Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-07 Town Council MinutesPost -it® Fax Note 7671 °a1e 7 Co./Dept. MINUTES Alone # Phone k917�D��F79-�1/3 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Fax n3 /GSA i/Fax # DECEMBER 7, 1993 T 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 7, 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 -Tern Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, 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. Kent Rose welcomed new Council members, Paul Johnston, Sybill Navas, and Jan Strauch, and welcomed Peggy Osterfoss back as Mayor. He also welcomed new Town Manager, Bob McLaurin. Mr. Rose then presented specially designed T-shirts reading, "SOS - Save Open Space - Defend Davos;' to Council. Porter Wharton advised that Bob Armour, Kent Rose, and he comprised the Executive Committee of the "Save Open Save - Defend Davos" group. Mr. Wharton presented a check to Council in the amount of $500.00, profits realized from the sale of 100 of the above referenced T-shirts, to be used for the purchase of open space. Mayor Osterfoss thanked the group and stated she could not recall when a group of citizens had ever presented TOV with a check, and she hoped it signified what could be more public/private partnership efforts. She briefly discussed the recent successful passage of the Amendment One modification, and expressed appreciation for the support of that ballot issue. As a result of the passage of that ballot issue, she indicated a substantial increase in real estate transfer tax (RETT) funds over last year was anticipated. It was noted those funds were used for purchase of open space, as well as maintenance of existing parks and recreation trails. She said it appeared there would also be some sales tax increase, and TOV would not need to go back to the voters to ask how those funds could specifically be used. She felt passage of the Amendment One modification was a tremendous show of trust and confidence on the part of the community. Mery Lapin moved to accept the $500.00 contribution from the Defend Davos group, and that it be added to TOV's RETT fund to be earmarked for acquisition of open space. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 2 was approval of the Minutes of the November 2,1993, November 9,1993, and November 16, 1993 Evening Meetings. Mery Lapin moved to approve the minutes of November 2, 9, and 16, 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was a request for final approval and adoption of the Town of Vail Cemetery Management and Master Plan for the Town of Vail Cemetery to be constructed in the upper bench of Donovan Park located generally southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood and west of the Glen Lyon neighborhood. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Andy Knudtsen advised that Sherry Dorward, Vice President of Alpine International had been the lead consultant who had coordinated two other firms, The Sloane Consulting Group, cemetery management specialists, and HEPY, a cemetery design consultant. Andy noted the site selection process for this project began in 1989. The Donovan Park site had been recommended as the best site according to a number of criteria. Ms. Dorward advised that their team had been selected in October, 1992, to begin development of a Master Plan for a cemetery on that site. The mission of the team was to develop a physical plan for the layout of the cemetery, recommend capacity of the cemetery, types of burial places, and a way it could be feasibly managed and paid for. After a number of interviews with Council, other officials in Town, and with religious leaders in the Valley, The Sloane Consulting Group recommended that the cemetery be managed by the Cemetery District. Ms. Dorward noted it had been running on a tight budget for years, but that it was a feasible management structure. She explained that at the time the first draft of the management report came out, it was possible to fund the cemetery via the District through a one time mill levy assessment. Amendment One made that difficult, but it still seemed that was the best source of funding. Funding through bond issues was rejected, not only because of the long term interest costs, but also because, under the terms of Amendment One and the law pertaining to Cemetery Districts, the bond indebtedness could not be incurred. She further noted the mill levy tax had not passed in the November, 1993, election, but the District remained The Sloane Consulting Group's preference for the management of the cemetery. This issue had been discussed with County officials and Council, and it seemed the District made the most sense because TOV did not want to Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes IZ1193 be in the business of running the day to day operations of the cemetery. Fiscal projections showed that the cemetery could be self supporting for its operating expenses, but not for the initial capital investment. A memo from the Community Development Department (CDD) to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) dated November 8,1993, detailed the Project Description including the Master Plan and Management Proposal, the Review Process, and Conclusion. The project's Mission Statement and Guiding Principles, drawings and photos of the site character details, and photos of various types of cemetery characteristics were on display throughout Ms. Dorward's presentation. She discussed the physical plan of the cemetery, emphasizing that plan came out of a number of conversations and meetings with neighbors and citizens which began in October, 1992. The Master Plan - Town of Vail. Municipal Cemetery Final Report, October 7,1993, was summarized. It covered the purpose of the project, the methodology of the planning/design process, community involvement and public input, a summary of findings and recommendations concerning management, operational policies, design guidelines, phasing and initial capital costs, implementation, a summary of demographic characteristics of the Eagle Valley Area, management alternatives, pricing, fiscal issues, the conceptual design plan including a description of the site, design determining factors, development components of the initial phase, capacity and phasing, a report on initial capital costs and funding sources, environmental considerations, and next steps for implementation. There was discussion regarding percentages of the cemetery allocated to different uses and the cemetery inventory. Andy Knudtsen noted the total area of the Vail Cemetery, proposed to be located at the upper bench of Donovan Park, was approximately 39 acres. Of that, the open meadow near Matterhorn Circle was 95 acres. The cemetery would use approximately 2 acres of that for burial and memorial space and access. Those 2 acres would accommodate all of the proposed improvements which were expected to provide cemetery space over the next one hundred years. Ms. Dorward summarized the costs of each of the major components. She said they had estimated almost $470,000. for building this cemetery, plus design and engineering fees and contingency effecting a total estimated cost of $600,245. It was noted that that was the amount the bond issue would have generated if that ballot issue had passed. It was noted if the cemetery was not built until 1995, an inflation factor of 5% per year needed to be factored in, bring the total estimated cost to $660,270. Mery Lapin inquired about the present funding situation, and what the next steps were. Andy Knudtsen advised he had not heard back from the District. He said they were in the red and they had nine spaces left in their inventory in Minturn. Their current mill levy revenue would not cover their costs since they had updated and increased their hourly fees. Mery Lapin moved that the Master Plan for the Town of Vail Municipal Cemetery be approved, with a second from Paul Johnston. Before a vote was taken, Andy Knudtsen pointed out that in the November 8, 1993, memo to the PEC from the CDD, the public process was addressed, and he emphasized how closely staff had worked with the neighborhood. Additionally, he noted the PEC had recommended approval of this Master Plan, 5-2. One person had voted in opposition because of site selection, and the other was opposed based on a philosophical opinion about a cemetery as a use of land. He said there was one modification to the Master Plan that was made at the PEC hearing and that was that the term used in the report "entry monuments" be changed to "entry features." The PEC recommended a review of the trend between below grade burial and crypts/ niches as the cemetery was developed. They also recommended that The Sloane Consulting Group review headstone height. Jan Strauch had questions about the procedure of proposing this and voting on it, and what the next step was. Mayor Osterfoss advised that after the motion on the floor had been acted on, the next steps could be discussed. She said basically improvements were being made to the proposed Master Plan which addressed the design, cost, and management recommendations. Jan stated he felt the presentation made was not a fair representation of what the site looked like. He said it was a heavily wooded area, and felt the cemetery would be a very visible, high impact use for a large part of the year. He felt it would be undesirable to neighbors. Secondly, he felt this was an inappropriate use of open space. He was not certain how much recreational use the area had now, but he hoped at some point it would be used more for recreation. Thirdly, he felt there was a great press for land in this community and he was uncertain a cemetery was even needed here. He stated he would not vote to approve this Master Plan. Tom Steinberg indicated he disagreed with Jan Strauch. Tom felt the cemetery would not be visible from the neighborhood or the highway or nearby roads. He noted all of this had been discussed in depth with the neighbors, and to his knowledge, most all of the neighbors were satisfied. He felt the one way to guarantee that this land would stay open space forever was to make it a cemetery. Further, he noted the need for this cemetery, as Minturn was out of space. He felt, overall, the presented design was beautiful and would be an asset to that community. He felt if the cemetery was not approved, it would be regretted forever. veil Town C.—fl E-niT g Meeting Minutes 12M/93 Andy Knudtsen noted in the summary of the public process, there had been a kick-off meeting on October 27 and 28, 1993. He said initially the majority of the Matterhorn community was in opposition to a cemetery in the neighborhood. Ms. Dorward and he had spent time with them individually, walking the site, and staff listened to what they wanted. He noted those people were not present at this meeting because their concerns had been met. He felt there had been a good public process to receive input as to what was wanted. Diana Donovan expressed opposition to the project. She agreed with Jan Strauch in that this was a bad use of space. She was against blocking up the whole 39 acres for a cemetery. She did not believe the majority of Vail residents or guests would go to a cemetery for a hike. She felt that no one was present tonight because they assumed since the ballot issue had not passed in the election, that the community was saying no to a cemetery in Vail. Mike Phillips was in favor of the cemetery, but also questioned why 39 acres were designated when only 2 acres were needed. Paul Johnston was in favor of the project. Sybill Navas felt the cemetery was important for the community, but she felt the whole 39 acres would be used, and felt the whole area would feel like a cemetery. She found it difficult to think that the rest of it would be used for anything else. She asked for clarification as to what the election results meant; were the election results saying that the community did not want a cemetery, or that they just did not want to pay for it. She did not understand why some people would vote for one part of the ballot issue and not the other. Ms. Dorward felt the only way to know what the election is and meant was to ask people. Her suspicion was that the issue received practically no publicity and there were no informational campaigns. The fact that the Cemetery District had been re -named the Eagle -Gore Cemetery District to reflect that it served the whole upper Valley had not even been used in the wording of the ballot question because that formal step had not been taken in time to be part of the ballot question, so the fact that the ballot question referred to the Mintum Cemetery District had probably mislead voters. Ms. Dorward also responded to Sybill's question regarding the 39 acres, stating that much of the area was very steep and was above the open area to be used for the cemetery. Kristan Pritz advised that the Master Plan for parks and open space included no specific designation for that land not being used for the cemetery, but the concept was to keep that land open. She felt if the cemetery was going to be brought down to the lower area, closer to the houses there, that an amendment to the plan would be required, because that was not what the Master Plan showed at this time. Council wanted the boundaries clarified in the Master Plan. Mayor Osterfoss asked that the intention that there would be no foreseeable use of the land on the lower eastern portion and south of the road be added to the Master Plan. Kristan Pritz advised that an additional paragraph could be added to indicate that the Master Plan did not allow burial sites in the lower portion. Andy Knudtsen indicated that the site plan shown on page 17 of the Master Plan did show a boundary drawn around the improvement which included in ground burial, crypts and niches, and the turn -around, and it was a very definite identification of the development area. Any expansion of this area would require a formal amendment to the Master Plan. Sybill Navas said she could not imagine anyone playing softball right next to a cemetery. Ms. Dorward noted the site was too steep for any active recreational development, even in the meadow. It was best for hiking, sledding, snowshoeing, passive individual types of activities. She felt the cemetery improvements were confined enough to one space that the majority of the site was still available for all of those uses. She said she would be surprised if people found it repugnant to hike there; there would be a series of trails leading up to a meditation space at the top. It was a matter of personal preference. Mery Lapin called the question. Tom Steinberg noted several people had mentioned they did not want a cemetery in Vail, implying it was ghoulish. He asked if people were aware there was already a private cemetery in this Valley. Mayor Osterfoss advised, that technically, at this point, a vote was needed on whether to call the question. Tom Moorhead advised that was correct. Mery Lapin moved to call the question with a second from Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Osterfoss indicated she would have allowed further discussion, but the question had been called. Mery Lapin amended his original motion to include additional wording in the Master Plan to clarify boundaries for the cemetery. Paul Johnston accepted the amended motion he had seconded. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-1, Jan Strauch opposed. Diana Donovan noted the cemetery was part of Donovan Park which had been named to honor her husband. She asked that Donovan Park be retained in the name of the cemetery. Kristan Pritz asked Council if they were interested in proceeding with the staff meeting with the Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1217/93 Cemetery Task Force to come up with financial alternatives with respect to building the cemetery. Tom Steinberg encouraged them to proceed, and if it was necessary to go back to another vote, then the facts of the issue could be better presented to the voters. Jim Shearer agreed. Mery Lapin asked if it would be worthwhile to wait until there was another vote before any further work was done. Kristan said they would not want to get into the position of promoting the project. She felt discussion should be pursued with the District and the Task Force as to what they might want to do and bring that information back to Council. Mery inquired what the attitude of the private sector toward taking the cemetery over might be. Since it had been agreed that the Master Plan was valid, it seemed that exploring all financial opportunities to get it built was the next step. Mayor Osterfoss stated there seemed to be a high level of consensus, with the exception of Jan Strauch, that staff should move ahead and come back in the short run with some suggestions as to how to proceed. She also felt Diana Donovan's suggested concerning retaining Donovan Park as part of the cemetery name was appropriate. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.24.065 and 18.26.045, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, setting forth new procedures for exterior alterations or modifications of buildings in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II Zone Districts; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Shelly Mello stated this ordinance proposed a series of clarifications for the exterior alteration Section of Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II. She indicated there were a number of changes proposed which made the Code more explanatory. She highlighted some of the proposed changes which included changing the application dates for the bi-annual submittal, as well as including exterior dining decks and roof line modifications in the exterior alteration process. The remaining changes served to further detail the application materials and the review criteria. Kristan Pritz stated the staff would also like to establish the requirement of payment of one fee only for dining decks. Mayor Osterfoss suggested information about the one fee be spelled out in the ordinance, and Tom Moorhead recommended including that in the ordinance. Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1993, on first reading, with the addition of language to specify that only one fee would be charged for exterior dining decks. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mery Lapin asked if staff had discussed these changes with any of the architects or people who would be affected by them. Kristan Pritz said there had been general discussions concerning this, but no specific meetings had been held. Mery suggested some of the local architects be contacted for their input on these changes before second reading. Kristan indicated this would be done. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 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. Andy Knudtsen noted, at this time, the Housing Authority was trying to work out the details of this proposal and requested this item be tabled until February 1, 1994. Mery Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, until February 1, 1994, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg asked if Council consensus could be reached as to whether this item should be withdrawn altogether, but Andy indicated he was not sure the Housing Authority wanted to withdraw this item • and he did not feel that decision could be made without them at this time. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No 6. was Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.04.170 and Section 18.58.020(C) - fences, hedges, walls and screening, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Shelly Mello indicated the proposed change addressed height definition and would not modify the building height allowance, but would serve to clarify this section of the Code. The change to the wall height section of the Code was proposed in order to correct the height limit for walls in the front setback. The memo to the PEC dated May 24, 1993, and minutes which detail the discussions regarding the proposed change to the Code were available for review. This proposal was approved by the PEC by a vote of 6-0. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Mery Lapin. After discussion clarifying the intent of Section 18.04.170 of the ordinance by the addition of "vertical" to clarify the definition of height, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance making Supplemental Appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, Heavy Equipment fund, West Vail Debt Service Fund, and Vail Marketing Fund of the 1993 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and • authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Vail T— Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1217133 Item No. 8 was Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing from the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family Residential zone districts. The applicant was Leo Payne. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. As the applicant was not yet present, Council moved on to discussion of agenda item No. 9. Item No. 9 was Resolution No. 16, Series of 1993, a resolution to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and the Eagle, State of Colorado, for Animal Control Services. Tom Moorhead noted TOV has had a de€acto agreement with Eagle County Animal Control, and this resolution proposed formalizing the agreement to have the County Animal Control officers administer and enforce animal control services for and within the Town of Vail. He outlined the details of the proposed Agreement, including the various costs that would be incurred by TOV. He advised that Judge Buck Allen, Torn Sheeley of the Police Department, the Finance Department, and he had reviewed the final Agreement. Bob Slagle, Eagle County Animal Control Officer, further discussed the Agreement details including territory covered, scope of services, level of service, official status, equipment, personnel, liability, termination, general provisions, and miscellaneous provisions. Mr. Slagle explained the total annual cost to TOV of $25,723.82 in depth. Per the Agreement, TOV would agree to pay the County the sum of $2,143.65 per month. After discussion about service provisions and service reporting methods, Paul Johnston moved to approve Resolution No.19, Series of 1993, a resolution to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and the Eagle, State of Colorado, for Animal Control Services, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. At this time, Craig Snowdon, representing Leo Payne, arrived, and Council commenced discussion of agenda item No. 8. Kristan Pritz recalled that Council had had some discussion regarding this item earlier this date during Work Session, during which there had been a site visit to the residence at 381 Beaver Dam Circle. She reviewed details from the Community Development Department (CDD) memo dated November 22, 1993, to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) detailing the applicant's proposal to rezone Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd filing from the Primary/Secondary zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family zone district. The proposal also requested a minor subdivision for the purpose of subdividing the existing lot into two lots. She said the applicant proposed to take the northern portion of the Lot and maintain it as a Primary/Secondary Lot, to be called Lot 1-A, consisting of two units. On the southern portion of the Lot which would be created, to be called Lot 1-B, one single family residence was proposed. That would result in a net increase of one dwelling unit on the property. Kristan noted a 10-foot wide road maintenance easement along the front property line of the two new lots, a 30-foot wide drainage easement through Lot 1-B in the location of an existing drainage way, and an approximate 11,860 square foot open space and wetlands easement on the eastern half of Lot 1-A were proposed. Kristan also reviewed previous similar subdivision requests, noting except for one of those, they were different from the request under discussion in the sense that most of them did not have a unit increase. She briefly reviewed the zoning analysis information supplied in the memo. She discussed the evaluation of the zone change request including suitability of the proposed zoning. She said staff believed the proposed zoning was compatible with low density residential development which was how the Land Use Plan designated this area. She said staff also believed single family zoning was very compatible in that neighborhood and that single family units were a permitted use in Primary/Secondary zoning, as well as Single Family zoning. According to the memo, staff felt a convenient, workable relationship with the Land Use Plan was presented with the proposal and no major problems were foreseen. It was noted the two units currently allowed on the property could propose to be separated. There was a possibility that the applicant could obtain approval from the Design Review Board (DRB) to actually separate the primary unit from the secondary unit, but that physical hardship on the site had to be proven. The memo stated that the CDD felt that since the proposed rezoning met the development standards for the proposed zone districts to be created on the lot, as well as complying with the intent and purpose section of the subdivision regulations, the proposal did provide for the growth of an orderly viable community and created no negative impacts or undesirable precedents for the community. Staff felt the rezoning complied with the Land Use Plan and policy statements from the Land Use Plan concerning controlling growth, environmental issues, and residential growth were noted.. Kristan discussed three key areas reviewed as part of the minor subdivision request including Lot Area, Frontage, and Site Dimensions. She said the second set of criteria considered were outlined in Section 17.16.110 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations, all of which staff felt had been met by the project. She focused on one of those regulations concerning many of the environmental issues related to the project. She advised staff had asked the applicant to provide an environmental impact report. Dames and Moore had been hired to prepare that study, and it was found there were two wetland areas on the property. The applicant had proposed to protect the wetland areas by providing the 30-foot wide drainage easement and a wetlands and open space easement which would also protect the existing stand of trees located on the eastern half of Lot 1-A. Kristan advised staff recommended approval of the proposed rezoning and resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing from the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district and the Single Family Residential zone district with six conditions of approval including that the resubdivision plat not be signed by the Town and recorded until such time that the existing residence on the lot was demolished; that all aspects of development Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes IWM8 on each lot including at -grade patios and terraces and building roof overhangs, be contained within platted building envelopes; that the wetland and open space easement would be expanded to abut the eastern building envelope line of Lot 1-A and no construction or site disturbance would occur in that easement area, that the cluster of large evergreen trees located in front of the existing residence would not be removed or damaged as a result of construction on either of the newly created lots; that the applicants surveyor would provide staff with a topographic survey verifying that each of the proposed lots met the minimum buildable lot area requirements in the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family Residential zone districts; and that approval of the minor subdivision would be conditioned upon Council approval of the zone change request. Kristan noted that condition #5, regarding verifying the minimum buildable lot area requirements had already been satisfied. She advised the PEC made minor changes to those conditions of approval which were summarized on CDD's memo to Council dated December 7,1993. The PEC changed the condition related to the wetlands to indicate that the open space and wetlands easement could stay as shown on the plat, however, no site disturbance or tree removal could occur in the area between the Lot 1-A eastern building envelope line and the western line of the open space and wetlands area. It was noted the proposal was approved by the PEC on November 22, 1993, by a 4-3 vote, Diana Donovan, Dalton Williams, and Kathy Langenwalter opposed. Kristan stated she felt the PEC had concerns about impact on the character of the neighborhood and that the PEC felt a better solution was to allow one single family unit on Lot 1-A with a caretaker restricted permanently for employee housing and one single family unit on Lot 1-B and that the PEC preferred not to see any increase in GRFA. Minutes of the November 22, 1993, PEC meeting were supplied. Individual letters of opposition had been received from Dick Pownall and Mary Pownall, Lorraine N. and Harley G. Higbie, Jr., and Charlie and Patti Langmaid. A form letter from a number of other persons reading, "Ladies and Gentlemen, You have before you today a request for a subdivision of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing also known as 381 Beaver Dam Circle. The purpose of this letter is to inform the Planning Commission that any decision that will allow additional dwelling units in the Town of Vail or that will increase the square footage allowed under the existing ordinances is unacceptable. The following signatures on this letter demonstrate that a number of people who are either full or part time residents of the Town of Vail are not in favor of this proposal and ask that you respond to the wishes of the people and reject this request," had also been received. Craig Snowdon of Snowdon and Hopkins Architects represented the applicant. A site drawing was displayed. Mr. Snowdon advised the drawing was a color rendition of the Lot in question, colored in such a way so the various proposed zones of the property were evident. Mr. Snowdon noted Mr. Payne and his family had owned this property since 1972, adding that 1972 was a time prior to most zoning ordinances adopted by the Town. He questioned whether the present zoning was appropriate zoning when originally established. He noted that Primary/Secondary zoning, which this Lot was, came into existence in 1977. The GRFA placed on this property was created in 1980, and had been amended several times since then. Mr. Snowdon felt all of these issues had affected this property, which he emphasized had stayed in single ownership since 1972. The owners had adjusted to limitations and restrictions placed on them throughout their ownership of the property. As mentioned, the owner was planning on maintaining the northern portion, Lot 1-A, for himself and his family. Mr. Snowdon said the proposal had been reviewed three times by staff and the PEC and had gone through dramatic changes since the first presentation made in August,1993. He said the PEC did approve this and staff recommended approval. He discussed the proposal at length. He explained by creating a Single Family zone for the proposed newly created Lot, that allowed the applicant to create a smaller lot which then allowed the applicant to move property lines and building envelopes and get those envelopes out of the existing tree growth. He noted the applicant had the capability within the 37,770 square feet of lot area to create two Primary/Secondary lots. He stated that the original lot of 37,770 would by this proposal be designating 15,550 square feet to other uses besides Mr. Payne's via various easements and open areas. He felt the established envelopes proposed on the property insured that a majority of the existing tree growth would stay in place. He said the GRFA was being limited strictly to the 425 square foot credit for the new unit. He said the owner was complying with all Single Family Residential and Primary/Secondary zone regulations. The majority of construction would stay within what were already the disturbed areas of the property. He felt another minor benefit was that with the elimination of the existing residence, the TOV would lose two wood burning fireplaces and gain gas fireplaces. Discussion followed concerning other lots that could be subdivided. Mr. Snowdon felt Council, with this particular proposal, needed to look at its merits, not the possibility of another applicant collecting large lots and subdividing. He did not feel that was the situation with this proposal. Public input included comments in opposition to the proposed project from Don Byers, who felt Council should recognize there were constraints on that site and they should allow Mr. Payne to build a Primary/Secondary improvement with existing zoning allowing separation of the two . proposed buildings to protect the trees and take care of the drainage problem. Kristan Pritz clarified if the existing zoning was kept, the applicant would not get the additional unit they wanted. Mery Lapin asked if it was possible under what was being proposed if the applicant could come back and ask for another caretaker unit on Lot 1-B and call it employee housing. Kristan advised that that was a possibility, but that would require a conditional use approval from the PEC. It was established this proposal could create the potential for there being five units on the two lots. Vail Town Couneil ,F4ening Meeting blinutea 1W]93 Rohn Robbins, attorney with Dunn, Abplanalp and Christensen representing Mr. and Mrs. David Ransberg, owners of Lot 5. Mr. Robbins did not agree that this proposal would not create negative impacts or undesirable precedent for the community. He noted he had attended the PEC's hearings on this proposal and noted one of the developers in the community stood up and indicated if Mr. Payne was allowed this proposal, he would make a similar proposal, and the same developer felt every other developer in the Valley would. Mr. Robbins noted in the history of the Valley a similar proposal had been granted with increased density. The same effort had been attempted on Lot 4 in 1988, and had been voted down. Having attended the PEC meetings, he said of the four positive PEC votes, he believed he had counted two voters who seemed uncomfortable with the proposal, but seemed constrained by the ordinance to do so. Mr. Robbins said the language of Section 17.04.010 of the Vail Municipal Code was written in a discretionary manner. He said neither the PEC nor Council were obliged to approve this sort of proposal. He felt the key issue was language cited in 17.040.010 dealing with Subdivision Regulations requiring subdivisions to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community. He did not see what was gained by this proposal other than one landowner would profit. The other benefits being proposed by the proponents of the proposal included the fact that certain trees would be saved. He found it difficult to believe with the ethic of this Valley that those trees would be sacrificed anyway. That would have to be approved by the DRB, and he doubted they would approve that. Mr. Robbins believed there was a prescriptive easement currently running through that property. If TOV had been encroaching on that land for 22 years, a prescriptive easement, in his estimation, existed. He raised another theoretical point that this proposal was more restrictive than what was currently permissible. He felt that was true theoretically, but realistically he felt the DRB would not approve the sort of uses that might otherwise be approved. He noted in order to encroach on the wetlands, the applicant would have to apply for a 404 permit with Army Corps of Engineers, and he doubted if that would be approved. In sum, he felt there was no public benefit of this proposal as required under the language of the Municipal Code regarding the zoning ordinances. Before Council comments, there was additional public input in opposition to this proposal from Tim Tyler, Tim Driscoll, and Nancy Byers. Mr. Driscoll felt the PEC's 4-3 vote to approve this proposal showed their ambivalence on this issue. He felt when the founders of Vail subdivided and platted the lot, it was their intent to keep it as one lot, not two. Mrs. Byers stated that she believed that Council was responsible to uphold the original covenants, ordinances, and zoning restrictions on which the Town was founded. She said they all bought and built on their properties assuming the integrity of their neighborhood would be maintained, and once the properties started being divided and extra density added, the neighborhood character changed. Mery Lapin asked if there were covenants on the property that would prohibit the proposed project. Don Byers said the covenants were dated March,1963, and were signed in June,1963, by Pete Seibert and specifically said two apartments per lot. Mery noted TOV was not party to the covenants so that if action was taken, it would be between the private parties, it would not involve TOV. Paul Johnston noted neither the ordinance title nor Section 2 of it referred to the requested minor subdivision. Kristan Pritz advised the minor subdivision was already approved by the PEC, conditioned upon the rezoning being approved by Council. Tom Moorhead noted he was made • aware that an appeal of the PEC decision in favor of rezoning and resubdividing Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd filing had been filed by the Byers. He referred to Minor Subdivision procedure which provided for an appeal of the PEC's decision by the Town Council. He said that Section 17.16.190 dealt with right to appeal, and he could find no provision within the minor or major subdivision sections that provided for appeals by individuals, only provisions for appeal by Council. The other provisions that dealt with appeal by adjacent property owners dealt with the SDD process and conditional uses. He stated he would continue to research and would be willing to review anything the Byers had that would indicate there was a right to appeal this. There was further discussion and clarification about the appeal process. Tom Moorhead said the action of the PEC as it pertained to the minor subdivision was final, but it was conditioned upon approval of the ordinance. Tom Steinberg said, since the neighbors were not able to call up this issue, he wanted the record to reflect that he wanted Council to call this up should the ordinance be passed. Mayor Osterfoss suggested waiting to deal with appeal issues until the disposition of the rezoning request was determined. Council comment commenced. Mery Lapin felt that the opinion that only 28 lots would be affected was incorrect. He felt the Beaver Dam Road neighborhood would be severely impacted by this proposal. He also felt moving and adding lot lines did change a neighborhood and was not in the spirit of zoning, because people built houses depending on views and how neighbors sited their lots. Already existing houses could be negatively affected. Mery asked Tom Moorhead if precedence was or was not an issue in this type of situation. Tom Moorhead felt any actions or decisions that were made in the past provided direction. In most instances, prior decisions could be referred to for guidance. For historical purposes, he felt prior decisions should be looked at as far as what the community direction had been and whether or not that fit within the guidelines and overall plan presently under consideration. Mery did not feel that this proposal met criteria under the Land Use Plan. Vail T— C—il Evening Meeting Minutes 12 OS Jim Shearer felt Mr. Payne was responsible in his approach, but Jim was not in favor of the proposal for many of the same reasons Mery cited. Precedence or not, he felt over a period of time the entire hillside would be divided and resubdivided again and again due to individual financial gain goals. He felt the rezoning would be a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. He felt GRFA problems were part of the negative aspects of this proposal. Further, he said he was inclined to place weight on the neighborhood's opinion, and there was a great deal of opposition. He was not in favor of increasing the density in this neighborhood. He was opposed to the proposal. Jan Strauch agreed that the intent of the original development was not to force a lot of houses into every possible 15,000 square feet of land, and the only benefit he saw to this proposal was to the owner. He saw no positive impact to the community or the neighborhood and it was strategically against what he felt should be provided in incentives for people to downsize what people were building on their properties. He noted there were many restrictions on the Lot, i.e., trees, wetlands, drainage. He was opposed to the proposal. Paul Johnston supported the minority position of the PEC. He felt the Lot should be left the way it was now. Sybill Navas was opposed to the rezoning and saw no benefits to the community. She also observed the neighborhood opposition to the proposal. She advised she had spoken with some of the PEC members who had voted in favor of the rezoning, but felt they were qualifying their votes because they felt compelled by the ordinances. She did not feel they were committed in theory to the proposal. She indicated she would vote no. • Tom Steinberg disagreed that the rezoning would be consistent with the surrounding and immediate neighborhoods. He also disagreed that it would be a benefit to the community. He felt the required 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers would never be allowed to go through because this Council would object strenuously to that. He felt the benefits TOV was being told it was to receive from this proposal were not things the applicant had control to give away. He felt the original planners were intelligent developers who looked at that Lot and felt it needed to be a big lot. He felt they were right and asked why TOV should look back 30 years and change that for one person's private gain. He was opposed. Mayor Osterfoss felt although rezoning was a theoretical possibility based on the size of this lot, this specific proposal did not address Land Use Plan criteria B referencing convenient workable relationships with land uses consistent with municipal objects nor did it address item D, compliance with Vail Land Use Plan. She felt it failed to meet these criteria based on adding additional units and additional GRFA. She agreed with Paul's comments and with the minority position of the PEC. She also did not feel there was benefit to the community. Mery Lapin moved to deny Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1993, on first reading because it did not meet Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of the Land Use Plan Goals, the Subdivision Regulations Purpose under 17.04.010, and under zoning criteria did not meet items B and D. Tons Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Mery Lapin further moved that staff have the PEC look into ways to avoid having these types of proposals presented again. There was no second to this motion. He felt the minimum building lot sizes should be increased on Single Family lots from 12,500 to 17,500 and 15,000 to 20,000 on a Primary/Secondary. He said those numbers were meant only as guides, but he wanted the PEC to look at this or other methods. Mayor Osterfoss asked Mery if he anticipated this being done as part of the review of the Land Use Plan planned for the next year. He said he would like to see this back to Council by February 15, 1993. Kristan Pritz felt staff needed to discuss possibilities with Tom Moorhead, and then work with the PEC. Mery agreed to that, but felt there was a necessity for speed with this issue. Kristan wanted the PEC and Council to have a joint Work Session to discuss possible solutions. She advised staff would have notice published to advise the public, but initially a Work Session in February would be preferred. Tom Steinberg felt an alternative to that was to put a moratorium on any lot subdivision until such time as the Land Use Plan had been thoroughly reviewed and passed. Mery stated he was reluctant to use a moratorium process. Mayor Osterfoss felt that the idea described by Kristan was a helpful starting point to define what the concerns were and discuss different approaches. Tom Moorhead recommended tabling of the Byers' appeal as a technicality. Mery Lapin moved to table the Byer's appeal of the subdivision until December 21, 1993, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 10 was a sign variance request from Pineridge Townhouses. Jim Curnutte discussed the CDD memo to Council dated December 7, 1993, summarizing DRB action on this request. He said the DRB recommended approval of the request by a vote of 5-0, with two conditions of approval. Jim explained that the requested signs were not permitted subdivision entrance signs due to the zoning on the property. However, staff felt this was a hardship to the applicant. After brief Vail Town Cound Evening Ma ting Minutes 12t7/93 so 11 discussion, Mery Lapin moved to approve the Pineridge Townhouses sign variance on staff recommendation as detailed in the CDD memo to Council dated December 7, 1993, memo, with a second from Paul Johnston. 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 10:45 P.M. ATTEST: i&. cCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Doiianne S. Data C:IMINSDEC7.93 Respectfully submitted, �Maxgaresterfoss, Mayor 9 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minute. 17J7/93 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION d November 22, 1993 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Greg Amsden Kristan Pritz Bill Anderson Jim Cumutte Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica Diana Donovan Kathy Langenwalter Allison Lassoe Dalton Williams 1. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow a bay window expansion of Gotthelf's/196 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul Gotthelf Planner: Jim Curnutte Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request for a minor exterior alteration to allow facade changes at Gotthelf's per the staff memo with Dalton Williams seconding this motion. The PEC felt that the door design as proposed by the applicant was acceptable. A 7-0 vote approved this request. 2. A request for a minor subdivision and a rezoning from the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district, to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family zone districts, for a parcel located at 381 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: Leo Payne Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo. He stated that this was the third time that this item had been before the PEC. The first two times were worksessions. During those worksessions, the public, staff and PEC made several recommendations to improve the applications. Jim stated that staff was recommending approval of the minor subdivision and rezoning requests with the six conditions outlined on Pages 11 and 12 of the staff memorandum. It was decided that since Craig Snowdon, the architect for this project, had not yet arrived, that the PEC. would move on to Items #3 and #4. Upon review and action on items 3 and 4, the PEC returned to reviewing the Payne applications. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 Craig Snowdon stated that he was concerned whether the term "open space and wetlands easement' was correct because the plat called this an "open space and wetlands area". He added that he would like to see conditions 2 and 3 of the staff memo concerning roof overhangs and enlargement of the open space and wetlands be area deleted from the list of conditions on Pages 11 and 12 of the staff memo. He said that he did not have any problems with the other four conditions outlined in the staff memo. Jim Curnutte stated that since, the area to which Craig was referring was not being dedicated to the public It did not necessarily have to be termed an easement and that calling It an open space and wetlands area was okay. Nancy Byors, an adjacent property owner (352 Beaver Dam Circle), stated that she wondered If it was really necessary to subdivide this lot for the additional not Increase of 425 square feet. She added that she was concerned that approval of this resubdivision request could be precedent setting and that it was her understanding that twenty-eight other lots within the Town could in the future come before the PEC with similar requests. She said that neighboring property owners bought their properties with -the assumption that the surrounding lots would remain as originally platted and zoned. She said that she would like to keep the uniqueness of their neighborhood in tact. Ron Robbins, attorney for David Ransberg, stated that he was called at the gym and asked to attend this meeting so he has not yet had an opportunity to review the request in detail. He said that Mr. Ransberg is against this proposal as it would increase the density in this neighborhood. He added that this application may well be considered spot zoning. Mary Pownall, an adjacent property owner, she said that she opposes this project because it increases the density In the neighborhood. She acknowledged that her property was also involved In a resubdivision and rezoning in the neighborhood but pointed out that no increased density resulted. She said that she felt that this resubdivision and rezoning would be a bad precedent. Craig Snowdon responded that there may be twenty-eight lots that could possibly resubdivide but that,not all of these lots could benefit the Town in the way that this proposal could with regard to wetlands and open space dedications, drainage easements, the road maintenance easement and GRFA and density restrictions. He said that building envelopes are also being proposed because the applicant wanted to maintain as much of the natural vegetation on the site as possible. Mary Pownall asked If an applicant just had to list the Town benefits of a proposal to get approval. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 2 Jim Curnutte stated that approval of this request was not based on how many benefits the proposal would give to the Town. He explained that the staff recommendation of approval of the project was based on whether specific resubdivision and rezoning criteria were met. Jeannie Bailey, inquired why a ten foot road maintenance easement had not been agreed upon at an earlier date. She wondered whether this was a deal that the applicant and the Town were making in order for this request to be approved. Kristan Pritz emphasized that the Town was not approving this request so that they could get a drainage easement and a road maintenance easement from the applicant. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the applicant has the right to request a resubdivision on this site due to the size of the property. Jeannie stated that she agreed with Nancy Byers comments concerning this proposal. Ron Robbins stated that it is possible to make a case that since the Town had maintained the road for many years in the past that the road maintenance easement may not be needed. Craig Snowdon stated that this was a somewhat unique situation and that the Town was merely taking this opportunity to formalize the right to continue to come onto the property to maintain the road. Nancy Byers stated that she was concerned with the applicant's statement that three houses would save more trees than two units. She stated that the two units would still need to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Greg Amsden asked a question concerning the Zoning Analysis on Page 5 of the staff memo. He wanted to know how to interpret the figures for GRFA. Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant had voluntarily restricted the GRFA and that he was well below what was the allowable GRFA for a Primary/Secondary and Single Family approach. Diana Donovan inquired whether the units would be able to apply for a 250 at some future date. Jim Curnutte stated that there was nothing to prevent the applicant from doing this. Dalton Williams stated that he was not comfortable approving this request and that he agreed with the comments that the neighbors had made. He said that he felt that this could set a negative precedent for the Town. However, he said that he would have a hard time denying this request because the proposal does meet the applicable criteria. He said that he felt that this proposal did offer the Town some benefit and wondered whether there was a way to possibly get more Town benefit out of this request. He Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 suggested that the applicant agree to allow public access across the property in order to reach the open space behind the lot. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed that this could set a negative precedent for the Town but that she felt that the proposed request seemed to be a good solution. She stated that Mr. Payne had made a lot of concessions to address PEC concems. She stated that she did not have a problem with the open space and wetlands area line as currently proposed, nor allowing building overhangs to go outside of building envelopes. Dalton Williams agreed with Allison's comment concerning staff conditions 2 and 3. Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that the applicant had met the criteria set forth in the staff memo. He said that he did not have a problem with the proposed open space and wetlands area line, or the roof overhang allowance which the applicant was proposing. Greg Amsden stated that he felt that the applicant had complied with all of the criteria. He,said that if the neighbors were unhappy with this type of request that the rules would need to be changed, but that was not the request before the PEC today. Greg Amsden stated that he was in favor of leaving the roof overhang allowance and open space line as proposed by the applicant as a part of the proposal. Diana Donovan stated that the roof overhang allowance does not bother her. She felt that the plat should include a note that explained what type of uses and structures would be allowed in the open space and wetlands area as well as the area between the building envelope and the open space area. No trees should be removed for improvements in the easement area. She said that she did not feel that this area could accommodate -the additional density or traffic. She sald that she was against the resubdivision of this property but that she did feel that two single family units could be placed on this lot. Crag Snowdon stated that when you increase density that you do get additional square footage and garage credits. Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with the other PEC members comments. He said that this proposal did seem to meet the. requirements for resubdividing the lot. He said that he felt caught between a rock and a hard place since he did not want to see an Increase in density in this neighborhood. He said that Diana's suggestion concerning two single family units could possibly be the best solution. Ron Robbins stated that it sounded like the Board members were struggling with approving this request and told them that they did have the ability to deny the request if they did not approve of the resubdivision. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 4 Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt that this request did meet the criteria for a minor subdivision and directed the PEG to refer to the PEG meeting minutes of October 11, 1993. She felt that the proposed secondary unit should be a restricted employee housing unit. Dalton Williams stated that a petition signed by fifty or so citizens submitted to the PEG illustrated that there was concern regarding this proposal. He said that he agreed with Diana's and Kathy's comments. He said that he would like to see the secondary unit restricted as Kathy had suggested. He said that he would like to see public access allowed across the lot. He said that he felt that the Town rules might need to be changed because of the public's concern. Ms. Langmaid, concerned citizen, presented the PEG with more petitions, signed by people all over town, objecting to the application and stated her own objection. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Kathy's comment that the secondary unit should be a restricted caretaker's unit. Jeff Bowen, Greg Amsden and Bill Anderson had no additional comments. Diana Donovan stated that she would support this project if the third unit was a restricted caretaker's unit. Jay Peterson stated that he was involved with developing a duplex in this area and that if this sort of proposal was allowed that he would like to have the same opportunity to do this type of development. Jay was concerned about compatibility. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request for a rezoning and resubdivision of Lot 1, block 4, Vail Village 3rd Piling per the staff memo with a modification to staff recommendations 2 and 3 to allow building overhangs to go beyond plaited building envelope lines and to allow the western line of the open space and wetlands area to remain as shown on the plat. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Diana Donovan stated that she would vote against this request because the secondary unit on the primary secondary lot was not proposed to be restricted. Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with Diana's position. Diana Donovan suggested that the motion be amended to include the wording that no construction site disturbance or tree removal may occur In the area between the Lot 1- A building envelope and the western line of the open space area. Jeff Bowen amended his motion accordingly and Greg Amsden amended his second to the motion. A 4-3 vote approved this request with Kathy Langenwalter, Diana Donovan and Dalton Williams voting against the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 5 Adrian A. & Marlene C. Kearney 1460 Ridge Lane #B Mail', co 81657 41 November 22, 1993 planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Prontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen: 11 You have before you today a request for a subdivision of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing also known as 381 Beaver Dam Circle. The purpose of this letter is to inform the Planning Commission that anF decision that will allow additional dwelling units in the Town of Vail, or that will increase the square footage allowed under the existing ordinances is totally un- acceptable. We do not believe that altering ordinances and or statutes for the sake of continued development and increasing density in the Town of Vail are in the best interests of our community) y Sincerely, C1 NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONIv1ISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CTP.^..i... THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO . ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND RE REQUEST. IECT THIS SINCERELY, el �'��_/_..�=s3 ARK /% Le tirIVr'" 5�6cts- ��Kr�-G� pr. 46Zo Vim Lfih rn-4J i 1ar VGii 11-21-1993 11!34AM FROM - PLANNING. AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONMSSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 S01M FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, !U LJrJJti �oGJ.JYJ �'. �+ NOVEMBER 22, 1993 YOU I IAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE TRIM FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 391 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF TINS LETTER IS Top INFORM THE PLANNING COINMUSSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELL.INO UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE E)aSTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NINBI'R OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS IuQuaT. 0 LAWI 45 13, 041 VATI, Ar�DRRS,S 3'74 JSi ALA51L DAra P-6 ,3'7y- &:Ads-L BAN% P-b SINcEpLy, s2r;nt TIr� 0 M NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 581 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, BasC ?ZZ2--(, 1,,4lZ- / / ��. F,r.i_.�a�.aY� Rik �1t1 c �a41 �e?�.�� �a ��;�®•�._ TOWN OF VAIL COM-DEV ID.303-479-2452 NOV 22'93 14:44 No.005 P.01 11 NOVEMBER 22,103 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FROMAGE- ROAD VAIL, COI.ORADO 81657 LADIES AND f3E TLF.MI N, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A RiEQUIiST FOR A SUAI?IVIS,ION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VARL VILLAOR 7711W FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BRAVER DAM CIRCLI3, THE PURPOSE OP'i'HIS LE'rW..R IS TO INFORM nill PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DEC-ISION THAT WILL ALLOW AL]DITIONAL DWF.i,LINo UI+ m IN THE TCIWN OP VAIL OR THAT WILL INCRRAS33 L'HE SQUARE, FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXIS'1'1NO ORDINANC 1iS IS UNACC EPTAPLE. THE FOLLOWIN©SIONATURES ON THIS LE-1-1-HP, DEVIONSTRATIS THAT A NUMBER OF PLiOPLE WHO AR4 91TIIER kXL OR PART TIME RLSWENTS 01; THIS TOWN.OF VAIL, ARLI XOT IN NAVOR ON THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TOTHE WISHES OP Tlil3 PEOPLP AND RFJEC'r THIS ItBt�IJT;ST. SINCFRF.LY, PkIN'I'EbSAME VAIL AI) U&Q l . qo rl 0 NOVEMBER 22,1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FORA SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL. ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. PRINTED NAME VAIL ADD SS -av%uceb.Boosoo 332-I3rader N" t�Mouy L - Hza532- Jegti �) F-?�QlfO r ?-3 oK �F.Rv��4l r Cr�2. �ifc�.c� 117D 1 raw16,*f ,�• > �� .� .� .� �� ate• � � � /. aju-< Ida n oux� ��GG g i ,ws► rill a_r- Co c' AL ,s u 6 NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 391 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, PRINTED NAME. VAII. ADDRI+.SC $�.�NIATLiRE �qll5 �Tclal - r ;"rFww � . �rjvw; 1.1 °k •C . I. RR NOVI:.MBI:It 22,1993 s . FLANKING AND ENVlRQNMr;N7AL COMMISSION OWN OF VAIL :7S SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD 81657 f VAIL COLORADO LADIES AND GENTLE YMN, g YOGI FIAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A RL•QtMST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE TFIIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. 3 ,y M-IE KMPOSE OF THIS LM'TER IS TO WORM THIS. PLANNINO COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDMONAL AWIrLLING LT ITS IN TIM TOWN Or VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE TIM SQUAREFOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISMG ORDI]NANC24 IS UNACCEPTABLE, : TIIE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS Llirr R DOdONS'IRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO Ai;F EITHEIR FULL OR FART TD4 RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OIL Tins PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF IT1E PEOPLE AND R=CT TIIIS VRQUEST, SINCERELY, • PRIIV7I�I? NAME V ��r n�I7lt�+S�4 sTmAjilor j/' '.a+s0.,� ,Lae wr a:• n , • :t £0'd LLTTOSZO *H+ Gap-dfl XUJUNdd **k: I;O:ZT £66T/60/TT :t £0'd LLTTOSZO *H+ Gap-dfl XUJUNdd **k: I;O:ZT £66T/60/TT NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILT.. ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS, OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS -PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST, SINCERELY, I �T9JL ADDRR.CS /'� �y 3 alli" Aran�����,� ov C (� it. NOVF. MBER 22,103 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIT,, COLOR ADO 81057 LADIES AND C*FN'nX EN, YOU RAVE BEFOTRU YOU TODAY A REQUYST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF Lul' 1, BLOCK4, VATL VILLACF TIIIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 3$I DEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE Or THUS LETTUK IS TO INFORM THa PLANNING COMMISSION THAT jvNY I)F.(:1SION THAT' WILL AI.I.OW ADDITIONAL DWr,LLING iIMT'S IN THE'IMN OF PAIL ORTHAT IAT WILL INCREASF. THE SQUARE PWTAGE ALLOWED UNDER T4ill =STllVG ORDINANCES IS UNAC(li-PTABLE. T'HL fOLT.OWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LLTTITR DEMONSTRX1.6 THAT A NUMBER O'F PEOPLE WHO ARE EI'iHFP, FULL OR PARTTIME RESIDENT'S OF THE TOWN OP VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RFSIX)ND TO THE WISHES OF 11IL' PEOPLE AND RWEC"T ITHS IRWUES .. S INt'BRE€.Y, r - <4& 41 f j Tno QUANTUM USA TEL:303-476-3111 Nov 21 93 21:24 No.001 P.02 of NOVEMBER 241903 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OP VAR. 75 SOUTH FRONTAGL ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND OENTL.F.MEN, ..: YOi YE BM)RE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK4, VAIL VILLAGE TOW FILING AL90 KNOWN AS 981 HEAVER DAM CIRCLE. TIM PURPOSE OF THIS LM-IER IS TO INFORM 11 M PLANNING COMMISSION 'ItiAT ANY DMTSION THAT W11.1. ALLOW ADDITIONAL TW ELLING UNITS IN 7'HB TOWN OF VAIL OR TI IAT WII.1, INCREASE nm SQUARE. FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER TIM MISTING ORDINANCES IS UNAcvsv1'A33LE, HU FOLLOWING SIONA'II.IRES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATP, THAT A NUMBUR 01; PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL pR PART TIME RESIDENTS OP THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU R0MND TO THE WISHES 011 TI113 PEOPLE AND RFJECT THIS RPQUEST. Swc RELY, .►Y c�� ►♦tt' !lliii"' r �► '! 0 NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, VAU MDRESS �S t) art, t' wl- U NOVEMBER 22,1993 MANNINO MD ENVIP-ONMIINTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAI rL 7S $OUTIi FRONTAGE ROAD VAT1., COLOR JiDo 81657 LADIES AND GEMi MMN, YOU HAVE BBFQPE YOU TODAY A PX-QMST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, IILOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE TIIIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 T3EAVER DAM CIRCLE, TIM PURPOSE OF THIS L18TTER IS TO INFORM T?M PLANNNO CVMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION lliAT WILL ALLOW ADDMONAL DWELLits(3 UNIT$ IN THE TOWN OF VAIL Olt THAT WILL INCMASS 77 fS SQVARE FOOTAGE ALLOWBD VNID rR ME EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCI;PTADLA, TI IM FOLLOWING SMNATURES Of4 THIS LETTER pL,43ONSTRATE THAT A NUMBPP. OF MOMS WHO ARE EI'I'I= FULL OR PART" lli M MIDIwNTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT iN FAVOR OF TIRI$ PROPOSAL AND ASK'ITIAT YOU RIMPOND TO THE WISHM OF 1119 PEOPLE AND MMLCT 1'1118 RRQMST, SINCERPLY PBTNIE]2 SAM AA VAM AnR)R PSC rlj NOVEM13ER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, PRINTED N VAIL A DEFSS 4ob lfi .51'2.o1 �la�k ear (pane _2 9 3,S— y7l/�a�pe NOVEMBER 22,1993 PLANNING] AND FNVIRONME-NTAL GO1MMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH MONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND CL' M..F.M1 N. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REOtJBST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK A, VAIi, V9-LAAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLF, TIM KJMSF OF THIS LETTFCR IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING, COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL AIJ.OW ADDITIONAL DWELLLNG UNITS IN T'IiE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WXJ..L INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE FXMTING ORDINANC:FC IS UNACCEPTABLE, TIQ FOLLOWING SIGNAnJRES ON THIS LL'TT'ER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF I''> 0PLF. WHO ARE ETI'HER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS Or, THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL. AND ASK TIIAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THt: PEOPLF. AND REJI CT THIS REQUEST, SINCERELY, PRUF,,I-NAA'V1P v Wl,At3�"S �1C A'i11 F. J 0 n ED.HICKS IMPORTS ID:15128550025 NOV 22193 11:15 No.003 P.01 NOVFMBER 22,1993 PLANNING AND ITV VIXONMFN'I'Al. COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUI'1'li FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, CauIRADO 916$7 LADIGS AND GEMLF�.1+SEN, YOU IiAVP BEFORE YOU TODAY A PXQUrST FORA SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLo (,K 4, VAIL VJI I.AC3F 771IRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BRAVER DAM (7R(LF. THE PURPOSE OFTHIS LETTER IS TO JNEORM'I'HF PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW AT7DI'IIONAi. MVFI J ING l.lMTS IN TIM TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INMEASE THE SQUARE I rAAGF AI.I.OWF.A UNr)ER THE LXISTINC, C)Ri)1NAN(.I-S IS UNACCFPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNA'11)RISS ON THIS i.FTTFR T)Fh40NYfkKJt T1iAP A NUMJ31',Id OF lllX)'I_F WHO ARE 1?MIER FULL OR PART TIME RFSTDF,NTS,OF THE TOWN 01, VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND '1'U THE WISHES OF THE PJ?OPI,R AND RP.IEC1"1'1 [IS RFQUF.ST. SINCERELY, PRINTED NAlvs1- VAIL. ADDSBRS SICNA'1 UIt1i 'ED HICKS 225 FOREST RD. VAIL, CO, �. i NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONNENI'AL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAIa VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLF-VE I, YOU HAVE BEFOU YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LO'C 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE T141RD ) ILING ALSO KNOWN AS 391 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE, THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION 'THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLIlNG UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL. INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE, TIM FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER. FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REIECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, PRINTED NAME v�'SS SIGNAT[TRE r�;'C,�•v.f \S � ��cc'�`�" �;.,, rl � t_:C.�, lca:4.a ti. j'-'._�_.e _w. �'—'`. TO'd 0S669LbT Ol 6339 *U SIDNtUJ P d;2 £T.£T £66T—OF—fiON 0 6 • NOV 20 '93 11:22AN GORSUCH LIMITED V S V S P•1 6 NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONYAGE ROAD VAIL. COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND OEN'1T. EhEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD F 1I.NG ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO WORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL, DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OP. THAT WILL INCREASE TNB SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE FX.ISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LEMR DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUAIRER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TINM RESIDENTS OF f IM TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL, AND ASK THAT YOU RMPOND TO THE WISMS OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST, SINCERELY, PRi�vi�.D AMA VAU. A2=IG, 5IC? Ll J • NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION ' THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN�F VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, P1TINTED NAME VAIL AM4c fiIGNAT 1 F. ►466'` 02ff9.� Rjo. 40r �C-a -�dIL 30Z }FRr14aN L>anQ►+ 2D. C'I�vt2�P, 'f7OFLC-A- CVjTHEPL, `66 Fon.c.7r 29 —= NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 91657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. lkSINCERELY, PRINTED NAME VAR-, ADDRFSS SIGNATURE ;� 3 1 ✓ ,( t'�C. r .J�-cal / A i�1:�4 r ) �l1 � �! ii���cwa ✓ " `�%` ! ✓ !/A _9 Sfev c a,�e6 r, I-)JO Dam c,b �r1 , 1 rv1 S 1 Q�;`l G C's--L. C a NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, PRINTED NAME VATT i , ADDRESS �J + SIGNATURE �+r"•vC�t311 [^�@�:irJMI"f L7�{�. F'. 140 P02 CAE': 0^ ' �3 17: 01 N0VtN1BFR 22,190$ PLAN- .,,IN, # AND �1'rR0,N'3='�TAL CO'vi vSls5i4ty TOWN OF V.AIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAII„ COLORADO $1657 LADIES AND Gr?!r 11,FMLN. YOU HAVE B17FOU YOU TODAY A RL'QU"£ST r--OP A SUBDIA'TSIO'ti OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAI VILLAGE THIRD FILING AI SO MNOWN AS 391 DtAVER D&M CIRCLE. 71•II: PURPOSE OF TIM LEI MR IS TO L'VFOR' d TILE FLaANTNING CONNISSION THAT A Y DMISION MT Wff t ALLOW ADDITIONAL DVILLIr+'G II I TI1E TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE n IE SO'OARE .FOOTAGE ALLOWLD UNT3iI2 THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS L'tiACCEPT'AI 1X THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LEER MMONSTRATE T'IGAT A NUMB1 R Or- Pr-OPLE W110 AIDE EI'fMR t'Y.t OP PART TIME RESIDENTS OP TIJE TOWN OF VAiL ARE NOT LN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL tiND ASK THAT YOU R> SMI ID TO THE "ti*ri'ISII,IyS OF THE PEOPLE AND W*.;ILC'I' THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, 'N' , . y q _ Is l NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, PRINTED NAME VAIL AT)DRFS9 SIf:N4, 7T� /r %f -,IQr rt-(66.60 P-E v - �i Planning and Evironmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen: You have before you a request for a subdivision of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing, also known as 381 Beaver Dam Circle. The purpose of this letter is to express our wishes against any decision that will allow additional dwelling units or increased density on residential lots in Vail. The following signatures on this letter demonstrate that these people, who are either full or part time residents of Vail, are NOT IN FAVOR of this proposal. We ask that you respond to the wishes of the people and REJECT THIS REQUEST. Sincerely, Printed Name Vail Address ` Signature P1 Ll 1 c1 a Ir A l S �AAA)Q- NQd,�'J >t c, me4dvu� 0r n het-n 0.nS LUU X/I Maom'rcr Izz i 0 I VAA- ; RECEIVED To: The Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 From: Nancy Byers 352 Beaver Dam Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Appeal of PEC decision to favor rezoning of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing from the Primary/Secondary zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family zone districts, and a minor subdivision to create two lots from the existing lot. Date: November 22, 1993 Dear Town Council Members, As an adjacent property owner to the subject property, I formally appeal by right the decision of the PEC to favor the rezoning and minor subdivision of Lot 1. The PEC vote on this matter was very close (4-3), and there was much discussion from the public as well as the PEC members that the increase in density on this lot is contrary to the goals and objectives of the TOV and the public to limit density to existing zoning in the Valley. Another concern voiced is that this decision will set a dangerous precedent in the valley which will affect twenty-eight additional lots, and create a flood of similar proposals which will be difficult to turn down given this decision. Property owners on Beaver Dam Road, Forest Road, and Rockledge Road have paid a premium to own property in this area. The intent of the property owners here is that the area would remain as currently zoned, and not have the threat of density increases. This proposal as accepted by the PEC is a slap in the face to all property owners in this area, and as mentioned above it sets a dangerous precedent in the Vail Valley. our understanding is that we can voice our appeal on December 7, 1993. We all sincerely hope that you as representatives of the public in this valley will reverse this decision and preserve the density and zoning of Lot 1 to its original status as Primary/Secondary. b:\by— 11/22/93.2 Sincerely, 6A-P Nancy Byers December 7, 1993 To: Vail Town Council From: Dick and Mary Pownall Due to unexpected events we are unable to attend tonight's council meeting. However, we would like to express our strong opposition to the proposed subdivision request before you this evening. Consideration for this opposition: A. We have been property owners in Vail Village lst filing since 1962-63. It is easy to observe that many lots were designed in a configuration to preserve the natural integrity of the land, i.e. wetlands, large stands of timber, etc. Consideration was given to the preservation of this type of resource and still allow space to build. The subject lot in question this evening is a perfect example of a lot which was oversized to allow preservation of natural resources that cannot be duplicated. B. There is not a "hardship" situation. The gained square footage (Gi2FA) easily compensates the property owners of oversized lots, thereby allowing for the preservation of the natural resource and a financial gain for the owner. Everyone is a winner under this consideration. C.Should this subdivision be passed the "new lot" would be a perfect target for purchase with town open space funds, This is probably one of the largest and thickest stands of virgin timber along Gore Creek. Any disturbance of this natural resource is counter productiveo to today's ecological goals. However the subdivision could occur and the land be purchased for green space preservation and again... everyone wins. D. The precedent that this will set could have negative results in the long term. Another rash of rebuilding will occur in those situations where this opportunity for re -subdivision will occur. Increased density is a guarantee, but are we guaranteeing a better Vail for the future? iAgain, we would like to express our disappointment at not being able to voice our opposition at the meeting tonight. Please consider our objections very carefully. Thank you. Respectfully, ick P all Mary Pownall /` �� 6 9 Ll GONDOLA SKI SHOP LIONSHEAD AT VAIL December 4, 1993 To: Ms. Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor, and Members of the Vail Town Council Vail, Colorado Re: Request for rezoning of 381 Beaver Dam Circle from the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family zone districts and a minor subdivision to create two lots from the existing lot. Dear Council Members: We are writing to ask you to refuse the request by Leo Payne to change the zoning laws to allow him to build more than a Primary/Secondary home on the Beaver Dam Circle lot. It is time to be firm about the zoning laws, in spite of arguments about legal square footage and concessions that Mr. Payne will make concerning wetlands and trees. The fact remains that the parcel in question is zoned for a Primary/Secondary structure and to change the zoning would set a precedent for zoning changes for similar parcels. We are writing on behalf of Nancy and Don Byers who live in a Primary/ Secondary home close to the Payne lot. We feel strongly, as they do, that increasing density in that neighborhood is detrimental to the quality of life, ie. less open space, more traffic, and that a stand should be made now to adhere to the zoning laws. Respectfully, n �1 A4,6-I�ilc� 9 )' f" at Charlie and Patti Langmaid P. 0. Box 159 . Lionshead Mall . Vail,.Colorado 81658 . (303) 476-1700 Lorraine N. and Harley G. Higbis, Jr. 1600 Broadway, Suite 2100 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 861.4230 December 6, 1093 Vail Town Council 75 Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Members: We are disturbed and distressed that a homeowner on Forest Road proposes to divide his property into four home sites. We cannot conceive how the covenants can be interpreted to allow for such a result, The it original concept of Vail envisioned an attractive uncrowded residential development, Squeezing four home sites onto property that was best suited for a single home site, and which remained that way for years, could only result in a less desirable place to live and lower property values. We urge you not to permit such over -development of Vail. Sincerely, Lorraine N. Higbie Harley Hrgbie, . 110 gr