HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-07-06 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 6, 1993
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 6, 1993, in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:50
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
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Item No. 1 on the agenda was the presentation of the Chuck Anderson Youth Awards.
Michael Johnston and Ernest Medina, Jr. were this year's recipients. Ernest Medina was
unable to attend this presentation. Mayor Osterfoss stated she was honored to present these
• awards to Michael and to Ernest, in his absence. Bob Buckley commented briefly on his
association with Michael and expressed his pride in Michael's accomplishments and positive
influence on other Vail youth. Michael thanked Council and residents for their support. It
was suggested the Chuck Anderson Youth Award presentations be held during school
graduation time in the future when parents and grandparents would be more available to
attend this important presentation.
Item No. 2 was Citizen Participation of which there was none.
Item No. 3 was a Consent Agenda consisting of one item: Approval of the minutes of the
June 1, 1993, and June 15, 1993, evening meetings. Mery Lapin moved to approve the
Consent Agenda, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 4 was an open community opinion forum regarding the proposed Vail Valley
Performance and Conference Center (VVP&CC). Caroline Tremblay recapped the project,
explaining Vail had been studying the feasibility of building a performance and conference
center for the past three years. Based on the response to the project from many meetings
and numerous presentations, she advised a plan had been developed to finance the
construction and annual operating costs of the building through a combination of taxes on
hotels, restaurants, and bars, as well as private contributions. Backers of the center planned
to ask voters for a 0.9% sales tax on restaurants and bars and a 1.8% sales tax on lodging.
If approved, that plan would bring taxes on Vail lodges to 9.8% and restaurants to 8.9%. She
said the supporters were hoping that TOV was planning to commit up to $1,000,000.00
toward this project. She also expressed that she and wanted the community to come forward
to voice their opinions about the Center to determine the level of community support before
pledging such a significant amount of money. Vail residents and business owners generally
said they liked the idea of a performance and conference center, but had a number of
questions about the two proposed tax increases to pay for it. Those speaking primarily in
favor of the Center included Harry Frampton, Kay Chester, Peter Vavra, Flo Steinberg, Sybil
Navas, Colleen McCarthy, Diana Donovan, Pepi Gramshammer, Hermann Staufer, Jan
Strauch, and Joe Macy. They felt there was a need for a Center for winter performances,
that a Center would add great dimension to the community and would increase business
during Vail's off-season, as well as be a long term economic value to the community. Mery
Lapin asked Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, Inc. (VA) if VA would consider adding
taxes onto their facilities to contribute toward the Center. Mr. Macy said VA had not
discussed that. Paul Rondeau stated he wanted more visual aids to differentiate the two
different entities (performance and/or conference center), and to show plus and minus scales
of experiences with performance and conference centers in other communities. He felt
development of a user-friendly view of the proposed funding was necessary to simplify
explanations of the funding proposal, and felt a specific point should be set to end spending
if cost estimates began to overrun. His primary emphasis was about informing voters. Vail
resident Cynthia Steitz was opposed to the plan. Paul Johnston was opposed to a bed tax,
but not to private funding. Caroline Tremblay briefly addressed funding alternatives, noting
the importance of private donations. She indicated the performance side of the Center would
not happen without private funding.
. She asked Council for a resolution substantiating Council's support. After individual Council
member input about the Center, Mayor Osterfoss observed there was Council support for the
project, and it appeared sensible for this Council to recommend support to future Councils.
Rob LeVine moved that Council prepare a resolution expressing Council's enthusiastic
support for the VVP&CC as presented at this meeting and as it goes to the polls in
November, 1993. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Bob Buckley
expressed concern about voting on this without completion of the feasibility/marketing study.
Rob LeVine amended his motion to indicate the resolution would indicate Council's
enthusiastic support for the VVP&CC based on encouraging results of the VVP&CC
feasibility study. Tom Steinberg amended his second. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 5 was an overview final presentation on the 1993 Community Survey. Caroline
Fisher noted the Community Survey process had been started in March, 1993. Chris Cares
of Rosall, Remmen and Cares, said they had summarized much of the information graphically
so the results could be seen as well as read about. He felt it was important to point out that
this survey was extrapolated on community surveys conducted in the past. He advised, as
a result of the focus groups, a number of questions had been changed from past survey
questions, but he still felt the questions were well standardized and new issues had been
addressed as requested by Council. A summary of the results, dated July 1, 1993, of the
Town of Vail Community Survey was distributed. The summary contained a brief synopsis
of each major topic addressed on the survey along with appropriate qualitative input from
respondents' comments on the survey and focus group input. Also included was a copy of the
survey form that was used with question results summarized. An overview of the results of
two focus groups conducted by Nolan Rosall in late June was also included. Nolan Rosall had
conducted two groups prior to fielding the survey. In addition to the mailed survey
distributed to residents of the Town, second home owners, merchants, and box holders, a
telephone followup interview was conducted with a sampling of 100 households. The purpose
of the followup was to elaborate on and verify the findings of the mailback survey. An
evaluation of the results showed there was virtually no difference in the response patterns
on the two surveys; therefore, the results had been merged and were summarized together
on the survey form distributed at this meeting. Together, the sample consisted of 1,043
interviews, 943 obtained by mail and 100 conducted over the telephone. Mr. Cares reviewed
charts via overhead projector which showed the summary of ratings and priority placement
on the importance of issues including water quality protection, traffic congestion remedies,
prohibition of smoking in public places, growth/density controls, acquisition of open space to
preserve sensitive areas, air quality protection, acquisition of open space for recreational
activities, provision of affordable housing opportunities, expansion of tourism
opportunities/facilities in summer/fall, expansion of year around cultural programs, expanded
"regional" governmental authority, economic development/job creation, and expansion of
tourism opportunities in the winter; ratings of conditions including street disrepair,
inadequate off -site parking, unsafe walking routes, speeding or reckless automobiles,
inadequate street lighting, animals, inadequate enforcement of parking regulations, lack of
recreational facilities, pollution from road dust and woodsmoke, signage, snow removal from
walkways, trash/litter and abandoned vehicles, snow removal from roads, neighborhood noise,
and crimes/sense of security; ratings on quality of general services including snow
removal/sanding of streets, maintenance of park areas, municipal court services, snow
removal/sanding of sidewalks/stairways, finance cashier window, street lighting, sales tax and
business license services, street sweeping, and street repair and maintenance; a rating of the
quality of the bus system; a rating of the quality of the Community Development
Department, Police Department, Library, Fire Department, Administrative/Management
functions, and performance of commissions and elected/appointed officials. It was noted a
series of questions were asked regarding respondents' understanding of and support for
Amendment 1. Mr. Cares indicated one of the questions noted Amendment 1 limited total
annual revenue growth to a formula which was dominated by the Boulder/Denver Consumer
Price Index, and mountain communities such as Vail received much of their revenue from
tourism, which was largely unrelated to that index. In order for Vail to utilize all the annual
. revenue increases it normally received, Amendment 1 would require voter approval on an
annual basis. Respondents were asked if they would be inclined to vote for a measure which
would allow the Town of Vail to keep all revenue received as long as the following aspects
of Amendment 1 continued to be in force: All tax rate increases or new taxes must be
2
approved by voters; all new municipal debt must be approved by voters; any property tax mill
levy rate increase must be approved by voters; and all election controls remained in place.
Mr. Cares said there was a lot of support for this approach. In general, however, the survey
indicated respondents wanted more information about Amendment 1. Mery Lapin asked why
. the Amendment 1 question was asked. Caroline said the intent of that question was to get
feedback from voters on what they were thinking. Mery said he was specifically asking about
the aspect concerning tailoring the amendment for local purposes. Caroline said she thought
there was sentiment all around in the community that TOV might be able to pass something
locally at some point which would allow for some provisions for communities like TOV. Tom
Steinberg explained it would have to go to a state vote to give special rights on a local level.
If it came within a couple of votes in the legislature of passing, there was a possibility it
might get through next year, according to Sam Mamet of CML, to allow TOV the vote on
changes in provisions. There was some specific discussion about some of the issues on the
survey, such as road conditions and affordable housing. Mr. Cares felt, as TOV goes through
its budgeting process, there was a need for specific kinds of analysis, and that was really how
the full benefit of this program would be obtained. Jim Gibson stated it was possible for a
community to vote itself out of Amendment 1, and asked Mr. Cares what he thought would
happen if that were on the ballot. Mr. Cares, noting his comments would be pure speculation
on his part, felt there was a need for more discussion and a falling out period before TOV
should try that. Clearly, people calling for more information and addressing issues of
confusion suggested we can't move too quickly on overly aggressive programs. Mr. Cares also
felt there would be a lot of clutter with these kind of issues and issues resulting from
Amendment 1 that had to he placed on the ballot, so it was hard to get specific
understanding. Jim Gibson noted there were far more comments against Amendment 1 than
• there were in favor of it. He asked Mr. Cares if that was how he saw it - a preponderance
opposed to it as to those for it. Mr. Cares said yes, both in the survey results and focus
groups. He said there was a lot of feeling that this particular state law did not work well in
this kind of community and Council should be looking at other alternatives pretty
aggressively. Caroline added it was expressed in each of the focus groups that there was an
openness to looking at other options. People wanted to know what other options might be
and were hesitant to commit to anything. The majority of the people wanted to know what
Council was thinking in this area. There was brief further discussion about particulars
regarding opting out of Amendment 1.
Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending
Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010,16.20.010, 16.20.220,16.22.010,16.22.160, 16.26.010,
16.20.015, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition
of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing
regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and
interior accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the
title in full. Mery Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading,
until July 20, 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending
Paragraphs 16.32.030(F) and 16.32.040(A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to
provide for the termination of any non -conforming sign five years after the effective date of
any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mery Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 13, Series
of 1993, first reading, until July 20, 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. S was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Title
12 - Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, by the addition of
Chapter 12.16 - Revocable Right of Way Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
The applicant was the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mery Lapin
moved to table Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, until July 20, 1993, with a
second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 9 was Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending
Section 15.02.020(A) and 15.02.020(G) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide
for the adoption of Chapter 31 of the 1993 Supplement of the Uniform Building Code and to
. provide for the adoption of the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and amending
Section 15.02.030(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for the adoption
of an elevator inspection fee in the amount of $150.00 for each elevator, and a commercial
dumbwaiter inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 for each dumbwaiter, and a will call
inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per permit; and providing details in regard thereto.
Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, on first reading, with
direction to staff to clarify that the elevator and dumbwaiter inspection fees were annual, not
per inspection. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
. passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 10 was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance
No. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District (SDD) No. 5 and
providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses;
development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting
forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was Walid Said, Simba Land Corporation. Bob
Buckley stepped down due to conflict of interest. Tim Devlin explained this ordinance was
a request for a major amendment to SDD No. 5 and would supersede all previous ordinances
and amendments that were presently in place for SDD No. 5. This ordinance would allow
for the development of the remaining phase of the Simba Run SDD. The Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) recommended approval of the applicant's request for a
major amendment to SDD No. 5, and allowed for one (1) additional unit with total GRFA of
1602 square feet to be added to the project in the future. The project introduction,
description of the request, zoning analysis, criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal, site
plans and architectural drawings prepared by Morter Architects, correspondence from
consulting geologist Nicholas Lampiris, and letters of opposition to the project from Frank
N. Clark, James Stress, and Maria I. Bloniarz, owners of units at Simba Run, were part of
the Community Development Department (CDD) memo to the PEC dated June 28,1993. The
• CDD staff believed the proposed project substantially complied with the nine (9) SDD review
criteria and recommended approval of the project with five (5) conditions of approval as
detailed in the above referenced CDD memo to the PEC. At the time the CDD's
recommendation went to the PEC, the applicant had been in agreement with the
recommendation and conditions of approval. However, Tim said the applicant now wanted
to address Council about condition of approval number four which would require him to
permanently restrict the four (4) employee housing units (EHUs) in this phase of the project
as Type III EHUs, according to TOV's adopted housing ordinance. There were presently six
(6) EHUs already in existence, and those original six (6) EHUs had twenty year limited terms
as EHUs. The twenty year terms were due to expire in 2003.
Jim Morter, architect for the proposed project, stated this ordinance was an amendment to
an approved SDD. He briefly discussed points of the originally approved SDD and noted the
proposed project now consisted of 19 units instead of the 44 that were approved and had
building permits. Mr. Morter also stated that the present proposed GRFA was 34,800 square
feet instead of a possible 43,600 square feet, more parking than required was planned, and
the required ten (10) EHUs were being provided. Mr. Morter noted there were two
ordinances and a letter of agreement which addressed the six (6) existing EHUs. Each of the
ordinances limited the duration of the six (6) existing EHUs to twenty (20) years. Mr. Morter
• stated that the condition of approval requiring permanent restriction of the four (4) new
EHUs had slipped by him the first time he saw the CDD staff memo to the PEC on the day
of the PEC meeting. The applicant wanted all ten (10) EHUs limited to twenty (20) years.
Mery Lapin stated he wanted all ten (10) units permanently restricted as Type III EHUs.
Tom Steinberg agreed. Mery stated he thought Mr. Morter would find this Council fairly
adamant about EHU requirements. There was some discussion about other projects which
had EHU terms which had now expired, and many of those units were now going to non -
employee use. Mayor Osterfoss stated there were very few options available for building of
affordable housing, and felt Mr. Morter was aware of that from his own experience. As a
result, the need to permanently deed restrict all available EHUs had become a very
consistent theme. She asked Larry Eskwith for input on changing restrictions on EHUs that
had already been given twenty year limitations. Larry Eskwith indicated that since the
applicant had asked this SDD be amended, the applicant opened their situation up to the
suggestion of restricting the older EHUs for perpetuity as well.
Mr. Morter pointed out, on behalf of his owners, that most of the units currently being used
as EHUs within the existing buildings were luxury condominiums, two of which were empty
because there were not enough employees in Simba Run to fill them. He argued strongly
against deeding those six (6) units as permanently restricted Type III EHUs. Mayor
Osterfoss did not think TOV had ever said these could only be EHUs for one's own
employees. There was a need for affordable housing throughout the community, and she
asked the applicant if he could rent these units to other than their own employees. Tim
Devlin pointed out that Section 9(B) of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 stated, "A minimum
of ten (10) employee dwelling units shall be provided to be leased to employees of Vail Run
or to permanent residents employed in the Gore Valley." There was a difference of opinion
as to whether or not what the applicant was charging for rental of his units was TOV's
concern.
Tim Devlin discussed the applicant's request to reserve the right to add one (1) additional
free market unit at a future date. Tim said there was some dispute concerning what could
be built on any area to the east of where the project was being proposed now, but Tim said
staff was comfortable with the request, as was the PEC. He referred to a model available
before Council. Mr. Morter said there was line going through the project that provided the
boundary for new development, and said there was some question as to what could and could
not be built on that line, but he said at some time in the future the applicant may want to
come back for another amendment to the SDD to allow for one (1) more unit if development
questions could be resolved. Mayor Osterfoss asked if there was any conflict in the site plan
with the proposed Simba Run underpass. She recalled Mr. Morter said during the site visit
there was not. Tim confirmed that.
Tom Steinberg asked what the underlying zoning on this was. Kristan Pritz said the CDD
staff did not know what the underlying zoning was. She said it was similar to Cascade
Village. She referred to the zoning analysis on page 4 of CDD's June 28, 1993, memo to the
PEC noting this parcel was annexed into the Town in December, 1976, and the original SDD
was established in March, 1976, when zoning was created for it. She said as far as number
of units and density, it would compare most closely to High Density Multi -Family (HDMF),
but that was not an official underlying zone district. Tom asked, as presented, how this
• project exceeded HDMF. Kristan said they would have to go through the memo and figure
that out, but she did not think it exceeded it in many ways. Mery Lapin referred to the
Approved Development Standards listed in the CDD memo, and Kristan said those were the
standards in the ordinance at that time. She said that was what had been used as a
guideline, noting the project was in compliance with the land use plan designation, although
there was no underlying zone district. There was some discussion about the project's site
coverage, parking percentage for enclosed parking, landscaping, GRFA, number of units, and
height.
Jim Gibson said he agreed with Mery Lapin about permanently deed restricting EHUs,
however, in this case felt only the four (4) EHUs proposed in Phase II should be permanently
restricted. He felt the six (6) already in existence were part of an ordinance, and he felt it
would be unfair to go back and change that. Jim Shearer agreed with that. He felt
something already given should not be taken away. Rob LeVine said that was his first
thought, too, but then explained TOV was not looking to change this ordinance, the applicant
was. Although it was new development, it was all one SDD, and when it was opened up by
an amendment request, the whole SDD was open for examination. Rob was in favor of
permanently deed restricting not only the four (4) EHUs being proposed now, but also the six
(6) existing EHUs. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the number of units to be permanently
restricted for a project of this size would be ten (10). It was asked if there was a formula for
determining the number of EHUs required, but Kristan said it was difficult to calculate that
without the underlying zone district, because that was what was used to gauge overage. The
guidelines used did not work on this project.
Mr. Morter said his client acquired this property with certain understanding, i.e. the
ordinances already established restricting the existing EHUs for twenty (20) years. The
whole makeup of the proposed development was based on certain rules that were in place.
Jim Gibson told Mr. Morter that Council was not trying to minimize his concerns, and felt
it would discourage other people from coming forward to make improvements if they felt
uncertain about Council's interpretations of past agreements. Jim Gibson said a previous
Council in 1975 saw fit to pass an ordinance which gave twenty (20) year limitations on the
six (6) existing EHUs at Simba Run, and he did not feel the current Council ought to change
that.
Frank Clark, owner of a unit at Simba Run, said he was present representing a very few of
the other condo owners at Simba Run. He claimed most of the other owners at Simba Run
did not even know about this proposed project, having never been apprised.
Larry Eskwith stated he had reviewed the condominium declaration, and the expandable
• declarations proposed allowed for the development of a portion of ground into additional units
which would then be brought into the condominium association. Larry did not think this
developer needed the permission of either the association or any of the condominium owners.
5
Mr. Clark said they were led to believe there might be a third building added to the two
existing buildings when they purchased this property, but had been told nothing about an
easement or plans for separate townhouse units. He said that no one, not Mr. Said, the
Association President, or the Manager for the Association, made information available to the
• condo owners in the existing two buildings. Mr. Clark said he happened to be in Vail by
chance and was told about the proposed project by a painter working there. Mr. Clark said
he called the President of the Homeowners' Association and was told by him that he had just
found out about it. Mr. Clark said that was in May, 1993. He felt the people who own these
condos should be aware of the proposed changes. He said he had read through the materials
available on this issue for the first time tonight, and only that afternoon in the manager's
office had he seen the proposed new buildings for the first time. He said this was a big
change from what he and other owners might have expected, especially the access easement
proposed. He said he had seen nothing in writing about the planned development and felt
there were too many unanswered questions. He felt the issue should be tabled until all the
condo owners were notified and had proper time in which to respond.
Mayor Osterfoss said, as Larry Eskwith had tried to explain earlier, TOV did not 'involve
itself in internal condominium association regulations. Mr. Clark repeated his primary
argument was that present unit owners had not been informed of the proposed project and
had not had suitable time to respond. Mr. Clark said they planned to have attorneys look
into this situation for them. Mayor Osterfoss indicated that might be an appropriate course
of action, but that was not the issue at hand at this time.
There was further discussion and explanation by Larry Eskwith about expandable
. condominium declarations. He also indicated there was a reservation by the declarant to the
developer of an access easement across the condominium project. Larry said that easement
was reserved virtually anywhere on the condominium project. Larry felt Mr. Clark may have
a right to bring an action, but Larry did not feel TOV could be a judge here to make a
determination whether or not in some way the developer misrepresented something to Mr.
Clark. What Mr. Clark said they would like was time to make everyone involved aware of
this so they could have a chance to go over this more carefully and give their input.
Mr. Morter said he did not know why the building manager had not heard about this. Mr.
Morter said he was required by TOV to notify the condominium association as well as
neighbors when a projects was submitted for review. Mr. Morter suggested if Mr. Clark was
not notified, the matter should be taken up with the building management, not Council,
because Mr. Morter said they did make required notifications. Kristan Pritz said the letters
of notification went out April 22, 1993. Mr. Morter advised that TOV also published
notification information in the paper.
Tom Steinberg questioned rockfall hazard at the proposed site. Mr. Morter advised there had
been communication with Nicholas Lampiris, Consulting Geologist, and Mr. Morter said he
had a letter from Mr. Lampiris stating he was totally satisfied with Morter Architect's
solutions to rockfall hazard concerns. Tom Steinberg asked Larry Eskwith what TOV's
liability was for physical damage to the garages, cars, and possessions because Mr. Lampiris'
June 18, 1993, letter stated although he was not concerned that damage could occur to living
quarters, some of the garages still remained unprotected. Tom wanted to know if TOV would
be liable because all the property was not being protected. Larry Eskwith did not feel TOV
had liability, but suggested Mr. Lampiris be asked for clarification. Larry felt because of
governmental immunity statues TOV was probably protected. Tom Steinberg suggested Mr.
Morter ask Mr. Lampiris what he would recommend to totally solve the berm breach
problem. Mr, Morter felt the problem was solved, but Larry Eskwith agreed with Tom about
the garages. Tom felt the people who did not know their garages might be hit by rocks
should be notified. Tom felt this potentially dangerous situation should be publicized in some
way to buyers.
Mayor Osterfoss asked if the walkway issue had been addressed. Kristan said there was a
walkway through the project, the question was whether it would be public or not. One of the
conditions of approval stated that if the liability issues concerning the construction and
maintenance of a public pedestrian path/easement through the property could be resolved
with the Town Attorney, the applicant would construct a pedestrian path and grant a public
access easement to the Town of Vail. Mr. Morter said the applicant was willing to discuss
. with the Town Attorney these liability issues as well as issues concerning the privacy of
people who own the property and live there. Mayor Osterfoss said if an underpass was put
in that area that was both pedestrian and vehicular, it would be designed to draw people to
its use, so it would make sense that there be a walkway connected with it. Tom Steinberg
said a walkway for public use was very reasonable, particularly when considering access
immediately onto the interstate from the proposed project. Mr. Morter agreed that was
reasonable, but it was equally reasonable for the owner not to assume that liability. He felt
these were points yet to be negotiated. Mayor Osterfoss felt there should be additional
• discussion of this issue thinking it would be good to try to work it out now instead of setting
it aside as a future negotiation. Mery Lapin felt that was primarily a legal matter that could
be worked out between now and second reading.
After further discussion, Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on
first reading with the five (5) conditions of approval as stated in the June 28, 1993, CDD
memo to the PEC with the change to condition #4 that the applicant agreed to permanently
restrict ten (10) Type III EHUs. He further instructed staff to come to an agreement by
second reading as to the possible access across the property and that the rockfall hazard
concerns be fully solved. Rob LeVine seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg asked if this had gone to the Design Review Board
(DRB) yet. Tim Devlin advised it would be going to a DRB Work Session the next day. He
added that Greg Hall wanted a drainage easement across the property. Tom Steinberg
encouraged the DRB to 'overdo' the landscaping. Mery Lapin added these to his motion.
Rob LeVine asked Larry Eskwith if he was comfortable with the notification process that took
place. Larry said he would have to talk in more detail to staff about the notification process,
and if there was a problem, there would have to be a renotification and another hearing. Rob
LeVine asked if that would cause a problem passing this ordinance on first reading. Larry
Eskwith said if Council passed it on first reading and there was an invalidity in the
notification, he thought it would have to go back to the PEC. He said this was a little
different because the developer kept the right to develop additional units on a specific piece
of property. That was incorporated into the condo declaration that was recognized by
whoever brought that property that that was going to happen at some point in the future.
Larry said that was fairly common procedure. Larry said he was concerned and needed to
review the notification process, and if the notification was for some reason inadequate, then
the applicant would have to go back to the very beginning, through the PEC and back up to
Council.
Jim Gibson said he was going to oppose the motion. He did not agree with requiring
permanent Type III EHU designation for all ten (10) units. Jim Shearer agreed with Jim
Gibson.
A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-2-1, Jim Gibson and Jim Shearer opposed, Bob
Buckley abstaining. Bob Buckley then rejoined Council.
Item No. 11 was an appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) decision to
not allow the removal of a dwelling unit in the A & D Building/286 Bridge Street/Lots A-
D/Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. The appellant was Vail Associates, Inc. represented by
Jack Hunn. Mery Lapin moved to table this appeal at the appellant's request to July 20,
1993, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 6-1, Bob Buckley abstaining due to conflict of interest.
There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn to Executive Session
regarding personnel matters was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned
to Executive Session at 11:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�etA. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
�Q �am dw
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto
C.-WINSJUL6,93