HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-06 Town Council Minutes!A
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
February 6, 1996
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 6, 1996, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30
P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Armour, Mayor
Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro -Tern
Kevin Foley
Rob Ford
Mike Jewett
Paul Johnston
Ludwig Kurz
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager
R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
First item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Town of Vail resident J B Smith voiced
his concerns regarding the regional transportation authority and their working on expanding
the regional transportation system. Mr. Smith complained about people driving too fast and
recklessly in our area and urged Council to oppose an increased 75 mph speed limit.
Second was the Consent Agenda which consisted of approval of the minutes for the
meetings of January 2 and 16, 1996. Sybill moved to approve the Consent Agenda, and
the motion was seconded by Kevin. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. .
The third item on the agenda was Resolution No. 4, Series of 1996, a Resolution
Extending the Present Term of the Design Review Board. Tom Moorhead explained that
the terms of Hans Woldrich and Robert Borne, had expired on February 1, and it was
necessary to reappoint them in order for the February DRB meetings to be conducted with
a quorum. Tom further explained that staff was recommending the Council pass Resolution
No. 4, Series of 1996 until new DRB Members could be sworn in on March 6. A motion was
made by Paul to approve Resolution No. 4, with a second from Mike Jewett. A vote was
then taken and passed. unanimously, 7-0.
Fourth on the agenda was Resolution No. 5, Series of 1996, a Resolution Agreeing to
Indemnify Stewart Title for Attorneys Fees. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead, presented the
item, stating that pursuant to the agreement with City Market, it was the obligation of the
Town of Vail to provide title insurance. In the event such title insurance was not available
it was the obligation of the Town of Vail to bring a declaratory judgment action to resolve
any issues concerning the Town's authority to enter into the previously executed
agreement. Tom said that upon review of the agreement and the authority of the Town to
enter into the same, Stewart Title believed that the actions taken were appropriate and
consistent with Town of Vail ordinances, its Charter and Colorado law. However, Tom
stated, obtaining title insurance would require an agreement that the Town of Vail would
share any cost of defending such a lawsuit. Tom stated that such an agreement was
reasonable and would relieve the Town of Vail of the obligation to presently bring a
declaratory judgment action to remove any potential of a lawsuit being fled by the
"Common Sense for the Commons" Petitioner's Committee. Tom further stated that the
staff recommendation was to pass the resolution, which would authorize the Town
Manager to enter into an agreement with Stewart Title to share attorneys fees and costs
�M— in the event a cause of action was brought by the "Common Sense for the Commons"
Town Council Evenong Meeting 02106196
Petitioner's Committee challenging the authority of the Town of Vail to enter into the
agreement with City Market. A motion was made by Sybill to approve Resolution No. 5,
Series of 1996, with a second from Paul. Mike stated he didn't participate in an earlier
executive session because of his involvement with the Common Sense for Commons
iCommittee, but said he would vote on the issue. Sybill questioned whether the time frame
for a lawsuit had passed, and Tom stated that the review period for a court action in district
court challenging the project as arbitrary and capricious had passed. Mayor Armor
questioned whether it was appropriate for council member Mike Jewett to vote on the
issue. Tom addressed the question, stating it Mike Jewett's responsibility to disclose any
conflict of interest he might have. Mike said after studying documents he received from the
Secretary of State's office he was confident he did not have a conflict and stated he was
clearly opposed to the project. A vote was taken and passed 6-1, Mike Jewett voting in
opposition.
Item number five on the agenda was an appeal to the Town Council, pursuant to Section
18.62.070 of the Municipal Code, of the Planning and Environmental Commission decision
to deny the Koenig driveway grade request, for a residence currently under construction
on Lot 26, Potato Patch Subdivision/795 Potato Patch Drive. Town Planner, George Ruther
presented the item, and provided the following background: On January 8, 1996, the
applicant's representative met with the Planning and Environmental Commission, ("PEC"),
requesting a driveway grade variance for a residence under construction at 795 Potato
Patch Drive, in accordance with Chapter 18.62, Variances, of the Municipal Code (see
attachment 1). Upon review of the requested variance, a motion was made to deny the
applicant's request since the PEC could not make the findings necessary to grant approval
of a variance (see attachment 2). The motion passed unanimously (4-0). A letter from the
applicant's representative, Eric Johnson, dated January 17, 1996, appealing the PEC
decision, was reviewed (see attachment 3). In the applicant's letter, he referred to Section
17.28.030, Design Criteria, as being the section of the Municipal Code from which he was
seeking relief. Specifically, the applicant was seeking relief from the maximum grade for
heated driveways.(12%). In this appeal, the applicant wished to be permitted a heated
driveway with a finished grade of 14.1 %. A copy of the memorandum prepared by staff to
the PEC on January 8, 1996, was attached for reference (see attachment 4). George
reviewed the three findings as outlined in the variances section of the Town Code. Town
Engineer, Greg Hall, said maximum grades for both heated and unheated driveways were
adopted and that not more than 12% was allowed. Project Architect, Eric Johnson,
addressed the Council, stating the biggest concern should be the safety issue. He said the
Fire Department had reviewed the site and issued a letter of support. Mr. Johnson then
presented a survey of the property and expressed his feeling that more hardship would be
caused on the property if the driveway were not allowed as requested. Contractor, Ray
Kutash, and owner of Beehive Construction, reviewed the details of the heated driveway
and explained how the survey error had occurred. He felt the survey error constituted a
hardship, and that allowing the variance would not be detrimental to public health or safety
and reiterated the fire department's approval of the request. Project engineer, Jerry Law,
informed Council that it would be safer to allow the driveway to remain as is. He then
reviewed possible solutions and presented a diagram of the project. Councilman Ludwig
Kurz asked if the 12% grade could have been adhered to, and the applicant stated that it
could have been in compliance had the surveying error not occurred.. Paul Johnston said
that if the owner of the property would be willing to indemnify the Town of Vail against any
emergency or accidents, he would have no problem overturning the decision. George
explained that the applicant would be willing to indemnify the town, but felt strongly that the
agreement should be recorded, as future owners might not be willing to comply. Tom
Moorhead said he'd not heard of such an indemnification running with the land. Paul
Johnston moved to overturn the decision of the PEC, conditional upon the owner of the
property indemnifying the Town of Vail. The motion was seconded by Sybill Navas. Mike
Jewett was concerned that vehicles might end up parking on the street if they couldn't get
up the driveway, and Ludwig Kurz commented that he would be in favor of Paul's motion
for two reasons: 1) the percentage by which the grade was in excess was minor, and 2)
because the applicant did not intentionally go over the allowable grade. Sybill stated she
Town Council Evenong Meeting 02106196
would vote in favor, but felt it unfortunate that many designs are being built at the absolute
maximum allowances without leaving room for possible error. Rob agreed, suggesting
applicants needed to allow for a contingency. A vote was taken and passed, 4-3, Mike,
Sybill, Paul and Ludwig in favor; Mayor Armour, Rob Ford and Kevin Foley voting in
40 opposition.
Tom Moorhead asked if it was a requirement that the indemnification agreement be
recorded with the County Clerk & Recorder, and council members agreed that it was a
condition of the motion that the owners of the property execute an indemnification
agreement with the Town of Vail, and further, that the agreement must be executed and
recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to issuing a T.C.O. for
the east -half of the duplex.
The sixth item on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin gave
an update on the railroad abandonment project and asked Council to allocate $4,000 from
council contingency to assist Eagle County with legal fees associated with the project.
Paul Johnston moved to approve the $4,000 contribution and the motion was seconded
by Sybill Navas. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
Bob then invited council members to attend an appreciation luncheon for Town of Vail
employees the following day, to thank town crews for their hard work during January's
. record snow fall.
There being no further business, Rob moved for adjournment. The motion was second by
Ludwig and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 P.M.
ATTEST:
m
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
(Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
!t
Respectfully submitted,
jRoeertW. Armour, Mayor
Town Council fvenonq Meeting 02106196
�y
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
•4X 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADVISORY
February 7, 1996
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR FEBRUARY 6
Work Session Briefs
Council members present. Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Ludwig Kurz
Ludwig Kurz, who was elected to fill a mid -year term during the Jan. 30 special
election, was sworn in by Town Clerk Holly McCutcheon_ Kurz will serve until
November 1997.
--Citizen Participation, Diane Golden
The Council heard from local resident Diane Golden who expressed a concern about
the effectiveness of the town's GRFA (gross residential floor area) provisions. Golden
said the town's GRFA requirements are too restrictive and are driving people out of
town. She said the town should continue to restrict exterior bulk and mass, but should
be less concerned about what takes place within the interior of buildings. Council
members said they would add the topic to their retreat discussion scheduled for Feb.
27. Golden asked the Council to have new policies in place in time for the coming
construction season.
--Site Visit
Council members visited a residence under construction at 795 Potato Patch Drive in
preparation for the evening meeting.
--Volleyball Courts
The Council voted 7-0 to allow the Vail Recreation District to proceed through the
planning process to request a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of
four new sand volleyball courts on town -owned land at the east end of the existing
• soccer field south of Vail Valley Drive. The request will be heard by the Planning and
Environmental Commission at its Feb. 26 meeting, For more information, contact
George Ruther at 479-2145.
--Vail Commons Lottery Criteria
After reviewing various options to structure and prioritize criteria for the Vail Commons
�#) �more�
R CYCLED APER
Council Highlights/Add 1
lottery, the majority of the Council members reacted favorably to:
1) Pursuing a modified point allocation structure with basic eligibility as the preferred
approach to structuring the lottery. Under this approach, individuals would be ranked
based on such factors as length of employment, length of residency and home .
ownership status. Based on the ranking, individuals would qualify for different tiers. A
random drawing would be conducted within each tier, starting with the top tier and
moving through to the next, until all homes are allocated. The strength of this
approach, said senior housing policy planner Andy Knudtsen, is that it allows for a
variety of values to be involved in the ranking without getting too detailed.
2) Requiring financial pre -qualification prior to applying for the lottery,
3) Giving higher priority to applicants who work in Vail, while those who work elsewhere
will be weighted slightly lower. Longevity will be recognized with an emphasis placed
on long-term employees and residents of five or more years.
4) No preferences will be given for length of residency in Vail as compared to other
locations in the Vail Valley.
5) Giving low priority to persons who already own homes; however, should an existing
homeowner agree to deed restrict a current property, the application could be weighted
higher.
6) Making the 37 two -bedroom units available to any lottery applicant (singles, couple,
etc.), while prioritizing the 16 three -bedroom units for families (three or more persons
related by blood, marriage or adoption).
7) Allowing business owners to participate in the lottery only if there are no other
individual purchasers.
During the discussion, several members of the public offered their opinions and
suggestions, including: keep the lottery process as simple as possible; consider
adjusting the 3 percent appreciation cap on resales to the Denver/Boulder Consumer
Price Index; allow for room mates, so long as the unit also is occupied by the owner;
keep the lottery process fair for single applicants and make it as random as possible;
and consider targeting some of the units for critical employees such as hospital
workers, police, fire, etc. Following yesterday's initial discussion and direction provided
by the Council, the proposed lottery application and structure will be refined and
presented for additional public input at a work session on Feb. 20 and at the March 5
evening Council meeting. Demand for the 53 for -sale units is expected to exceed the
supply. To date, more than 200 individuals have requested information on the housing.
For more details, contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department
at 479-2138.
--Youth Recognition Award
After hearing an overview from Paul Johnston, Council members agreed to move
forward in selecting and announcing winners of a new youth recognition award
sponsored by the Town of Vail. The award, which replaces the Chuck Anderson Youth
Award, will honor two high school juniors, one from Battle Mountain, the other from Vail
Mountain School, with a summer internship experience in another country, such as St.
Moritz, Switzerland. The town will provide funds for the students' travel expenses and
(more)
Council Highlights/Add 2
will coordinate other arrangements through the Vail Valley Exchange program, formerly
the Sister Cities Committee. For more details, contact Johnston at 479-1860.
• --Town Council Appointments
Ludwig Kurz was asked to consider serving on four committees: Northwest Colorado
Council of Governments alternate; Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Water
Quality/Quantity Committee alternate; Eagle County Recreation Authority (Berry Creek
Fifth) alternate; and the Colorado Ski Museum and Ski Hall of Fame..
--Information Update
Council members were asked to review the criteria for contributions to outside agencies
in preparation for the 1996 budget. Last year, the Council gave priority to requests that
sought to enhance the town's economic viability through marketing, special events and
other activities, while deferring social services requests to other agencies. The Council
added the topic to its list of discussion items for its Feb. 27 retreat.
Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer said the town has received some
complaints from residents in the Matterhorn neighborhood regarding late -night
snowmobiling in Donovan Park. She said staff will monitor the situation and will
recommend if an ordinance on snowmobiling within the town's boundaries should be
pursued.
• The benefit package for council -appointed board and commission members was
discussed. Currently members of the Vail Valley Marketing Board and Vail Housing
Authority receive no benefits, while members of the Arts in Public Places, Local
Licensing Authority, Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental
Commission receive a minimum benefit of either a blue parking pass or a recreation
pass. Applications for 10 open seats on five boards are due Feb. 14, The Council.will
discuss the benefits in more detail at an upcoming meeting.
--Council Reports
Paul Johnston, who represents the Council on the board of the Chamber of Commerce,
distributed a Vail Valley map which represents the first joint venture between the
Chamber and the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau. He said plans are
progressing for construction of a new tourism information center in Avon which would
also house a new Eagle County Annex.
Rob Ford gave an overview of the Ford Park management study meetings. He said
parking and access issues have dominated the discussions. Since none of the user
. groups have expressed interest in financing a parking structure at the park, Ford said
the study group is reviewing better utilization of current parking facilities and an
extension of bus service from the in -town shuttle route to accommodate events and
other activities at the park.
(more)
Council Highlights/Add 3
Sybill Navas, through her committee assignment on the Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments, reported on an effort to direct excess state revenues to the Department
of Transportation for possible projects in the Vail Valley.
Navas also encouraged the town to become involved in an economic analysis of the •
area conducted by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs at the request of the U.S.
Forest Service. Navas said it's important for the data to be accurate since the Forest
Service will use the study in making land use decisions.
In another committee report, Navas said the Special Events Commission has approved
funding requests for three events: the local mountain bike race series; the Vail
International Hockey Tournament; and a June marketing program sponsored by the
Vail Alpine Garden Foundation. Also, Navas said the Special Events Committee has
suggested revamping town ordinances to allow more banners during events. The
Council agreed to discuss the item at its Feb. 27 retreat. Lastly, Navas said it appears
the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau and Vail Associates are continuing to
make headway in resolving the 1-800 number conflict.
Kevin Foley said he attended a workshop for elected officials sponsored by the
Colorado Municipal League (CML). Vail will host CML's annual conference in June
with an estimated 1,500 delegates. Foley encouraged his colleagues to participate in
the conference.
--Other •
Public Works/Transportation Director Larry Grafel gave an update on snow removal
efforts in January: crews worked the equivalent of 6 weeks within the month; $56,000 in
salaries were paid while equipment costs totaled $96,000; 16 pieces of equipment were
kept running an average of 12 hours a day for a total of 3,600 hours; 780 tons of
cinders and 1,600 gallons of magnesium chloride were used; $33,000 was spent on
contractual services to haul and remove snow; 1,800 truck loads of snow were hauled,
or the equivalent of one football field piled with'22 feet of snow. For additional details,
contact Grafel at 479-2173.
Evening Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Citizen Participation
The Council heard from J.B. Smith of Vail who expressed concern about the regional
transportation authority's progress in expanding the regional transportation system.
Smith called the process extremely bureaucratic. He also complained about people
driving too fast for conditions in and around Vail and asked for the Council's support in •
opposing an increase to the speed limit on the interstate. Smith learned the town has
already sent a letter to the state in opposition of a speed limit increase on Vail Pass
west through Dowd Junction.
--Design Review Board Term Extensions
(more)
Council Highlights/Add 4
The Council voted 7-0 to approve a resolution extending the present terms of two
members of the Design Review Board, Hans Woldrich and Robert Borne, until the
newly appointed members are sworn in on March 6. The terms had been set to expire
• Feb. 1.
--Vail Commons Indemnification
The Council voted 6-1 (Jewett against) to approve a resolution directing the town
manager to enter into an agreement with Stewart Title Guaranty Company to share any
attorneys fees and costs which might be incurred defending any action brought by the
"Common Sense for the Commons" Petitioner's Committee, which has sought to block
the project. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said the indemnification was a reasonable
request by the title company in exchange for providing title insurance for up to $20
million for improvements on the Vail Commons site. In the event of a lawsuit, the
agreement provides that Stewart Title Guaranty Company would be responsible for the
first $7,000 in attorneys fees; the town would be responsible for the second $7,000;
and both entities would split equally all fees in excess of $14,000, Before voting on the
resolution, Councilman Michael Jewett said he chose not to participate in an executive
session discussion of the issue because of his involvement on the Petitioner's
Committee. In response to a question by Council member Sybill Navas, Moorhead said
the review period for a court action in district court challenging the project as arbitrary
and capricious has passed. Ground breaking on the Vail Commons development is
aexpected to occur later this month. For more information, contact Moorhead at 479-
2107.
--Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Denial of Driveway Grade
Variance Request
The Council voted 4-3 (Foley, Ford, Armour against) to overturn denial by the Planning
and Environmental Commission of a driveway grade variance request for a residence
currently under construction at 795 Potato Patch Drive. Following the vote, Council
members. Sybill Navas and Rob Ford emphasized the need for future applicants to plan
responsibly in accounting for margins of error within the framework of the project's
design rather than squeezing plans to the maximum grade, height or square footage,
and then expecting to receive a variance from the town. For more details, contact
George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145.
--Town Manager's Report
During an update on the railroad abandonment project, Town Manager Bob McLaurin
recommended and received approval on a 7-0 vote to appropriate $4,000 to help Eagle
County with legal fees associated with the local action.
McLaurin said the town would be hosting a luncheon today (Wednesday) to thank town
crews for their hard work during January's record snow fall.
(more)
Council Highlights/Add 5
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
February 93 Work Session
All Day Council/Staff Public Process Work Session
PEC/DRB Report
Information Update
Council Reports
February 20 Work Session
PEC Interviews
DRB Interviews
Housing Authority Interviews
Vail Valley Marketing Board Interviews
Continuation of Lottery Criteria Discussion
9 0-Year Budget
Contribution Request Criteria
Revisit Town Council Board/Committee Appointments
Executive Session/Land Negotiations
February 20 Evening Meeting
PEC Appointments
DRB Appointments
Housing Authority Appointments
Vail Valley Marketing Board Appointments
Eagle Valley Land Trust Presentation
February 27 Work Session
DRB/PEC Review
All Day Council Retreat
0
0
eric
johpsona r c t o c t
January 17, 1996
Town of Vail, Town Council
11 S. Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Gw
JAN 17 1996
TOROK DEU= DEPT.
RE: Koenig Residence
Primary/Secondary Residence Improvements
795 Potato Patch Drive
Vail, CO 81657
VARIANCE STATEMENT
This variance is written in order to prevent hardship and increase
practicability for an existing non -conforming condition. A request
to deviate from a strict interpretation of Section 18.58.020 and
Section 17.28.330 involving the items listed below was denied by
the PEC on 1/8/96 is hereby submitted for appeal. The difficulty
lies in a minor construction defect found in the driveway
installation due to a topographic survey error and a request by the
Town Engineer to install an extensive steel guardrail in the
Public -Right -of -Way.
The original heated concrete driveway was designed for a maximum
12% slope as allowed, reviewed and approved by Public Works on
4/6/95. Upon on -site verification on 11/14/95 by the above
representatives it was determined that on the centerline of
driveway, a short (20') section at the bottom exceeded 12%. This
could be attributed to a minor construction defect; however,
following a request by the PEC Worksession for as -built surveys,
the original topo showed errors of 8". The 12/28/95 topo and
follow-up letter by White Survey clarify this fact. This eliminated
any room for error and this hardship has resulted in a request to
appeal the variance denial.
As seen in the enclosed letter of approval by the Fire Marshall,
this area of concern has been mitigated by an extensive fire alarm
system and state-of-the-art driveway snowmelt controls.
The costs associated with completely resolving this matter involve
the cutting, demolition and complete removal of the seamless
hydronic tubing and reinforced concrete and the re -installation of
the same for approximately $70,000. A smaller scale concrete
capping of the related area would be approximately $1,500-$3,000
but the quality, longevity and .upkeep of this solution is highly
questionable. This opinion has been acknowledged by Public Works.
The issue of the steel guardrail along Potato Patch Drive is a last
minute condition attached to the PEC approval of the retaining wall
variance by the Public Works Department to safeguard a condition
that was existent before the project began. As seen in the 7/25/94
topo survey there was no shoulder along Potato Patch Drive before
construction began nor was any shoulder proposed in the 4/6/95
approved drawings.
1000 lionsridge loop • suite 3d 9 vail colorado 81657 • (970) 476-9228 + fax (970) 476-9023
The Contractor has made every effort to restore a 2' gravel
shoulder with at least 5' of 1:2 slope but this is now impossible
to achieve (in a small area) with the driveway and retaining walls
in place. The area requested to be mitigated by the Town Engineer
(adjacent to the shoulder) is also occupied by a 1 1/4 " PVC gas
line @ 30" below grade that may be impacted during construction and
certainly effected for future repairs.
We feel Public Works created a hardship condition in 8/89 when,
according to Gary Hall of PSCo, Director Stan Berryman ordered a
second gas line be placed on the south side of Potato Patch Drive
to eliminated future asphalt utility cuts. PSCo requires
maintenance of the line be performed between the asphalt and any
improvement. Therefore, allowance for future guardrails, such as
is presently requested, was not made and herein lies the hardship.
This also brings up the issue of future maintenance, liability and
shared costs. Initial construction estimates suggest $3500- $4000
installed without having to move the gas line. Should this be
absorbed by the property owner or is there a possibility of shared
costs? Should the railing need maintenance or is damaged, who
should absorb these costs? The barrier also creates a hazard by
limiting sight lines for traffic and casting shadows that create
ice slicks. Who is liable in these instances? While there is the
issue of additional damages created by improvement of the property
there is also the safeguard of homeowners insurance that covers
such matters.
While we agree to the request for matters of safety our own civil
engineer has reached a similar and less obtrusive solution. we
respectfully request these methods be considered in interest of
cost, the likelihood of damage to an underground gas line, reduced
hazards and appearance.
We feel these matters and the consequences to the home owners shall
have no effect on the light, views and safety of the public. Herein
lies the summation of the variance request along with the survey
dated 12/28/95 and letters for the above stated Primary/ Secondary
residence. The above items have been presented and discussed with
the Planning Staff, Public Works and the Planning and Zoning
Commission in previous conferences and this statement is our
understanding of the matters involved. We appreciate any other
points of clarification and should be brought to our attention in
writing.
Retf 11y ubmitted,
Eric Jo 0
ERIC JOHNS ARCHITECT, P.C.
Enclosures: Fire Dept (Mike Magee), White Survey (Daryl White),
PSCo (Gary Hall), Civil Engineering (Jerry Law), Petition (Adj.
Neighbors), Beehive Const. (Ray Kutash),.Longs Excav (Daryl Long).
Casson Concrete Construction (limbo Casson).
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 8, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a wall height variance and driveway grade variance for the
Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato
Patch Subdivision.
Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig
Planner: George Ruther
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Eric Johnson, representing the property owner, is requesting a wall height
variance and a driveway grade variance for a new Primary/Secondary residence under
construction on Lot 26, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. A Building Permit for the
Primary/Secondary residence was issued on April 21, 1995, and construction on the project has
proceeded since that date.
On October 17, 1995, the applicant submitted an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) for staff
review and approval. Staff requires a review and approval of an ILC to insure that the
. improvements under construction comply with the relevant development standards. When staff
reviewed the ILC for Lot 26, it was determined that the retaining walls on the south side of the
driveway, and those on the north side of the driveway, in the front setback exceeded the 3-foot
height limitation pursuant to Section 18.58.020 of the Municipal Code. The heated driveway was
also be over the 12% grade maximum.
Section 18.58.020 of the Municipal Code permits retaining walls up to 3 feet in height in the
front setback, and Section 17.28.030 allows driveway grades up to 12% if heated and
approved by the Town Engineer. Since the applicant is proposing retaining walls up to 6
feet in height in the front setback, and a heated driveway with a finish grade of 14.1%, a
variance approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission is required.
II. BACKGROUND
According to the applicant, the need for the wall height variance and driveway grade variance
requests are the result of minor construction defects.
• On April 6, 1995, the Town of Vail Public Works Department reviewed and approved the
proposed heated driveway grade at 12%. The Public Works Department's review and
approval was based upon a site plan and topographic survey submitted to the Town of
Vail. Additionally, the Fire Department approved the 12% driveway grade once the
applicant revised the site plan to allow for a wider driveway access onto the property.
• On November 14, 1995, an inspection of the finished driveway grade was completed by
the Town Engineers.. The inspection concluded that the finish driveway grade exceeded
the allowed maximum grade of 12% pursuant to Section 17.28.030 of the Municipal Code.
The finished driveway grade was determined to be up to 14.1 % over a 20 foot long
section of the driveway.
• On December 11, 1995, a worksession was held with the Town of Vail Planning and
Environmental Commission to discuss the proposed variances (See Attachment 1). At
that meeting, the applicant presented a proposal to construct another three-foot tall
boulder retaining wall along Potato Patch Drive. The purpose of the additional retaining
wall was to facilitate the reconstruction of a two -foot wide gravel shoulder along the
street. Upon detailed review of the site, it has been determined by the contractor's
Consulting Engineer and the Town of Vail Public Works Department, that the pre-existing
gravel shoulder cannot be restored and still maintain a safe slope adjacent to the street.
Therefore, Public Works is now requiring that the contractor install 36 linear feet of steel
guardrail, including flared -end sections, along Potato Patch Drive, should the wall height
variance request be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The
purpose of the guardrail is to protect the general public and the property owner from
vehicles sliding off of Potato Patch and down into the.driveway and house (See
Attachment 2 ).
The driveway grade variance was also discussed at the Planning and Environmental
Commission worksession. The driveway as currently constructed, exceeds the 12%
maximum allowed by the Municipal Code. The applicant has requested a variance to
allow the existing driveway to remain as constructed. According to the "as -built" survey
submitted by the applicant, the driveway exceeds the 12% maximum over a 20' section of
the driveway. The maximum grade on the existing driveway is 14.1%. According to the •
applicant, the excess driveway grade is due to minor defects in the construction process.
It has been suggested by the Planning and Environmental Commission that the applicant
research the possibility of "capping" the driveway to resolve the grade issue. The
applicant has met with a Consulting Engineer to discuss the possibility of "capping" the
driveway. The applicant has indicated that according to the Consulting Engineer, the long
term longevity of the "capping" process, including the use of special concrete additives
and epoxy, is questionable. The concern of the Consulting Engineer revolves around the
extremely thin layer of concrete that will be added to the driveway. The applicant is
continuing to research the "capping" process.
At the December 11th worksession, staff had identified several issues which we wanted
to discuss further with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant.
These issues included the redesign of the retaining wall along the south side of the
driveway, and the need to redesign and regrade the landscaping in response to the
change to the retaining wall system. The applicant has submitted a set of plan revisions
illustrating the redesign of the retaining walls on the south side of the driveway, as well as
a new landscape and grading plan (See Attachment 3). The applicant has indicated that
the retaining wall south of the driveway will be modified by adding one more planting zone
at the southernmost aspen to raise the grade of the top of the wall, thus shortening one of
the areas where the wall is now just over four feet. The applicant has indicated a desire
to leave the top course of stones along the driveway to act as a deterrent to vehicles
sliding off of the driveway, and to prevent the erosion of the driveway subsurface.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing to amend the landscape plan by adding three
additional Colorado Blue Spruce, twelve five -gallon Red Twig Dogwoods, and eight Blue
Rug Junipers to the previously approved landscape plan. The additional landscaping is
intended to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed six foot tall retaining walls.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
0 Comnliance with the Town of Vail Zpnina Code.
A. Pursuant to Section 18.62.060 (Criteria and Findings), before acting on a variance
application the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the
requested variance with respect to the variance Criteria and Findings. Upon
review of the Criteria and Findings, staff recommends denial of the applicant's
request for a wall height variance and driveway grade variance.
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity;
The relationship of the requested variances to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity of the Koenig Residence will have
minimal, if any, negative impacts on existing or potential uses and
structures. The retaining walls are located on the downhill side of Potato
Patch Drive. The walls will not be visible from any other location than the
applicant's property and the adjoining lots to the east and west. To
mitigate the visual impact of the retaining walls, the applicant has
proposed to add more landscaping on the property. The additional
landscaping will be placed to take maximum benefit of its' screening
ability.
Similiar to the wall height variance, the driveway grade variance will have
minimal, if any, negative impacts on existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity. The request to exceed the maximum grade
allowable by 2.1% will only affect the users of the driveway. The proposed
driveway will remain heated to help ensure all-weather access. Staff
would like to point out however that since the adoption of the 12%
driveway grade standard in 1991, no driveway grade variances have ever
been granted.
The approval or denial of the requested variance does not create
precedence for future driveway grade variance requests.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites In the vicinity
or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
privilege;
The applicant has requested the minimum relief necessary from the strict
and literal interpretation and enforcement of the driveway grade and wall
height regulations to achieve compatibility with the objectives of the
Municipal Code. The applicant has agreed and proposed to add and
delete boulders in the retaining walls where possible to reduce the finished
wall's height. According to the Consulting Engineer, the retaining walls
constructed to the north of the driveway are the minimum necessary to
support the earth behind. In some locations, the Engineer has indicated
that it may be desirable to increase the wall heights, however, this is not
necessary. The applicant has submitted a set of Engineer's stamped
plans to the Town of Vail as requested by the Planning and Environmental
Commission. A letter from the Consulting Engineer has been attached
(See Attachment 4)
The applicant has neither proposed to increase, nor reduce the existing
driveway grade. Instead, the applicant has requested that the driveway
grade be permitted to remain at the grade constructed. At the present
time, only 20 feet of the total driveway length exceeds the 12% maximum
grade.
Staff believes that the applicant is asking for the minimum amount of relief
from the code necessary to achieve the desired objective. Staff, however,
is concerned that granting the requested variances may result in the
granting of special privilege. As discussed at the worksession meeting,
the applicant had originally submitted, and the Town approved, a Building
Permit set of drawings that illustrated the ability to construct the residence
with a maximum 12 % driveway grade and three foot tall retaining walls in
the front setback. If the applicant had come to the Planning and
Environmental Commission requesting a wall height and driveway grade
variance prior to the start of construction on the residence, it is quite likely
that the variance would not have been approved because it appears no
physical hardship or practical difficulty existed on the property. It would
appear now that a practical difficulty exists. The issue, however, is that
the practical difficulty of removing and reconstructing the retaining walls
and driveway was self-imposed by the applicant and the contractor and
their representatives.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety;
Staff believes the wall height and driveway grade variances will have
minimal, if any, negative impacts on the above described criteria. Staff
would like to point out'that from a public safety standpoint, the Town of
Vail Fire Department has granted their approval to the driveway grade
variance request ( See Attachment 5).
Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable
to the proposed variance. 0
Staff has not identified any other factors or criteria applicable to the
proposed variances.
The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a
variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute.a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district;
• 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity;
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the wall height and
driveway grade variances. Upon review of the Criteria and Findings listed in Section III of this
memorandum, staff feels the applicant has failed to meet the findings'necessary to recommend
approval. Staff agrees that the requested variances will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious, to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the
Koenig Residence. Staff is concerned, however, that the applicant has not addressed finding 131
since the granting of the requested variances may constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the wall
height and driveway grade variances, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the
following condition:
1) That 36 lineal feet of steel guardrail and required flared -end sections be installed along
Potato Patch Drive in a location approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department.
0
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 11, 1995
draft minutes
A request for a worksession for a wall height variance and driveway grade for the Koenig
residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision.
Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig
Planner: George Ruther
George gave an overview of the worksession to discuss the wall height variance and the
driveway grade. Two walls are now over the T height limitation. Public Works would like to have
a 2' wide shoulder along Potato Patch. Staff would like the contractor to explain where the
discrepancy happened between the approved set of plans and what got constructed. Public
Works said the driveway is over 12%. Mike McGee (Fire Department) indicated that the building
may need to be sprinklered in order for the grade to be approved. The driveway is heated, but
there is no requirement from the Town to turn on the heat and also no enforcement. The current
owners have provided a disclaimer releasing the Town from any liability.
Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Construction and contractor for the Koenig residence stated the
intent was to try to preserve the native plantings. Upon excavation he moved the existing
aspens. If wasn't for the rock wall those trees would have had to be cut. They tried to remove
as little as possible. They only brought in one truckload of rock because they were able to use
existing stone which explains the difference in the rock size. The slope of the roadfill was over
40%. The change in elevation from the highpoint to the driveway was not supplied in the original
survey. There is almost 13' In elevation change.
Eric Johnson, the architect, gave a 23% guideline. The staging area that the Fire Department •
wanted was an additional 4'. There is only one area in front of the east garage doors where they
raised the wall. Durability and strength were the reasons the wall needed to go to that height.
They didn't make a cut along the road due to the presence of utilities and mature trees and felt
that that was the primary reason for the decision. On the south side the intent was to preserve
the aspen trees. If they used a three foot stepping process they would have ended up with five
walls. The rocks along the roadway created the higher wall. He discussed these changes with
the neighbors and decided to mitigate with landscaping to make the wall appear less high. The
neighbors were ok with the look and liked the rock walls.
Terri Martinez thought a guard rail should be put in. Ray Coutash said that would have created
more problems. Their engineer is writing a letter to keep the earth the way it is and not put any
more rock walls there. Ray raised the north side 9" to bring the driveway up, and came up 34,
short of 12% grade. Thursday evening he had a 12% grade. Because he never got a response
from Terri Martinez the Inspection never came together. He had difficulty with the pour and
called for two inspections. Inspections to check rough grades never materialized. He made the
decision to go ahead with the driveway. It was a great surprise when it didn't make grade.
Portions of the center of the driveway do make grade and he feels that should be the criteria.
George Ruther introduced Terri Martinez as the project engineer. •
Henry Pratt doesn't see the driveway grade as a big deal. He is for adding a second wall along
the street. He encouraged the applicant to do double or triple walls without impacting trees.
ATTACHKENT # 1
Dalton Williams said the wall height is to keep the neighborhood from looking like a bunch of
walls. Dalton is not concerned about the wall except for safety reasons. He thinks a guardrail
would make it safer. The Town goes bonkers over driveways. The Town gave an extra 2%
grade allowance just so we would never have to grant another variance. You can't add 3%4" of
concrete without sloughing off.
Ray Coutash said he is low in the driveway relative to the slope of the driveway.
George Ruther said the bottom needs to come up to lesson the grade at the top.
Dalton Williams said he is not in favor of granting a variance for the driveway
Jeff Bowen said whatever needs to be done to get the driveway to the correct grade needs to be
done. He is concerned with the heating being so deep into the concrete. He would like to have
an Engineer design the rock retaining walls and will not approve the request unless that is done.
Greg Amsden agrees with Henry Pratt to go with the existing walls to save the landscaping. As
for the driveway, he agrees with Dalton. When the extra 2% grade was allowed, it was
supposed to give leeway. Greg has a tendency to be lenient with it.
Kevin Deighan would like to see some type of solution between staff and the applicant. He has
no problem with the retaining walls. He would like to see an Engineer's certificate saying the
retaining wails will hold.
Greg Moffet said the retaining wall problem is the result of procedure. There is a somewhat
contradictory Zoning Code. Greg's concern is hearing about it after the fact and not before it was
put it. He agrees with Henry to terrace as much as possible to save trees. He is also sensitive
to the safety issues with the driveway. He agrees with the guardrail or rock wall on the south
side. He would like to see an attempt made to get the'driveway within code.
Jeff Bowen stated that one of the problems that exist on Potato Patch, and Garmisch as well, are
that rock walls present a terrible safety issue. High retaining walls present a safety threat for
children falling off. He wants an engineer to say the retaining walls will last a long time and at a
height that a car or child will not fall off. He will let the driveway issue go.
Dalton Williams said he will be ok with an Engineer's letter approving the retaining walls.
Greg Moffet stated this is a worksession.
Ray Coutash assured Jeff that the heat in the driveway does work very satisfactorily. It has
melted a 3' snowdrift.
George Ruther asked the PEC for direction.
Terry Martinez stated that we do need a 2' shoulder and slope. A 2' rock wall would launch
vehicles. Recovery on a 2' shoulder could happen, but there is no guarantee. Steep grades on
driveways encourage people to park on the roads, rather than in the driveway, which presents a
problem for snowplows.
• George Ruther began the summarization of the direction.
Jeff Bowen said it is critical it be certified by an Engineer.
Dalton Williams said the driveway needs to be redone.
Greg Amsden asked what the Town's position was on replacing previous driveways.
Dalton Williams assumed that if we required a heated driveway, we should require it to be turned
on.
George Ruther said it is impossible to police whether heated driveways are turned on. •
Dalton Williams said a condition should be that the heated driveway be operational at all times.
George Ruther had preliminary conversations with the Fire Department. They feel the house
needs to be retrosprinklered.
Henry Pratt said one of the conditions of approval should be that the Fire Department may not be
able to access the house.
Eric Johnson (architect) said the owners have signed a waiver absolving the Town from any
liability.
Greg Moffet said he doesn't like waivers, just indemnifications.
Eric Johnson said the owner would take on the full responsibility and mitigate whatever the Town
wants. Snow plowing generates a huge amount of snow. A guardrail inhibits snowplowing.
Henry Pratt mentioned that a snowblower can throw snow over any guard rails.
n
�J
is
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Public Works Department
. DATE: January 2, 1996
SUBJECT: Konig driveway/ wall height variance
1. The architect is requesting a variance for a driveway grade which exceeds the maximum grade
allowed by 2.1 %, as well as a wall height variance for wails exceeding the maximum height of
3' by 2' 2".
H.
III. Upon review of Section 17.28.330 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Public Works Department
recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors:
A. No variances for driveway grade have been granted since 1991 when the Town began to
enforce the ordinance. All driveways that have been built since then have been in
conformance with the Town standard.
B. The Town Engineer will allow the contractor to exceed the maximum allowable grade of
12% to account for inadequate surveys, etc. The contractor can exceed the maximum grade
by 10%, or go to an absolute maximum of 13.2%, before we would ask the contractor to
submit a request for a variance. In this case, the grade exceeds the absolute maximum
allowable at 14.1%. To allow the contractor to use a driveway at 14.1% would definitely
be a grant of special privilege.
C. Allowing the driveway to remain at 14.1 % will potentially cause access problems for the
current owner as well as any future owners. Potential problems include bottoming out or
scraping if they drive larger vehicles on the drive, as well as problems with emergency or
delivery vehicle access, particularilly if the owner chooses not to turn on the heating
system.
D. The wall height variance as proposed is acceptable, but the contractor will be required to
install 36 linear feet of guardrail, including flared end sections on both ends. The guardrail
Should be installed to protect the general public from sliding off of Potato Patch Drive,
down into the Kong driveway/home. The contractor was unable to restore the preexisting
shoulder on Potato Patch Drive and still meet safe slope requirements for this section of the
property frontage.
ATTACHMENT #2
do
+ f
f
• '16•li'4 llWalpd
lRaminrTiv
IZ"'� 9s'inJ 114d lIrlaNDo 9*Y14
} � -u.o
11 .A VMMOY .4M .➢I�f 9tI94O1�1'1 �Q� �
�—al.•f
. �
s1,Yl/4 n4'si J>.; is !
iwNlniw'Y tl II�AG
y
O
Dy
M pp
a ! .l2:1..re BG i
\ s e
�My* i
0
r
-1 • •h Lm ��1•i
JJ.L Isc.l•+ '1.h ) t—1+•W ciN.7 per:
,y, •-I�dr"I �I>yl�lay! '.18d�no� hlada.
L I L
if'� 1-094
kAl
• n ham.
d7.41'+y'1t 4 Ndai.L H 1,
S,
f.;
l
S'
s.
3•
}
40
Jerry C. Law, R.E.
335 Donegan Road
Glenwood Springs, CC 81601
December 28, 1995
George Ruther, Town Planner
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Co 81657
RE: The Koenig Residence Wall Height Variance
Dear Mr. Ruther:
1 nave prepared the following summary paragraphs out of respect for your limited
time to study the many different variance cases which ,You review. I respectfully
request that the wall height variance be allowed based on the positive aspects of
the existing walls versus the unsafe and sparsely landscaped 3' wails shown in
Exhibits C-1,C-2,C-3,C-4.
THE GOOD
The existing walls (see Exhibits B--1,13-2,B-3,B-4) were built using sound construc-
tion principles with well compacted soil held in place with Mirafi fabric covered
with tightly interlocking boulders. The wails will provide a stable service life
long after the landscaping has matured and established extensive root systems.
THE BAD
It is physically impossible to construct a 2' road shoulder, a 5' slope at 2:1,
then step the rock walls 3' vertically within the space allowed at the Koenig
residence.
THE UGLY
See Exhibits C-1,C-2,C-3,C-4. The series of 3' walls would be mostly rock exposed
with 'very little landscaping in between and only a 2' shoulder with no 5' slope
at 2:1 (unsafe).
Respectfully submitted,
�&7 e 4.-z
Jerry C. Law, P.E.
ATTACHMENT S4
r 'r'Y rY :+ #k
u
1
TOWN of VAIL
42 Wsst Meadow Drive mail Fire Department
Vail, Colorado 81d47
303-479-2250
January a, 1996
George Ruther
Town of Vail Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Koenig Request for Variance on Wall Height and Driveway Grade
Dear George,
The Vail Fire Department completed another plan review and conducted a site visit
this morning at 795 Potato Patch,
Based on the observations we made during the site visit and having again
reevaluated the plans and conditions as they exist, we do not object to the granting of the
variance provided the structure is provided with an approved and monitored fire alarm
system.
Please advise us as to the PEC's decision.
Sincerely,
Michael McGee
Fire Marshal
ATTACHMENT #5
TOTAL P.01
0
sII E COPY
George Ruther gave an overview and said the Steinbergs were appealing the staff's
interpretation of the Zoning Analysis. The Steinbergs were not present and were appealing that
a third dwelling unit on the property was the concern they had, since only two dwelling units were
allowed. Staff was recommending upholding the staffs zoning analysis.
Rick Rosen, representing Sam Cook, said Town Council should not have sent it back to the PEC.
• The addition is a wet bar sink and lemon refrigerator. Section 18.04.190 states the definition of a
kitchen does not apply to this addition. It is simply a bedroom with a sink. The code is real clear
and we should not be here. He didn't appreciate the Steinbergs writing a letter and not having
any representation at the meeting.
George Ruther said Tom Moorhead could not be here. Tom was looking for an agreement from
the property owner to get on the record that the intent is not to be used as a third dwelling unit.
Sam Cook, the owner of the house, has 4 children who each have 2 children. It is simply an
extra bedroom. He regrets the problem with the neighbor.
Lynn Fritzlen, Mr. Cooks architect, wanted to assure staff that they have gone to elaborate
lengths to stay within the constraints of the Zoning Code, even though the house was built in '64.
There were no problems by anyone on the Board.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to uphold the staffs Zoning Analysis and that it be approved in a
manner where the PEC agrees with the review.
Kevin Deighan seconded the motion.
0 The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0,
A request for a worksession for a wall height variance and driveway grade for the Koenig
residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision.
Applicant: Eric Johnson. f
Planner:
George gave an overview of the worksession to discuss the wall height variance and the
driveway grade. Two walls are now over the 3' height limitation. Public Works would like to have
a 2' wide shoulder along Potato Patch. Staff would like the contractor to explain where the
discrepancy happened between the approved set of plans and what got constructed. Public
Works said the driveway is over 12%. Mike McGee (Fire Department) indicated that the building
may need to be sprinklered in order for the grade to be approved. The driveway is heated, but
there is no requirement from the Town to turn on the heat and also no enforcement. The current
owners have provided a disclaimer releasing the Town from any liability.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 11,1995
Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Construction and contractor for the Koenig residence stated the
intent was to try to preserve the native plantings. Upon excavation he moved the existing
aspens. If wasn't for the rock wall those trees would have had to be cut. They tried to remove
as little as possible. They only brought in one truckload of rock because they were able to use
existing stone which explains the difference in the rock size. The slope of the roadfill was over
40%. The change in elevation from the highpoint to the driveway was not supplied in the original
survey. There is almost 13' in elevation change.
Eric Johnson, the architect, gave a 23% guideline. The staging area that the Fire Department •
wanted was an additional 4'. There is only one area in front of the east garage doors where they
raised the wall. Durability and strength were the reasons the wall needed to go to that height.
They didn't make a cut along the road due to the presence of utilities and mature trees and felt
that that was the primary reason for the decision. On the south side the intent was to preserve
the aspen trees. If they used a three foot stepping process they would have ended up with five
walls. The rocks along the roadway created the higher wall. He discussed these changes with
the neighbors and decided to mitigate with landscaping to make the wall appear less high. The
neighbors were ok with the look and liked the rock walls.
Terri Martinez thought a guard rail should be put in. Ray Coutash said that would have created
more problems. Their engineer is writing a letter to keep the earth the way It is and not put any
more rock walls there. Ray raised the north side 9" to bring the driveway up, and came up 34,
short of 12% grade. Thursday evening he had a 12% grade. Because he never got a response
from Terri Martinez the inspection never came together. He had difficulty with the pour and
called for two inspections. Inspections to check rough grades never materialized. He made the
decision to go ahead with the driveway. It was a great surprise when it didn't make grade.
Portions of the center of the driveway do make grade and he feels that should be the criteria.
George Ruther introduced Terri Martinez as the project engineer. 9
.Henry Pratt doesn't see the driveway grade as a big deal. He is for adding a second wall along
the street. He encouraged the applicant to do double or triple walls without impacting trees.
Dalton Williams said the wall height is to keep the neighborhood from looking like a bunch of
walls. Dalton is not concerned about the wall except for safety reasons. He thinks a guardrail
would make it safer. The Town goes bonkers over driveways. The Town gave an extra 2%
grade allowance just so we would never have to grant another variance. You can't add 3"-4" of
concrete without sloughing off.
Ray Coutash said he is low in the driveway relative to the slope of the driveway.
George Ruther said the bottom needs to come up to lesson the grade at the top.
Dalton Williams said he is not in favor of granting a variance for the driveway.
Jeff Bowen said whatever needs to be done to get the driveway to the correct grade needs to be
done. He is concerned with the heating being so deep into the concrete. He would like to have
an Engineer design the rock retaining walls and will not approve the request unless that is done.
LJ
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 11, 1995
Greg Amsden agrees with Henry Pratt to go with the existing walls to save the landscaping. As
for the driveway, he agrees with Dalton. When the extra 20/6 grade was allowed, it was
supposed to give leeway. Greg has a tendency to be lenient with it.
Kevin Deighan would like to see some type of solution between staff and the applicant. He has
no problem with the retaining walls. He would like to see an Engineer's certificate saying the
retaining walls will hold.
• Greg Moffet said the retaining wall problem is the result of procedure. There is a somewhat
contradictory Zoning Code. Greg's concern is hearing about it after the fact and not before it was
put it. He agrees with Henry to terrace as much as possible to save trees. He is also sensitive
to the safety issues with the driveway. He agrees with the guardrail or rock wall on the south
side. He would like to see an attempt made to get the driveway within code.
Jeff Bowen stated that one of the problems that exist on Potato Patch, and Garmisch as well, are
that rock walls present a terrible safety issue. High retaining walls present a safety threat for
children falling off. He wants an engineer to say the retaining walls will last a long time and at a
height that a car or child will not fall off. He will let the driveway issue go.
Dalton Williams said he will be ok with an Engineer's letter approving the retaining walls.
Greg Moffet stated this is a worksession.
Ray Coutash assured Jeff that the heat in the driveway does work very satisfactorily. It has
melted a 3' snowdrift.
George Ruther asked the PEC for direction.
• Terry Martinez stated that we do need a 2' shoulder and slope. A 2' rock wall would launch
vehicles. Recovery on a 2' shoulder could happen, but there is no guarantee. Steep grades on
driveways encourage people to park on the roads, rather than in the driveway, which presents a
problem for snowplows.
n
George Ruther began the summarization of the direction.
Jeff Bowen said it is critical it be certified by an Engineer.
Dalton Williams said the driveway needs to be redone.
Greg Amsden asked what the Town's position was on replacing previous driveways.
Dalton Williams assumed that if we required a heated driveway, we should require it to be turned
on.
George Ruther said it is impossible to police whether heated driveways are turned on.
Dalton Williams said a condition should be that the heated driveway be operational at all times.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 11, 1995
1
George Ruther had preliminary conversations with the Fire Department. They feel the house
needs to be retrosprinklered.
Henry Pratt said one of the conditions of approval should be that the Fire Department may not be
able to access the house.
Eric Johnson (architect) said the owners have signed a waiver absolving the Town from any
liability.
Greg Moffet said he doesn't like waivers, just indemnifications.
Eric Johnson said the owner would take on the full responsibility and mitigate whatever the Town
wants. Snow plowing generates a huge amount of snow. A guardrail inhibits snowplowing.
Henry Pratt mentioned that a snowblower can throw snow over any guard rails.
7. "Council Reports."
a. A vacancy existed on the PEC board created by Bob Armour.
b. Call-up of Serrano's.
C. Golden Peak has gone before the Town Council for a first reading. Kevin Deighan
said he heard that the Council was going to require a parking structure.
d. The Bob Borne denial was overturned by Council.
Henry Pratt heard that Council overturned some of PEC's architectural approvals. He is not sure
to what extent the Council has overturned the PEC recommendations.
8. Approval of November 27, 1995 PEC minutes.
Jeff Bowen moved that the minutes be approved.
Henry Pratt had changes on page 20 to delete the 7th line.
Greg Moffet had some deletions on page 20.
Dalton Williams had changes on page 20.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the November 27, 1995 minutes as modified.
Henry Pratt seconded the motion.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
Dalton Williams said he doesn't plan on running again for the PEC. He is stepping down due to
time retraints but has enjoyed his 6 years on the Board.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to adjorn the meeting.
Dalton Williams seconded the motion.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
The meeting adjorned at 4:50 p.m.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 11,1995 10
-�-�� - \ Ifccllivc (',onstrrEci3ora (`.�r'x�qua�ay
� � 12l-Sii llovc�
11AMPImont. Colo. Rt1.501
o 651411285 metro 447-NM6 i
Town of Vail
Community Development
75 South Frontage Rd.
Vail, Co.
January 1, 1995
Attn: George Ruther
Re: Koenig Residence
795 Potato Patch Dr.
Vail, Co.
Dear Sirs,
Our proposal for the work relating to our variance application is outlined below. The meeting
with Terry Martinez, Eric Johnson, and yourself on Friday, December 29, 1995 was very helpful
in evaluating the engineering report and determining our course.
We request that the variance for the rock walls north of the drive be granted, leaving the
walls at their present height. Cleaning up of the road right of way, landscape planting and minor
grade work will be completed in the spring. As outlined in the engineering report no more
• excavation along the road will be done, this will ensure that the load capacity of the road fill and
the shoulder can be preserved as well as providing a safety zone for the public right of way. The
visual impact of this wall will be minimized through the landscape and the planting of ground
covers within the interlocking rock wall.
The wall south of the drive will be modified by adding one more planting zone at the
southern most aspen to raise the grade at the toe of the wall thus shortening one of the areas
where the wall is now just over four feet. The remainder of the wall would be left at its existing
height, the stone steps will shorten the height of the wall near the house, and provide access.
This will leave one section of the wall slightly taller than the three foot height, we have planted a
Balsam Fir in the planting zone in front of this section, it will stabilize the earthwork and visually
mitigate the wail height. This wall will also be planted with ground covers and improved in the
spring Iandscaping.We wish to leave the top course of stone as the deterrent to sliding off the
drive and to prevent erosion and the undermining of the fill that supports the concrete drive. The
zone between these rocks and the concrete serves as a curb and is better able to warn a driver
of the edge without the likelihood of becoming stuck or going beyond the drive without a possible
recovery. The sloping character of the wall will be enhanced by the removal of the rubble stone
stored there at present, and the wall will be much safer and attractive upon completion,
resembling the natural rock indigenous to the region,
The driveway grade is an issue much troubling me. Our engineering consultants support the
granting of a variance based on the drives construction and minor grade defect. To achieve
compliance a capping process has been evaluated. The long term viability of the cap process,
. even with special add mixtures and epoxies, has been questioned and no warranty on the
process is possible. We will be asking Mike McGee, the towns fire marshal) , to evaluate the as
built survey and to visit the site and see the work. I believe that access is the key issue and there
are alternatives to the staging area on the drive that satisfy the 150 ft. rule and provide
protection to the site, the firemen and their equipment. the drive design was based on survey
information that contains two errors making this an unnecessary hardshipand an extremely
difficult design and engineering task. The grade did not reveal the nature of the wall at the
northwest property comer and the second error of a much more substantial nature is the grade at
the drive along Potato Patch is actually .8 ft. or between 7 and 9 inches higher than the approved
drawings show it. This additional height removed any tolerance from the driveway grades. This
second error was discovered in evaluating the as built survey and interpreting the earlier survey
work and drawings. This Is a very sensitive Issue and I hope that we are able to resolve this
without compromising the Intent of the statute and the process of variance.
The nature of the drives construction may help in the decision to grant a variance. The hydronic
heat system is a 70% glycol closed loop. More Important Is the control, a Tekmar controller
"sees" precipitation it turns on and off the 2 boiler, 2 pump system as the temperature, snow, and
Ice require heat. Unlike many systems this costs much less to run and is automated where the
system remains in the ready mode until needed, the system is on and is supported by backups.
This system is repeated In both units with slight variation.
It has always been my intent and the owners intent to fully comply with codes and
ordinances. In an effort to satisfy the comprehensive plans guidelines we have made every effort
to unlfy the home with the site, saving the native trees by moving them , utilizing the Indigenous
rock and plants and preserving the natural character of the site. I would request that you grant
this variance based on the strength of the engineering reports and the efforts to fulfill the Intent
of the codes and the statutes governing our building project. •
Thank you for you consideration,
Sincerely,
Raymond Kutash- Beehive Construction
w - BccHivc Construction Comitany
12�C EEovcr
l.ongmontt. Colo. 141111501
n 651-3249 metro 447-8866
Town of Vail
Community Development
75 South Frontage Rd,
Vail, CO
January 23, 1996
Town Council:
The section of road above the Koenig residence at 795 Potato Patch is along a dead end road.
The project is along a straight section of road with moderate slope not far down from the end.
Town engineers are asking the owners to install a thirty six foot guardrail west of the drive.
Other similar road sections do not have guardrail. The building project has added shoulder
where steep slope with no shoulder fell off before construction. The rock wall and fill have
provided access and a road buffer as well as preserving indigenous plantings and aspen groves.
The guardrail would add the risks of ice shading, higher accumulated snow from plowing
operations, and blocked sight lines for cars entering and leaving this drive. These risks outweigh
the limited protection provided by the proposed rail. As an alternative we would prefer you allow
a low landscape visual barrier and not require a guardrail.
• Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely: }
Ray Kutash
Beehive Construction
Sharon and Gary Koenig - Owners
Barbara and Bob Dowie - Owners
We are signing this at the request of our neighbors:
n
U
i0'Nj4 OF VAIL, EAGLE CouN�Y+ c;UWKAUU
__.___ •__. ,P m+u` s9ss< V POTA70 PATCH OR1Vf
Sz3 �
9z.56
6592 6�
95 2f+.
11 P6
c568.39 a669.25
d d590A6 8590.57 /
. d590.04 0 o a05gB.o2 0 0 o5SB54'2
6.0 c c c. o aQ p J/( na56.69
0 o658E�30 0 , g580.955� / .
P
5BB9.50 ® oB588d90 oB586.34 a o o o r
0 6 _ f �sW,r ort4nr c ROCK WN L� a ae 5.39 g �85.16
4wlR'AtRE ® o a 1 28ta p a o o
L. p1p o ,pg;B283o oB587A7 C o 5g 56{A5 59{e6585.32 �
0 085`�8.24 5d m tt� ^`81.55 �egge.7b
c o a o
00�6.11 a o �P2.58 � 588.�
B5B<.75 �
O 4 582-91 5d t�
OB5BB.60 ppp D 1.iJ y7 ao�5Bg.05 ,
. 8567.19 ®P od5is _ _ a
Q o
a 85g8.31° ° e ° 65
® C 2p0 ,_"` ---�.. - a +' _: .. e° �f•-..-.do65B2.96
8585.89 ® p 562T _""'_ ..-�._. `I°4• +._ .-..v _ - ' _ -. °° ��8yy5• �
POBSgW 1 owee.3a
PPa0-bga^`�"-- °ao
P
P pwP d5B2.fS J ngB'=4D n9014 fl.$2. A'�7" uo.53 RO f 79.5 579.DB 3$'i
Peyghp .lpm
5D ! g5•''T o °° ° 12 %°°o° } aM,•[i1,,
Ap a3 ( a5
O OJfg�2 gS81' 0.582- � B 42 I x p583.P2 a � ° o c �' a 8.56 76.51
a 'B0.13
Fds.2q ( t
79.21 /
OW7-24 0 G1tAPHIC 5�
s
f4s7�95 � Iue - 4
a MpDATES ASPEN TREE
I7S.D7 aYY¢ INDICATES EVERC�E
'"'OKuNE J-� 'AF
IpRIVEWAY A
f l0T PATCH F0.
Ir/ - "AIL/pO"r AWN OF VAVL
1
�IAJQ,�LIJ'Wi� CN �I. �p g"CP
SUBDIVISIONS
S. Alleys - Alleys shall be provided if required by the planning
commission. The minimum wiidth of the alley shall be
twenty feet. Dead-end alleys shall not be permitted. All
alleys shall be paved.
6.
Easements - Easements shall be provided for all utilities,
drainage ways, channels, or streams which traverse across
the subdivision.
7.
Block lengths - The length, width, and shapes of blocks
shall be determined by the type of use, zoning
requirements, needs for convenient access, circulation and
safety of street traffic, and limitations and opportunities of
topography.
8.
Cul-de-sacs - Cul-de-sac streets, however, shall be
designed as minor or local with a right-of-way bulb of fifty
foot radius and pavement radius of forty feet.
9.
Street width -Street width shall conform to the following:
CLASS
R-O,W PAVED SHOULDER DESIGN MAX MIN. CURVE FUTURE
wom VMM SPEED ORADE96 RADIUS AM
Arterial
(Frontage)
70 12' 8 50 6 650 750 and
per lane over
Collector
50 24 4 40 7 250 300-750
Local
50 22 3 30 8 60 150-300
Minor
(Private)
40 22 2 30 9 5o 0-150
Driveway
— 12 1 --- 8► 20 —
B. Horizontal Alignment. The major considerations in horizontal
alignment design are: safety, grade profile, road type, design
speed, sight distance, and topography. All these factors must
be balanced to produce an alignment that is safest, most
economical, and adequate for the type of road proposed.
Horizontal alignment must provide at least the minimum
stopping sight distance for the design speed at all points. This
'Maximum grade for driveways may be up to 10% if the Town Engineers approval
is obtained. If the driveway is proposed to be heated, the grade may be up to 12rfo .
if the Town Engineers approval is obtained.
298-26
(Vail 4-7-92)
A
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Attorney
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Vail Town Council
FROM:
Robert W. McLaurin'
Town Manager
DATE:
February 2, 1996
SUBJECT:
Town Manager's Report
Lunch with PEC
The Planning and Environmental Commission wanted to invite the Town Council to have lunch with
them on Monday, February 12. This meeting will be held in the Town Council Chambers and will
begin at 12W noon. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss local housing and how the
Planning Commission and Council can best work together to accomplish this important goal. If you
are able to attend please R.S.V.P. to Susan Connelly at 479-2138.
Public Participation Workshop
As you are aware, on February 13th we will host a public participation workshop for the Council and
selected members of the TOV staff. The purpose of this workshop is to provide a better
understanding of public participation, to understand specific public participation objectives and
techniques to accomplish these objectives: It is our hope that this session will improve our ability
to manage the various "processes" that we undertake in debating, deciding and implementing
public policy.
This workshop will begin at 8:00 a.m. and wilt continue until 5:00 p.m.. It will be held at the
Evergreen Lodge, and lunch will be provided. We hope you will be able to join us as we believe
it will help you be more effective in dealing with the many complex issues that you will be facing
over the coming two years. For additional information please contact Suzanne Silverthorn at 479-
2115. For your information I have attached a list of the participants for this workshop.
RWM/aw
• Ca7ownmqupl
L,,$ RECYCLED PAPER
Citizen Participation Training
8 am to 5 pm, Evergreen Lodge
Lunch will be provided
FEBRUARY 13
FEBRUARY 14
Bob Armour
Sybill Navas
Kevin Foley
Rob Ford
Michael Jewett
Ludwig Kurz
Paul Johnston
Bob McLaurin
Bob McLaurin
Pam Brandmeyer
Pam Brandmeyer
Community Development Staff (16)
Community Development Staff (16)
Suzanne Silverthorn
Suzanne Silverthorn
Holly McCutcheon
John Power
John Power
Steve Thompson
Steve Thompson
Chris Anderson
Chris Anderson
Buck Allen
Dick Duran
Dick Duran
John Gulick
Mike McGee
Mike McGee
Jeff Atencio
Jeff Atencio
Larry Grafel
Larry Grafei
Greg Hall
Greg Hall
Jim Hoza
Jim Hoza
Terri Martinez
Terri Martinez
Larry Pardee
Larry Pardee
Todd Oppenheimer
Todd Oppenheimber
Mike Rose
Mike Rose
Jody Doster
Jody Doster
Annie Fox
Annie Fox
Susan Boyd
Susan Boyd
Greg Morrison
Greg Morrison
Jeff Layman
Jeff Layman
Corey Schmidt
Corey Schmidt
Joe Russell
Joe Russell
Dick Gericke
Dick Gericke
Linda Moore
Linda Moore
Tom Moorhead
Tom Moorhead
Jim Weber
Jim Weber
Totals: 53 Totals: 28
J WM61IJ40 lUl'll'lvll1.nIlu iJ 71J J•Ji riu.uuJ r.u1
TOWN OF VAIL
CITY COUNCIL_ / STAFF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION TRAINING
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
PRELIMINARY SESSION AGENDA
gaw.-5�wi Cu[rg�[t., L4��e
I.untl,proo��lcd)
What is citizen participation?
What It is not
Why is it important?
How do we know it will matter?
Overview of national research
What DO people expect from local government?
What does practicing citizen participation mean?
The pro's and con's of making a public commitment to citizen
participation
Roles and responsibilities
Of leaders
Of managers and staff
Of citizens
When is citizen participation the right approach?
When NOT to use
When to use
Key questions for planning a citizen participation process
Identifying the problem to be solved
De -brief of Vail Commons project c< } t, r s
Group work on defining the problem on the West Vail Interchange
Establishing the 'Givens'
Group work on establishing the givens for the West Vail Interchange
process
Deciding who needs to be involved
Small group work on West Vail Interchange interests / issues matrix,
and report -out
• Determining if all people / groups need equal opportunity to be involved in
the process; if they all need equal attention
.i +unirii'..i .u+'I+'IVlvlt.fiI lu lU 1174f rIt JHN 1J JU );JZ NU.UUJ r.US L
Determining the expectations of each citizen participation process
Setting objectives
Deciding on expectations and objectives for West Vail Interchange process
The difference between public opinion and public judgment
Encouraging consensus decision -making
How people's values influence the process
An overview of citizen participation methods
General rules of thumb
Cautions
Setting the tone for citizen participation processes
Communications principles
What can go wrong in a process
Honoring the process when it comes to decision time
Saying 'thank You
9
n
TOWN OF VAIL
STAFF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION TRAINING
FEBRUARY 14, 1996
Rr - 5 �.r PRELIMINARY SESSION AGENDA
�vergrccr i�od�e
(First block of time in the morning. is dependent on whether the staff in this
session attended the previous day's session; if not all staff were at the Feb, 13
session, some time will need to be spent at the beginning of this session re-
capping the major points made the previous day).
Review Vail Commons discussion from previous day's session; discuss lessons
learned
Common staff mistakes in citizen participation
Re -visit the West Vail Interchange matrix begun the previous day
Determine additional interests I issues
Review how to use the matrix
Determine the depth of interest on the West Vail Interchange
Determine the complexity of information needed
Review step-by-step chart of decisions
Discuss as a planning tool
Review in context of West Vail Interchange project
How to determine the series of decisions and information needed
Follow a problem -solving sequence
Communicating technical information
Develop a process plan for West Vail interchange
Review checklist for designing a citizen participation process
Review of citizen participation methods
Select methods to use on West Vail Interchange
What consensus decision -making looks like
The importance of listening for the values people hold
9 Checking the process with citizens
Preparing the written plan
Communications, internally and externally
Specifics about meetings
Inviting people
Logistics
Amenities
Room set-up
Agenda
Group memory
Response forms
Specifics about deliberation and consensus
Preparing elected officials for the final decision
Communicating the decision
Saying Thank You
Evaluating the process
Jrill 1'J JU J-'JL NO.UUJ N,05 Y
0
2/6/96 Town Council Meeting
RA The next item on the agenda, Resolution No. 5, Series of 1996, a resolution directing the
Town Manager to enter to an agreement with Stewart Title Guaranty Company for
• attorneys fees and costs.
RTM Mayor this relates to our agreements for the development of Vail Commons which will
provide the public purpose of making housing available for local employees. Pursuant to
our contracts the Town has an obligation to provide title insurance. Based upon threats of
litigation that it had been previous brought by the Common Sense for the Commons
Petitioners Committee, Stewart Title is willing to provide the title insurance up to the
amount of $20 million for the improvements on the property with the agreement that the
Town of Vail would share attorneys fees and costs for any cause of action that was
brought by the Common Sense of the Commons Petitioners Committee. I believe that
that is a reasonable request by Stewart Title and would recommend passage of this
resolution.
RA Thank you Tom. Is there any public input on this? If not, is there a motion for
discussion.
SN I move for approval of Resolution No. 5.
• Pi Second.
RA So moved by Sybill, seconded by Paul. Is there any further discussion?
MJ I'll discuss.
RA Yes.
MJ We've had a couple of , we had an executive session today where basically, and I don't
really think that that was privileged what we were talking about specifically, but I think
that for the sake of , for my interest I think that I should mention that I did not participate.
in the actual executive session that concerned the commons because I have been a
participant. with the Common Sense for the Commons Committee, which of course is
against this particular project. And as I've been out of Town for a week and I'm not sure
of the current status of where they're going with this, my understanding is that they did
want to pursue some type of legal action, but since I have been extremely close to. this I
did remove myself from the meeting today. I felt that the conflict was really not because
- I am an employee of Safeway but I wanted to bring it out in the open that it was because
of my participation as a member of the Common Sense for the Commons Committee. As
far as the voting on this particular issue I guess I've got a choice to make, I can either
abstain, or I can make a move to vote. What I think would doon this particular case is
because I do not know for sure if there is action, I will vote on this particular issue, with
the understanding that I have not participated in executive session participation. Thank
you.
• RA Further discussion.
SN Did, Tom did you just (inaudible) sorry, I know it was mentioned earlier that the time
frame for a lawsuit has passed...
RTM For certain lawsuits Sybill, for a lawsuit that would be brought pursuant to Rule 106,
which provides for District Court review of any action of Town Council as to whether it
would be arbitrary and capricious, that time has passed.
SN Thank you.
RA Tom your, and I ask for legal advice on Mike's decision to vote on this, is it appropriate
or should he recuse himself.
TRM Mike had previously stated to me that he had a conflict of interest in regard to any issues
dealing with the Vail Commons. Other than that he and I have had no discussion in
regard to this. Whether or not he has a conflict is something that falls within his decision
• making process. It's not for me to say whether or not Mike Jewett has a conflict in this
matter.
MJ I think that if I can respond to that. My concern originally, and I'm not an attorney so I
don't want to interpret law, but the way I was reading the documents that were provided
plus what I've picked up from the Secretary of State's Office was that there was a need
for like a monetary gain and I didn't see any monetary gain on my part. Because at
Safeway, where I work, I'm very very high on the seniority list and so as far as layoffs
and that type of thing I don't anticipate any problem. Where the conflict would arise now
at this point is if the Common Sense for the Commons Committee did file a suit and I
was in an executive session where privy information was being divulged then in theory if
I'm part of that group then I would have that conflict with the Town of Vail. Now at the
same time I feel that I have, I represent a certain group of individuals within the Town of
Vail who are against this particular project and was voted into office for that particular
reason. There's going to be a varying degree depending on how that individual felt but
certainly I received enough votes to get elected and they knew my position clearly, that I
was against this particular project, not because of another grocery store but because of the
way this process was handled and the way it all came down. So, for that reason, there's
no monetary gain and so I feel comfortable voting.
RA Very good. Any further discussion? Is there a motion? (Inaudible) There is a motion on
the floor. All those in favor?
Aye.