through said Town all facilities reasonably necessary to furnish, sell and distribute gas within the
Town and the right to make reasonable use of all streets and other public places and public
easements as herein defined as may be necessary; and fixing the terms and conditions thereof. Mayor
Osterfoss read the title in full. Ron Carpenter, Public Service District Manager, re -read the title in
full.
Tom Moorhead advised he had met with Chandler Lippit, Public Service attorney, and had arrived
at the ordinance wording and twenty year term. Tom Moorhead advised twenty years was Public
Service's shortest franchise term, and that TOV's Code allowed for that. Tom noted there had also
been discussion concerning how far the gas service extended within the Town of Vail and what was
anticipated as far as any future expansions.
Mery Lapin asked if everyone was charged the same fee for the same amount of gas. He was
advised there were variable rates, commercial rates and residential rates. Phil Noll, Manager of the
Mountain Division for Public Service Company, clarified that a resident rate for use of gas did not
equal the commercial rate for use of gas because that was the way it was mitigated and adjudicated
through the Public Utility Commission (PUC). He said they found there was more demand on
systems by commercial users. Mery asked if that was an issue in Vail. Mr. Noll said it had not been
up to this point. There was brief discussion about commercial users who may receive a lower rate
within Vail. Further, Mr. Noll confirmed everyone was treated the same way in terms of the
franchise fee. No one was getting a preference rate within Vail once they reached a certain level of
use. It was noted on the previous franchise there was a $2,500 cap, but there was no longer a cap
on the fee in the franchise as now presented. Mery asked, given times of competitiveness and
technological advances, why a twenty year franchise fee was needed. Mr. Noll said there was a
tremendous investment being made by Public Service which they were continuing to make every day
and they also had facilities that backed up that investment. There was also the cost of going through
the franchise process, and Public Service liked to make a long commitment to the community. They
were here to serve the customer and the best way they could do that was to have the confidence that
they could be here for a long period of time. This franchise was not fixed to the point that things
could not be changed, even though it was a twenty year franchise. Mery also questioned Section 4.6
. - Service to New Areas. Rather than it saying the company shall extend service to residents of the
expanded area at the earliest practical time and in accordance with the company's extension policies,
Mery wanted it to say the company shall extend service to residents in the expanded area within
three years. Mr. Noll said the extension policy was on file with the PUC, and noted another clause
in the franchise said Public Service had to follow the tariffs and rules on file wilt the PUC. He said
they could not make, within a franchise, an exception that would not follow the rules of the PUC.
Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from
Bob Buckley. Before a vote was taken, Council was advised of State law requiring this ordinance to
be read in full. Mery Lapin moved to continue reading of the franchise in full until after agenda item
No. 13, with a second by Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
After the reading, a vote was taken to approve Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, on first reading and
the motion passed 5-0, Jim Shearer and Jim Gibson absent during the vote.
Item No. 8 was Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance dedicating a public, non-
exclusive right-of-way in and upon Tract A, Vail Village 8th Filing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title
in full. Greg Hall explained TOV owned the property, but did not have a road right of way from
Pulis Bridge back to Sunburst Drive/Vail Valley Drive across the golf course parcel, and there was
a need to maintain sufficient access to construct, maintain, and service utility facilities on Tract A,
Vail Village 8th Filing. Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, on first
• reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
7-0.
Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, Mayor O read the title in full. Greg Hall explained TOV did not
have a road right of way from Pulis Bridge back to Sunburst Drive/Vail Valley Drive across the golf
course parcel. With all the utilities in there, instead of doing easements for all the utilities plus and
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 111M
0
access easement, it was easiest to dedicate a road right of way to TOV since TOV owned the
property. Mery moved to approve Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, with a second from Tom
Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 9 was Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance to amend Section
18.57.060 B 13 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full.
Tom Moorhead explained this ordinance was only to correct a typographical error in Ordinance No.
27, Series of 1992. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1993, on first reading,
with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 10 was Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 2, of
the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.38 - Limitation of Terms, to
provide for the limitation of terms for all permanent Town of Vail Boards and Commissions. Mayor
Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead advised this ordinance would allow for proper
codification in the Municipal Code. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1993,
on first reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 11 was Resolution No. 13, Series of 1993, a resolution establishing support by the Vail Town
Council for the Vail Valley Foundation's efforts to secure and host the 1999 World Alpine Ski
Championships. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Rob LeVine moved to approve Resolution
No. 13, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
Item No.12 was Resolution No.14, Series of 1993, a resolution establishing support by the Vail Town
Council for the Vail Valley Foundation's hosting of the 1994 World Mountain Bike Championships.
Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve Resolution No. 14, Series of
1993, with a second from Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 13 was a special event funding request for $10,600.00 from the Vail Valley Special Events
Commission for the VVT&CB Festival of Lights in conjunction with the VRD-sponsored Winter
Carnival (1993). Jim Shearer moved to table discussion of this request to the November 9, 1993,
Work Session. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:03 A.M.
ATTEST:
41�/P�`�1 �iitLf�IZCBl� .
Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorlanne S. Deto
GUNSNOV2.93
Respectfully submitted,
'd 0.
Margare A. Osterfoss, Mayor
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 111W3