Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-07 Town Council Minutes"MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING May 7, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Kevin Foley Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT: Sybill Navas Rob Ford TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the approval of the Minutes for the meetings of April 2 and 16, 1996. A motion was made by Kevin Foley to approve the Consent Agenda, and Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. .third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending Title 18 Zoning, Chapters 18.12 (Two -Family Residential (R) District), 18.13 (Primary/Secondary Residential District, 18.54 (Design Review), 18.56 (Environmental Impact Reports), 18.58 (Supplemental Regulations), 18.60 (Conditional Use Permits), 18.62 (Variances), and 18.66 (Administration) with respect to Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipal Code. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello,.presented the item and gave the following background: On March 5, 1996, the Council reviewed a proposal to consolidate and amend the appeals process for the Zoning Code. Council recommended that the proposal be reworked in order to preserve an applicant's ability to appeal to the Town Council and to preserve Council's ability to call-up a decision of staff or one of the boards. The proposal had been revised to comply with Council's concerns. The revised policy consolidates the appeals process into one chapter of the Zoning Code. Dominic then referred to a memo dated May 7 to Council detailing the proposed code changes and processes, and further stated the staffs recommendation was for approval of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996, on first reading. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead restated that the primary objective of the ordinance was to put the appeals process into one section, alleviating inconsistencies which currently existed. He continued, stating that Dominic had put a lot of time into writing the ordinance and had thoroughly researched regulations in place in other states. Ludwig moved to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996 on first reading, and Paul Johnston seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Michael Jewett commended Dominic for a job well done. 4Ngenda item number four was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, to amend the development plans and allow for flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement for Special Development District No. 32, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, George Ruther, presented the item and provided the following background: On Tuesday, March 5, 1996, Tom Braun, representing David Smith, appeared before the Vail Town Council for first reading of an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, to allow for the construction of a Type III employee housing unit within the Cornice Building and to allow for greater flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement for the Cornice Building. The applicant has since withdrawn his request for a Type III employee housing unit within the Cornice Building, however, continued to request the flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement for the Cornice Building. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, had been amended to reflect the current request. George reminded council members that the applicant was requesting approval of a Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 32, to allow for twelve outdoor light fixtures on the Cornice Building, and that according to existing Town of Vail Design Guidelines, only three outdoor lights would be allowed on the property (one per 1,000 sq. ft, of lot area). George continued, stating the applicant had indicated that the abnormally small lot size of the Cornice Building lot did not adequately address the true outdoor lighting needs of a residential property. The proposed lighting plan had been illustrated on amended development plans. Council was informed that Staffs recommendation, in accordance with the 02/02/96 memorandum prepared by staff for the Planning and Environmental Commission, (PEC), was for approval of the proposed Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 32, the Cornice Building. 0 motion was made by Paul Johnston to approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, with a second by Ludwig. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Mayor Armour then congratulated George on his recent marriage engagement. Vait Town Connell Evening Meeting Minutes May 7. 199B Fifth on the agenda was Resolution No. 6, Series of 1996 to adopt the 206 Region XII Water Quality Management Plan. Environmental Health Officer, Russell Forrest, requested the Council review and consider adoption of the 208 Plan for the Town of Vail, as recommended by staff, and provided the following information: The 208 plan is a required plan for coordinated regional water quality management under Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act. There are two volumes of the 208 plan. Volume 1 identifies six broad policies for water quality management. Volume 2 contaihs specific watershed plans. One of these Watershed plans is for the Eagle River atershed which includes Gore Creek. This plan addresses specific actions to protect and improve water quality in ,e Eagle River and Gore Creek. Issues and recommendations in the plan address point sources of pollution, nonpoint sources, and stream flow. The recommendations in this Plan can be used to modify state water quality standards and to provide direction for local water resource management. Russell informed Council members that the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG), of which the Town of Vail is a member, had been designated by the Governor as the area wide waste treatment management planning authority under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act and was asking its members to adopt the plan. He continued, stating the plan did not identify any new issues and that the Town was already addressing the issues outlined in the plan. Kevin moved to approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 1996, and the motion was seconded by Ludwig. Mike Jewett, clarifying an earlier discussion with Russell, stated he was not "bashing" him, but was only expressing his concern that stream tract property values could be adversely effected by adoption of the plan. A vote was then taken and approved 5-0. Item number six on the agenda was an appeal by Carroll Orrison, owner of Lot 10, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing #4 (1464 AspenGrove Lane) of the PEC's decision to deny both a front yard setback variance and a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance. The request would have allowed for a garage and a Type I employee housing unit to be constructed on the property within the front setback. Town Planner, Mike Mollica summarized the staffs memo of April 8, and stated the applicant's request was for a 19' setback variance to encroach into the front setback of the property and utilization of the 250 ordinance in building an additional two -car garage and an upper level caretaker's unit on top of an existing underground garage. Mike continued, explaining that the PEC's motion to deny the requested variance and 250 utilization included the staff's Bindings as discussed in the memorandum, as well as the additional finding that the approval of the variance and 250 utilization would be a grant of special privilege, and that the PEC's vote was unanimous (6-0) for denial. Further, Mike stated that the Department of Community Development recommended denial of the applicant's appeal of the PEC's decision regarding a front yard setback variance, as well the PEC's decision regarding the utilization of the 250 Ordinance. The staff believed that the review criteria had not been met, as specified in the staff memorandum to the PEC. Rick Rosen, legal council for the applicant, introduced himself and the applicant's land use planner, Tom Braun. Mr. Rosen explained the reason for his client's appeal and said he did not think the PEC followed the necessary criteria as outlined in the Town Code's variance chapter. Tom Braun then explained why he felt the request was valid, citing physical hardship, that the lot was difficult, and presented diagrams of the proposed addition. At that time RC Stevenson of Dunn, Abplanalp & Christensen, addressed the Council, stating he represented the Kullers, owners of adjacent Lot 7. He then 'introduced the Kullers' architect, John Gunson. Mr. Gunson stated he was involved with the selection of Lot 7, and that the Kullers chose the lot because of the proximity to the town and the views. He provided information regarding a site analysis that was used in determining sun angles, wind directions, topography, setbacks and most importantly, the views from the lot, and distributed a sheet detailing the potential negative views. He called the proposed addition obtrusive and suggested other alternatives. Property owner, Judy Kuller, informed Council of the impact on her property, requesting the setbacks be adhered to, Ond the variance be denied. Greg Moffit, Chairman of PEC informed Council that the minutes adequately expressed the findings, and said he was available to address any questions. Applicant, Carroll Orrison spoke briefly, reviewing his request. Kevin Foley asked Mrs. Kuller if they had plans to build an employee housing unit on their property and was told not at the present time. Paul moved to uphold the decision of the PEC and Ludwig seconded the motion. Mayor Armor stated that although there were no regulations in place to protect private view corridors, setbacks were a means to create a view corridor, and that a one story garage was the only thing which has been allowed in the front setback. A vote was then taken and approved, 4-1, Kevin voting in opposition because, he said, of the loss of an employee housing unit. Seventh on the agenda was an update on the Vail Commons lottery applications and process. Town Planner, Andy Knudtsen communicated that 76 applicants had turned in applications and that the Town had received good exposure on the news and in the paper. Andy continued, stating the drawing would be held on May 20 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, and that tiers would be published in the Vail Trail on May 17. He then informed Council members that a survey would be going out to individuals who expressed interest in the project to wetermine in detail what people were looking for and why more applications weren't turned in. Two home owners will deed restricting their units, he said. Mayor Armor stated he felt the survey would be important and would reveal some useful information. Vall Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes May 7, 1996 Council then adjourned for a short 5-minute break at 8:35 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at approximately 8:40 p.m. Item number eight was an appeal of Design Review Board (DRB) upholding of zoning administrator's decision to approve a buffer to be built between the International Wing proposed addition and the existing condominiums. Appellant: Anita Saltz. *ndy Knudtsen presented the item and gave the following background: On March 7, 1996, Andy Knudtsen with staff consultation, approved the submitted plans for the buffer to be constructed between the penthouse on the International Wing and the existing condominium dwelling units. The staff decision was appealed to the DRB. The DRB upheld the staff decision on April 3, 1996 unanimously. And the DRB decision was appealed. Bob Armour acknowledged receipt of letters from Art Abpianalp, East Village Homeowners, Ann Frick and stated that certain issues raised did not address the buffer and that such issues were to be resolved in District Court. In December the project was approved with the condition that additional buffering be placed to improve the visual impacts from the adjacent property owners. Andy reviewed the drawings of the proposed buffer. Jay Peterson, attorney representing the Lodge at Vail, addressed council members, stating that his client was unable to determine what specifically the objection was, as far as the landscaping plan was concerned. Anita Saltz, owner Unit #527, told Council that she bought her unit in 1986, and said they were told at that time there was a possibility, albeit slim, that an additional building would be built. Ms. Saltz then showed council members photographs of the model she was shown at the time she bought her unit. Rick Rosen, legal council to Dr. James and Mrs. Cavenaugh, owners of unit 533, said that his clients also understood there would be a structure built, and stated that Jay Peterson and the Lodge Properties, Inc. architects had gone out of their way to address his clients' concerns. He agreed that the buffer zone approved by DRB should continue to We approved, and stated, "Let's move forward and do what needs to be done. " Jim Brown, attorney representing the Lodge Apartment Condominium Association said he was directed to be keep a neutral position, and wanted to clarify for the record that the Association did not have an objection to the design of the buffer. Architect representing Anita Saltz, Lynn Fritzlen, questioned Andy Knudtsen and asked if the Town had taken the position that no trespassing would occur. Tom Moorhead stated Ms. Fritzlen's question was inappropriate, and that the issue of trespass had been filed in District Court. Michael Arnett spoke on behalf of the DRB and staffs decision and stated that staff had done "a smashing job" He then reiterated that the issue before the Council related to the buffer. Ludwig moved to uphold the DRB's decision and that of the zoning administrator and to deny the appeal. The motion was seconded by Paul. A vote was taken and approved, 4-1, Mike Jewett voting in opposition. Item number nine on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin updated Council members on a request from the Art In Public Places board (AIPP) for a $77,390 contribution to centis piece for a transparent sculpture at Seibert Circle. Pam stated that the staff recommendation was for $50,000 and that $60,000 had already been budgeted for a fountain in connection with the reconstruction of Seibert Circle. Council members agreed to discuss it at the May 14 work session, giving Kevin an opportunity to attend the AIPP meeting. Bob then informed that $300,000 in state funds had been granted for design work on the West Vail Interchange project. Bob said the Town was currently interviewing three engineering firms to help determine what solutions might work for the designing of a new West Vail Interchange. Pam stated that the water supply to parks and fountains would be turned on May 17, with the exception of the Childrens Fountain, which would come on after the Creekside Condominium water line construction was complete. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:25 p.m. ATTEST: Pot a, -g olly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by HPLLy McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) YResp Ily sub ' d, Robert W. Armour, Mayor 3 Vail Town Counal Evening Meeting Plincles May 7, 1896 TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road •Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2100 FAX 303-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY May 8, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR MAY 7 Work Session Briefs Council members present. Armour, Foley, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz --Site Visit The Council visited a residence at 1464 Aspen Grove Lane in preparation for a discussion at the evening meeting. The property owner, Carol Orrison, is appealing a ruling by the Planning and Environmental Commission to deny both a front yard setback variance and a request to utilize the 250 ordinance. The request would have allowed for a garage and a Type I employee housing unit to be constructed on the property within the front setback. For additional details, please see the evening meeting briefs. - 15 Year Employee Recognition The Council recognized Todd Scholl, fleet manager, and Kurt Gordon, maintenance worker II, for their 15 years of individual service to the Town of Vail. They were each presented with a certificate and a $1,000 check for their dedication to the town. --Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) Update Sandy Blaha of NWCCOG presented an overview of 1995 accomplishments and activities planned for 1996. The agency represents 32 governments in a six -county area through cost sharing, technical expertise and grant assistance programs in six areas: Skyline Six Area Agency on Aging; energy management; water quality/quantity; water quality planning, community development; and elevator inspection. The Town of Vail contributes approximately $15,000 to NWCCOG on an annual basis, which is a combination of NWCCOG dues and a contribution to the Water Quality/Quantity • program --1995 Year End Financial Report Finance Director Steve Thompson presented highlights of the town's 1995 year-end financial report as a prelude to a presentation by the town's auditors at the June 18 meeting, The town ended 1995 with fund balances of about $4.3 million in the general fund, according to Thompson. Revenues totaled 2% ($315,000) more than was (more) Council Highlights/Add 1 budgeted in the general fund, despite revenues from taxes being below budget by $349,000, or 3%. General fund revenues exceeding budget forecasts included: • building fees by $263,000; interest income, $201,000; transfer from the Parking Fund of $98,000; and intergovernmental revenue, $57,000. Parking revenue from daily fees, passes and debit cards in 1995 increased $27,043 or 1.8% from 1994. Daily parking fees were up $60,254 (4.2%); and pass and debit card sales were down $33,211 (8.9%). Revenue from the Real Estate Transfer Tax came within $28,000 of the $1.7 million budget. As for expenditures, all funds ended the year under budget. The biggest savings were generated by salaries, health insurance, property and liability insurance, workers compensation, snow removal and heavy equipment charges, Thompson said, Salary savings were generated by bus driver positions not being filled, vacant positions created by attrition that were not filled and normal staff turnover. Although pleased with the year-end report, Town Manager Bob McLaurin said he was continuing to take a conservative look at future budgets due to flattening sales tax trends (sales tax makes up over half of the town's revenues). He says the staff is continuing to work on a plan for cost reductions and revenue enhancements to be presented to the Council and the public in the next few months. --Ordinance on Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipal Code In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council reviewed an ordinance that would • consolidate and amend the appeals process for the town's Zoning Code. While the appeals process remains mostly unchanged from the existing ordinance, the revision formalizes the notice of appeal process through use of a written form specifying the reason for the appeal, clarifies who has the right to appeal; and establishes a new filing fee to cover town costs. Although the fee has not yet been determined, staff members said the cost would likely be no higher than $250. in 1995, there were 14 appeals and 6 Town Council call-ups. The ordinance was approved on first reading at the evening meeting. For more information, contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community Development Department at 479-2148. --Citizen Participation Citing safety concerns, Harry Gray, a resident of the Intermountain neighborhood, asked for consideration of a "children at play" sign and the conversion of a two-way stop to a four-way stop in the neighborhood. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said the town would add the child safety signs immediately and would consider the intersection request in more depth through analysis already underway by the town engineer. (Gray asked to come before the Council at the afternoon work session, as he was unavailable to attend the evening meeting.) is --Information Update Council members were reminded of the Colorado Municipal League annual conference in Vail on June 18-22. Next, there was a brief review of the Council contingency fund as it relates to expenses (more) Council Highlights/Add 3 Intermountain Transportation Planning Commission has voted to add $300,000 for planning and engineering fees for the West Vail Interchange, McLaurin said the ! decision was generated by project concessions from district representatives in Aspen and Pitkin and Eagle counties. Approval from the Transportation Commission is expected in September. If approved, it could put the project on line to receive an additional appropriation to help with construction costs, McLaurin said. Next month, the town will begin a process to involve the public in exploring ways to improve the interchange with construction potentially occurring in 1997. Evening Session Briefs Council members present. Armour, Foley, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz --Citizen Participation There was no citizen participation. --Ordinance on Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipal Code This ordinance was approved by a vote of 5-0 on first reading. The measure essentially places the appeals process into one section of the town's zoning code, alleviating inconsistencies which currently exist. Also, the revision formalizes the • notice of appeal process through use of a written form specifying the reason for the appeal; clarifies who has the right to appeal; and establishes a new filing fee to cover town costs. Second reading will occur at the May 21 evening meeting. For more information, contact Dominic Maunello in the Community Development Department at 479-2148. --Cornice Building Special Development District Outdoor Lighting Requirement The Council voted 5-0 on second reading to amend the Cornice Building Special Development District to allow flexibility in the building's outdoor lighting requirement. The property, at 362 Vail Valley Drive, received approval to install 12 outdoor light fixtures, an increase over the town's design guidelines of 3 fixtures. An earlier request to allow construction of a Type III employee housing unit within the Cornice Building has since been withdrawn. For more information, contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Water Quality Management Plan Resolution The Council voted 5-0 to approve an updated water quality management plan prepared by Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. The 208 plan includes recommended • actions to protect and improve water quality in the Eagle River and Gore Creek and is required by the Federal Clean Water Act. Russell Forrest, the town's senior environmental policy planner, said the plan complements other work the town has completed and provides a list of recommended actions to assist with issues such as erosion and sediment control and streamflow setbacks. Councilman Michael Jewett, clarifying an earlier discussion with Forrest, reiterated his concern that stream tract property values could be adversely impacted by adoption of the plan. The Northwest (more) Council Highlights/Add 2 for the youth leadership award and student exchange program. Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer gave an update on the Special Events • Commission meeting. She said Frank Johnson of the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau would be coming to the Council to talk about progress on the reservation center project with Vail Associates. Also, the commission is interested in considering subsidizing pennants on street lights throughout town to add a more festive atmosphere to special events. Upcoming dates to look for include: Camp Jeep at Camp Hale, Aug. 8-10; Polo on Snow at Ford Park, Feb. 22-23; National Brotherhood of Skiers (not confirmed), Feb. 22-29; and World Cup, March 3-9 (tentative). --Council Reports Councilman Paul Johnston said the most recent meeting of the Eagle County Recreational Authority (Berry Creek 5th Filing) went well as representatives shared a broader perspective for uses on the site. He said there was also an interest in working collaboratively with the Eagle County School District, which owns the adjacent Miller Ranch site to the west. Johnston said the county has extended the existing Berry Creek 5th sketch plan for another year to allow the partners to add more detail to the plan. Mayor Bob Armour gave an update on the most recent TOV-VA Community Task Force is meeting which included a review of peak(nonpeak ski season trends and review of an RFP (request for proposals) for facilitation of a grassroots community action plan recommended by the group. The next task force meeting is May 22. Councilman Ludwig Kurz, who represents the Council on the Colorado Ski Museum Board of Directors, reported on a recent retreat by the board. He said the discussion issues included membership and funding, plus increased support by other. Colorado ski resorts. Councilman Kevin Foley noted schedule conflicts involving the two boards he attends: Art In Public Places and the Regional Transportation Authority. --Other Councilman Mike Jewett told of two citizen requests and asked to be included in the town's follow-up. The first dealt with a woman who asked for assistance from the town in installing a walkway, using public and private property, from Chamonix down to the West Vail Mall. The second request was from an individual who is requesting assistance from the town in working with the Colorado Department of Transportation to install some guard rails on the South Frontage Road near the Cascade area. The caller, who had an accident there earlier this year, was interested in preventing future mishaps at the site. Town Manager Bob McLaurin announced the Colorado Department of Transportation (more) Council Highlights/Add 4 Colorado Council of Governments, of which the Town is a member, has been designated by the Governor as the area wide waste treatment management planning . authority under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act and is asking its members to adopt the plan. For more information, contact Russell Forrest in the Community Development Department at 479-2146. --Orrison Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) Decision The Council voted 4-1 (Foley against) to uphold a decision by the Planning and Environmental Commission to deny a front yard setback variance and a request to . utilize the 250 ordinance at a residence at 1464 Aspen Grove. Approval would have allowed for a garage and a Type I employee housing unit to be constructed on the property within the front setback. But in upholding the PEC decision, the Council majority found the request would be a grant of "special privilege" which does not conform with variance criteria. An adjacent property owner asked Council to deny the variance. Mayor Bob Armour stated that although there are no regulations in place to protect private view corridors, setbacks are a means to create a view corridor, and that a one story garage is the only exception which has been allowed in the front setback. Councilman Foley voted in opposition because approval of the variance would have permitted construction of an employee housing unit, For more information, contact Mike Mollica in the Community Development Department at 479-2144. • --Update on Vail Commons Lottery Applications and Process Senior Housing Policy Planner Andy Knudtsen announced that 76 applicants had turned in applications for the lottery and that the town had received good exposure on television and in the newspaper. The lottery drawing will be held at 7 p.m. May 20 in the Town Council Chambers and that tiers would be published in the Vail Trail on May 17. Two current homeowners will be deed -restricting their units. Knudtsen also informed Council members that a survey would be going out to individuals who picked up applications to determine in detail what people were looking for and why more applications weren't turned in. Mayor Bob Armour said he believed the survey would reveal some important information. For additional details, contact Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440. -Appeal by Anita Saltz of Design Review Board (DRB) decision to uphold staff decision to approve a buffer to be built between the International Wing proposed addition at the Lodge at Vail and the existing condominiums The Council voted 4-1 (Jewett against) to uphold the Design Review Board's April 3 decision which upheld a staff decision regarding approval of a buffer to be built as part . of the International Wing addition at the Lodge at Vail. In December, the project was approved by the DRB with the condition that additional buffering be placed to improve the visual impacts from the adjacent property owners. Opponents of the proposed addition were recently unsuccessful in obtaining an injunction from district court to block the project. For more information, contact Town Attorney Tom Moorhead at 479- 2107. (more) Council Highlights/Add 5 --Town Manager's Report Bob McLaurin updated Council members of a request from the Art In Public Places • board for a $77,390 contribution to assist with an art piece at Seibert Circle. It was noted the town staff has recommended a $50,000 contribution and that $60,000 has already been budgeted for a fountain as part of the reconstruction of Seibert Circle. Council members agreed to discuss the matter at its May 14 work session. McLaurin then informed Council that $300,000 in state funds may be approved for design work at the West Vail Interchange. McLaurin said the town was currently interviewing three engineering firms to help determine what solutions might work for improving the Interchange (see work session briefs for more information). Also announced yesterday, water to parks and water fountains will be turned on May 17, with the exception of the Childrens Foundation, which will come on line after a nearby construction project is completed. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS May 21 Work Session Tim Lahey 20 year anniversary • PEC/DRB Review Update on CMC/Cynthia Heelan Interview for 1 PEC Member Interview for 2 Liquor Board Members VVTCB Update on Unified Call Center Change to Golden Peak Approved Development Plan May 21 Evening Meeting First Reading Ordinance 12, Amending Title 17 Second Reading Ordinance 7, Appeals Process Resolution, Change in Road Name Appointments of PEC Member and Liquor Board Members Change to Golden Peak Approved Development Plan Appeal of PEC Decision Re: Lionshead Gondola May 28 Work Session Conceptual Discussion of Lionshead Redevelopment # # # 44,;�-) - MEMORANDUM 1 plLE COPY TO: Planning and Environmental Commission W-ROM, Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the height limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. The residence is located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD#4). Applicant: Bill Anderson, representing Mr. & Mrs. Hovey Planner: Dominic Mauriello DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is in the process of constructing a residence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision. The Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicates that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height limitation for structures constructed in the Primary/Secondary Zone District. The ridges in question are .labeled A, B and C, starting at the lowest of the ridges and going up to the highest (see the attached elevation drawing). According to the interpolated existing grades provided by Intermountain Engineering (based on the original topographic survey), and the ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying (ILC); ridges A, B and C were constructed up to 8 inches higher than the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant is claiming that the revised "Survey Policies" (attached) of the Town would allow the constructed building height. Staff believes the revised policies would have no effect on the constructed building height. The applicant is requesting a variance to retain the roof ridges at the constructed heights. Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance of 8 inches, to the 33-foot height limitation. On January 8,1996, the PEC unanimously denied the same request for a building height variance. The PEC decision was appealed to the Town Council. On January 16, 1996, the Town Council failed to pass a motion to either uphold or overturn the decision of the PEC, and therefore the PEC decision of denial stands. The PEC and Council minutes are attached. III. CRITERIA AND FINDING$ Upon review of the Criteria and Findings for variances, contained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested height variance based on the following factors: I =1917WIROMO • The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures In the vicinity. The requested variance will have little or no Impact on adjacent properties and structures. The portions of roof ridges that exceed 33 feet are minimal. All of the ridges are up to 8 inches over the 33-foot limitation, for a length of less than 5 lineal feet. 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's statement indicates that the height limitation encroachments occurred as a result of dimensional changes that were made in the floor structure and roof structure. These two structural changes increased the thickness of the floors and the height of the roof structure. Compensating changes could have been made to the interior floor to ceiling heights that would have alleviated the height problem with negligible impact to the Interior spaces. The floor to ceiling heights were not adjusted accordingly. Staff believes that approving the variance would be a grant of special privilege that could open the door to similar, after -the -fact requests. Staff believes it is important to strictly enforce the 33-foot height limitation in order to maintain the integrity of the height regulation. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The requested variance will have no effect on this criteria. B. The Planning an Enviromental-Gomm'ssion shall make the• •Mr. findings before .i nvariance: 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. 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. • 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. 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 Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. Staff believes that granting the height variance would not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare. However, staff believes that the variance would be a grant of special privilege since there does not appear to be any unusual circumstances unique to the property, or the construction process, that would justify the request. Staff believes that the strict and literal interpretation of the height limitation is necessary to ensure that all residential construction in this zone district is subject to the same height restriction. f:\evaryone*cWe,mosthovey2.m 13 0 0 tii ToIMF VAIL u *1;0 1 Nor TO: All Architects, Contractors and Surveyors Doing Work in the Town of Vail FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 28, 1996 SUBJECT: Survey Requirements The following survey requirements apply to all new construction and to. some additions. If you are unsure if your project requires an Improvement Location Certificate, talk to the project planner. PRIOR TO A BUILDING PERMIT Benchmark - On all surveys and Improvement Location Certificates, identify the benchmark used for the basis of the elevations. The same benchmark should be used throughout the construction process to insure that the measurement of a building is consistent. Items which make good benchmarks are sewer inverts, section corners, and property corners. Do not use manhole rims, the asphalt in streets, or fire hydrants. Architects and Builders should be aware that discrepancies exist in established monumentation in the Vail Valley. Please consult a registered surveyor to verify monumentation prior to developing plans for a site. E,ggbllshment of base gl-evations for calculating buitdina heigm - If a building has any proposed ridge within one foot of the maximum building height, a spot elevation will be required directly below that proposed ridge to ensure accurate measurement of the ridge height. This additional spot elevation will need to be done when the building footprint and ridge elevations are identified and prior to submitting for a building permit. A topographic survey with the necessary spot elevations, foundation, and the ridges Indicated shall be submitted with the building permit application. Any project that has received Design Review Board approval prior to March 11, 1996 shall be exempt from this requirement. RecommendalJons for Owner/Builder Proiecf,5 - For owner/builders, the Town strongly suggests that a registered surveyor stake out the foundation prior to excavation or pouring. Additionally, after the foundation walls have been poured, we strongly encourage that a surveyor shoot the elevation of the foundation wall. With this information, contractors will be able to accurately estimate the final building height before the structure is completed. Contractors will be able to compensate in the construction process to ensure that the structure does not exceed the height limit. • II. AFTER THE FOUNDATION IS POURED Within three (3) weeks following the approved foundation inspection, an ILC will be required for projects that exhibit a_,_y of the following characteristics: 1. The building is within 3 feet of any setback line; 2. The driveway grade is greater than 10%; 3. The building is within 6 inches of the maximum building height allowance; 4. The project involves three or more separate structures on the property; or 5. The project has received a variance for height or setbacks; The ILC must be submitted to the Town of Vail for review and approval within three weeks following the approved foundation inspection. The Building Inspector will notify the project planner when the foundation inspection has been approved. If an ILC is not received and approved by the planner within three weeks, the Town of Vail will issue a Stop Work Order and no work will be allowed until the ILC is reviewed and approved: Once submitted to the Town, please allow two working days for the ILC to be reviewed. The ILC should indicate the following: 1. The footprint of the building; 2. The elevations of the foundation walls and the garage slab; 3. The grade of the centerline of the driveway, measured in twenty -foot increments; and 4. The distance of the foundation to each property line. The exterior material existing cn the structure the day of the survey should be noted. Final distance will be measured from the outside edge of the exterior wall material. If ledges or supports for rock veneer or any other facing material have been built into the foundation, measure the setback to that exterior point (see diagram on next page). III. PRIOR TO A FRAMING INSPECTION An ILC wHI be required prior to any framing inspection to verify that height and setback standards have been met. No framing inspections will be scheduled until the ILC is approved by the Town. Please allow two working days from the time the ILC is submitted to the time the inspection can be scheduled. The ILC must show the following information-. • 1. Rm Ridge Elevations - On the survey prepared for the framing inspection, indicate the highest point of L roof ridges. The roof plan needs to be drawn on the ILC. The roof ridge points identified on the ILC should align with the roof plan on. the Town's approved set of Building Permit plans. Ridge height will be measured to the top ridge of the sheathing. On the ILC, the surveyor should note the roof material (if any) on the highest point of the ridge which exists the day of the survey. The planner will add the dimensions of all other materials (except a cold roof vent). For example, if only the ridge beam has been constructed the day of the survey, the surveyor should mote that, and the planner will then add the dimensions of the insulation, sheathing, etc. to verity t� the finished product will not exceed the height limit. On the attached diagrams, the point identified with an asterisk is the top ridge of the sheathing. A cold roof vent, not exceeding 12 inches in height, measured from the sheathing to the top of the shingles, is considered an architectural projection and will not be included in the height. 2. Setbacks - The distance from the foundation to each property line should be specified, noting the exterior material existing on the structure the day of the survey. Final distance will be measured from the outside edge of the exterior wall material. if ledges or supports for rock veneer or any other facing material have been built into the foundation, measure the setback to that exterior point (see diagram below). 9 0 • 0 ToP tLloC,c o� SIIEATI! Int(� vv CAD ROOF RIDGE VENT DETAIL ` "'�""' 1•�aU-41 a1�GL � IL6 76P 'OF sN/A'64,55 I - G�SUi IL hA�.•jCI+.V.L �'tf-. core. F�1v-t�' ItB. M apt�b ai-J txz n..rrovtr- a u>rr•�.y TOP KIOGF OF PIS FP-LTorl 0/0' jku: c Fl rwD. Sly_ 7j I�/Ej �< P 2r0 IP� P FP `WV TkCn avK-Wvwzv= I !� PLOW.,. S ��••1 ter- ..�._..�� .-_- G..�Ld. L71P.17 SGIs.LI`1-i 1 !;L,,i <.ttLrpe,+. o: jol pa; Cho av r.) �— K•�6 (P'riT I.J�IlLJcrloµ, ALJ-W" r-U^M PW-'mr-+l—'T- ITH 16V . ROOF RIDGE VENT DETAIL. i vy=I•—Pn 4 I have read the Survey Requirements stipulated in the Town of Vail memorandum dated March 28, 1996 and commit to adhere to them. Signature of owner, or owner's representative Print Name Date Job Name Permit Number Legal Description: Lot__, Block , Filing i is 11 Among) im 8 8 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Kevin Deighan Henry Pratt Public Hearina January 8, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Bowen Dalton Williams STAFF PRESENT: Mike Mollica George Ruther Randy Stouder Lauren Waterton Judy Rodriguez 2:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:05 p.m. Dalton Williams and Jeff Bowen were absent. 1. A request for a Major SDD Amendment to allow for a 485 square foot addition to an existing condominium in the Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road, Unit 5/Vail . Gateway Plaza Building. Applicant: Steve Riden representing Vail Apartments Inc. Planner: Randy Stouder Henry Pratt moved to table item No. 1, item No. 4 and item No. 5 until January 22, 1996. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. 2. A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence currently under construction to exceed the height limit -located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4 ). Applicant: Bill Anderson representing Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hovey Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder gave an overview of the proposal. He stated that staff had reviewed the variance criteria carefully and found that justification for granting the variance was lacking. According to the .applicant, depth was added to the floors and to the roof structure during the construction process without compensating reductions in the height of the structure. Staff felt that the structural changes could have been compensated for by reducing floor to ceiling heights. This was not done. Randy stated that the variance request should be denied because staff finds that approval would be a grant of special privilege. Planning and Environmental Commission _ Minutes January 8, 1996 1 Bill Anderson from Beck and Associates referred to a situation in East Vail where a house was S. aver!'' the height limit and was granted a height variance. He was on the PEC at the time. He stated that the surveyor made a mistake which resulted in the height increase. He felt that the mistake made q�,the Hovey residence was no different than the mistake made on the East Vail residence, both wer est mistakes. He stated that the Hovey's had nothing to gain from the mistake. Bill said that he had contacted the adjoining property owners. The adjacent owners did not have any problems with granting a variance. They did not feel Impacted by the additional height. Greg Moffet asked for public comment. No one came forward. Henry Pratt said although the Impact is negligible and the neighbors'don't care, he feels handcuffed since the Findings are not met. Greg Amsden said for practical reasons that the variance should be granted, but based on Code, It would definitely be a grant of special privilege. He felt that he could not grant a variance based on a review of the criteria and findings. Kevin Deighan said he agreed with Greg Amsden's comments. Greg Moffet asked if an ILC was performed after the foundation was poured. He also asked if this mistake would have been caught by an ILC at that stage? Bill said no, that structural Elements above the foundation had been changed and this caused the height increase. Dave Peel said they went from a 10" floor to 11-718". He also explained how the roof structure was modified slightly, resulting in additional height. Greg Moffet Said that the height problem was a self imposed hardship and the Board could not grant a variance. Bill Anderson mentioned that for on -site construction mistakes, the Board has granted variances in the past. Randy Stouder said the East Vail variance was for the Musyl home. That variance was granted because of a surveyor error. The surveyor used an Improper benchmark. Staff recommended denial even though the entire roof of the structure would have had to be taken off. The PEC did grant that variance. Henry Pratt asked if there had been any other height variances granted recently. Randy Stouder said that the Musyl variance was the only one he could recall in the two years he has been with the Town. Mike Mollica stated that each variance request has to stand on its own merits and should be judges. .individually. Mike Mollica also doesn't remember any other similar requests being granted. Bill Anderson stated that if this variance was granted that it would not set a precedent for more variance requests, at least not by him or his company. Beck and Associates has a long track history Planning and Emironmental Commission Minutes January 8,1996 2 Y v` for being on target with heights and setbacks. We screwed up and made a mistake. He does not want to tear up the roof and destroy the architect's design. He asked the Board to look at the request with some common sense. No one has been adversely effected and no one has gained anything from the • small height increase. Greg Amsden made a motion for denial of the variance request. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0. Mike Mollica added for the record that the applicant has 10 days to submit a written request for an appeal to Council. He also said that Council uses the same criteria and findings that the PEC uses. Bill Anderson stated that the Hoveys want to move in by March 1, 1996 and asked if he could get a TCO by posting a bond to guarantee that the height overage would be corrected. He did not feel that the work could be completed prior to March 1. Mike Mollica said he would be comfortable with bonding. 3. A request for wall height variances and a 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 George Ruther gave an overview and quickly went through the items the applicant changed since the December 11th meeting. Public Works suggested that a two -foot wide gravel shoulder be replaced with a guardrail since the shoulder could not maintain a safe slope to the street. Staff does not feel there would be any negative impacts if the variances were granted. Staff has the greatest concern with item 2 of the Criteria. It is the staffs opinion that the hardship is self imposed by the contractor. Staff is recommending denial because of a grant of special privilege. George then went over the conditions in the memorandum, should the PEC grant the request of the variances. Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Construction and representing the property owners, the Koenig's and Dowie's requested the variance be granted based on the landscape changes to save the existing trees. One other hardship shows the surveyor made a mistake in the original survey and it wasn't discovered until after the fact. This is the first time he heard about the guardrail request. The utilities run where the guardrail is proposed. He would prefer plantings, rather than erecting a guardrail. Greg Moffet asked for public input. Henry Pratt said again practicality should rule rather than the letter of the law. A lack of a shoulder is a serious issue for the Town. The driveway can be remedied. Providing a variance wouldn't do anything •for the walls. There has been an effort to save existing trees. Henry is not optimistic about the wall variance, however. Greg Amsden said preservation of trees is justification for granting the variance. There are site constraints for the wall height variance. The driveway is a grant of special privilege. Planning and FnYironmental Commission Minutes January 8,1996 nmomca informed Council that the applicant was clearly requesting a separation, as allowed by the Dodo, smd that Council must find the project meets the appropriate criteria in order for a separation to be granted. Gary Oleson, owner of the property presented his request to Council, along with project architec ark Donaldson. Paul moved to overturn the decision of the DRB to deny the separation request due to th rge size of the lot, to avoid extensive driveway cuts, and because, he felt the proposed separation co uted nicely he existing residences on Katsos Ranch Road. The motion was seconded by Peggy. Mike Jewett expressed he would rather uphold DRB's decision, and Rob For ated that many other options were available to the applicant, and the applicant didn't necessarily have uild a duplex. Tom clarified that the section in the Code listed examples of what might constitute a si icant site constraint, and said there i were many and varied situations. He went on to state that man m features could possibly be considered, Kevin inquired as to how the neighbors felt about the project, a ybill addressed the question, stating those she spoke to wanted to see something on a much smaller e, but that the size of the lot itself would allow for a much bigger structure to be built. Sybill felt that g through the variance request would be more appropriate. George reminded council members t e was not a variance request to decide on. Mike suggested another possible avenue for the applic would be to request a front setback variance, in order to maintain development on the site as low as ctical on the hillside and to reduce overall site impacts. DRB Chairman, Michael Arnett explained DRB's finding that there was nothing which would constitute a significant site constraint as outlined i e town regulations, and, therefore, the DRB had no other option but to deny the request. Mike then Agested the proper course of action would be to request a change in zoning on the lot. Peggy reminde uncil members of the need to determine whether site constraints existed that would allow for the separ on. Mark suggested the topography and the trees did constitute a site constraint, stating that unde a proposed scenario, the applicant would be removing the least amount of trees. George stated that ording to staff, a significant tree was 3" in diameter and the trees shown one proposed project plan w e 6" in diameter. He further stated there were many trees on the lot that werdwt shown on the plan t would ultimately be removed. A vote was to and failed, 2-4, Paul and Sybill in favor of overturning the DRB's decision to deny the t request, Mil ,Rob, Kevin and Peggy voting in opposition. A motion was then made by Rob to uoh!bld the decision o0he DRB, with a second from Mike. A vote was taken and passed, 4-2. Sybill and Paul opposed. Mr. eon asked the Council what direction should next be taken, and Mike Mollica stated he would be happy toAeet with the applicant to discuss the processes available. loop Agenda item_nurrlhPr five FnvimnmWtal Commi—SS iW a ( denial of a request for a height variance to allow for a.res,idence, currently under construction, to exceed the 33-foot height limitation for residential structures. The project is located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Town of Vail Planner, Randy Stouder presented the item, and gave the following background: The applicant is in the process of constructing a residence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision. An Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicated that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height restriction for residential structures, The ridges in question are labeled A, B and C, as shown on the attached site plan and elevation drawings. Accordin the interpolated existing grades provided by Intermountain Engineering (based on the original topograp survey), and the ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying (ILC), ridges A, B, and C were constructed a maximum of 8.4 inches above the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant requested that the PEG grant a height variance to retain the roof ridges at the existing, constructed heights. The PEG unanimously denied the requested height variance by a vote of 4-0, finding that granting the requested height variance would be a grant of special privilege to the applicant. Randy further stated that although no input had been received from adjoining property owners, staff recommended denial of the applicant's request because u.1 Y C—J rH.,wy ILI, MJ" 01/1G/% y agreed it would be granting a special privilege. Architect, Dave Peel, and Bill Anderson of Beck & Associates presented the height variance request on behalf of the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Charles Hovey, claiming that floor and roof modifications caused the overages. Sybill asked if there wasn't a 1' grace allowed. Randy stated there had been in prior years, but because it wa mg taken advantage of, survey policies had been adopted and had been in place since April of 1991, Als , andy expressed that the survey policies clearly state there is no I'grace allowance for roof height, and that the policy is distributed to every contractor who takes out a building permit. Greg Amsden, Vice Chairman of the PEC was available to answer questions. Peggy expressed her feeling that it had been possible to account for the error and that it should have been corrected. Mike Jewett was looking for any criteria that might allow the variance to be approved without granting a special privilege. Dave Peel suggested similar situations had occurred in the past. Tom Moorhead informed Council that each variance application had a different set of circumstances which must be evaluated o its own merits after reviewing the criteria and findings. A motion was made by Kevin Foley to uphold the decision of the PEC, with a second from Rob Ford. A vote was taken and resulted in a tie, 3-3; Kevin, Rob and Peggy in favor, Paul, Mike and Sybil] opposed; the motion was defeated. Council members in favor of granting the height variance felt Council should be more flexible and cited the following reasons: no complaints were received by the neighbors, to reframe the structure would cost the applicant time and money, and that sending a rigid message would negate the need for the appeal process. Council members opposed to granting the variance felt that being responsible to the community and consistent in applying the rules was important, and suggested adjusting the height rule as opposed to granting ^r sp&l privileges. Mike Jewett then moved to overturn the PEC's decision to deny the height variance, and G -thdWotion was seconded by Paul. Town residents Martin Walbaum and Scotty McGoon expressed their opinions, encouraging Council to approve the variance. Town Manager, Bob McLaurin informed council members that the issue was not the amount of the overage, but the fact that there was an overage. He suggested adhering to the regulation or changing the height restriction. A vote was then taken and resulted in a tie of 3-3, Paul, Mike and Sybil[ voting in favor, Kevin, Peggy and Rob voting in opposition. Therefore, the decision of the AEC to deny the height variance stands. Next on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Bob indicated everything had been covered at the work session earlier in the day. There being no further business, a motion was made by Paul to adjourn. Mike Jewett commended the Police Department for their efforts and expressed satisfaction frgm the rc unity regarding break-ins. Jewitt also complimented Public Works for the fine job they had done e�ving snow during the recent heavy accumulations. Rob moved to adjourn and the motion was seconded by Kevin Foley. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:35 P.M. ATTEST: Respectfully submitted, il�Navas, Mdyor Pro-tem April 11, 1996 Mike Mollica Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Hovey Residence at 1339 Westhaven Circle - height variance Dear Mike: Per our phone discussions I am applying for a height variance at the Hovey Residence. It is my understanding that Randy Stouder and David Peel have developed the following criteria: A) 8" to 0" for a distance of 4'-6" B) 8" to 0" for a distance of4'-0" • C) 8" to 0" for a distance of 3'-9" (See attached drawing.) It is our contention that the use of a topo survey as an absolutely accurate document is not correct. The national standard allows for a 1 foot plus or minus tolerance based on 2 foot contours. (See attached letter from Intermountain Engineering.) With this accepted tolerance our ridge heights could be 4" under. The bottom line, it seems to us that there is no way at the present time to accurately prove that the Hovey Residence encroaches into the height limitation. With this in mind we are not sure that a variance is really needed but as it seems to be our only alternative, we are following the Town of Vail's suggested course of action. Sincerely, Bill Anderson Project Manager Beck and Associates, Inc. FaginII Or111�1� eeringuiL D'anuary lei 1996 Nvhmov'- tm . 'C ItT_ 'i 3�r%` Mr. Dave pool PO Box 1202 Vail, CD 81658 Via tax: 476-4572 RE: Lot 23, then Lyon Subdivision Project No. 948569 • Dear Rave: This letter is in regard to the accuracy of the tapograptiio zap on the raterenced property, It Is our policy tO follow the National Mapping Accuracy standard* which require that all topographic map be within t 1/2 the contour interval of the map, The topographic map shown from our aurvty on this project has 2 foot contours which means they are within t i foot. if you have Any further questions, please wail. -Duane D. rehringer P.E., P.L.B. 77 Metcalf Road, 4201 a Box 970 • Avon, Colorado 6162C & Phone: 970-949-SM • Fmm Dorwer D loci: 693.1631 1420 Vance Street + LAwwood, Colorado 80211S • Phone: a03.232-0168 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission 980M: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA within an existing primary/secondary residence, located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Unit B, Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Barbara Bingham Planner: Dominic Mauriello BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant converted a vaulted area (183.5 sq.ft.) above their garage to habitable space (GRFA) without design review approval or a building permit. Staff became aware of the violation following the discovery of a similar conversion in the adjoining duplex Unit'W. In that case, staff became aware of the unpermitted construction after the Fire Department responded to an alarm at the subject property. Construction was on -going when the Fire Department arrived, and no building permit was in evidence. The owners of this adjoining unit (the Shiffrin's) were required to .remove the improvements since there was only 11 sq.ft. of available GRFA on the property. The Shiffrin's applied for, and were subsequently denied a density variance on October 9, 1995, which they further appealed to the Town Council. The PEC decision was upheld by the Town Council on October 17, 1995. A copy of the PEC minutes are attached. A letter was sent to the applicant requiring that the unpermitted GRFA be removed. The applicant decided to request a density variance in an attempt to gain approval to allow the GRFA to remain. The allowable GRFA for the property is 4,700 sq.ft. The duplex received a Certificate of Occupancy on'February 10, 1993. The approved GRFA for the duplex is 4,689 sq.ft. The applicant converted the existing enclosed area above the garage labeled as "open to below" on the approved plans to GRFA. The conversion adds 183.5 sq.ft. of GRFA to the duplex. Thus, the applicant is requesting a density variance to allow for an additional 172.5 sq.ft. of GRFA on the property. Ill- ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Two -Family Residential (R) Lot Area: 15,999.6 sq.ft. Allowed/Reouired Existing Proposed GRFA: 4,700 sq. ft. 4,689 sq.ft. 4,872.5 sq. ft. Page 1 of 3 Upon review of the criteria and findings contained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested density variance . based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed density variance would set a negative precedent if approved. Granting a density variance would reward the applicant for illegal conversion of vaulted space to GRFA by adding a floor. The bulk and density of the building would have been reduced if this conversion would have been included as GRFA in the original floor plans, since the GRFA would have been reduced In other areas. In the present situation, the structure is existing and there are no additional impacts to adjacent uses. 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. Staff finds that the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the GRFA . regulations is important to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among various properties in Town. Granting the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege, and would tend to encourage other unpermitted conversions. This would not only be detrimental to the enforcement of the Zoning Code, but It could also result in unsafe construction since others may attempt to build without a building permit and inspections by TOV building officials to ensure conformity with the Building Code. 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 does not believe that the requested variance would have any affect on the above referenced criteria. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantino 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 Page 2 of 3 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 doe 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: Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA within an existing primary/secondary residence, located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Unit B, Lot 6. Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Staff finds that the applicant's request does not meet the variance criteria listed above. Specifically, staff finds that the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the density regulations is necessary to avoid a grant of special privilege, that could have significant ramifications to the community if the same privilege is applied to other properties throughout Town. Furthermore, staff finds that there is no special circumstance or physical hardship that applies to the subject property that would warrant granting the requested variance. The applicant is hereby made aware that if the PEG denies the requested variance, that the applicant shall make application for a demolition permit within 14 days of the PEG decision. • Faevoryonelpaclmemo%ingham. m 13 r� Page 3 of 3 V..�c $ lock Z LoA- Ca Z 0.vn 0.,0 sae 0. u'1 -4-0 •� ►�¢ , �Q w n . Q �0.l -4 Q -}o be 0-lc . 4o use. ck- sir cd( oareo, 0.-�• 00'r Y'1 room � o+.PProx As a -'ate.►1� a.� S �- .2a�i�-ks) 3 ck-.�lairer� 3 be d co o'n We Coo real I vl use 4eyc4ro` roar,-, as o. $u,e4- SeaC,-- i -�or Inorne wor k } �,aottnc� � a,-�c� s�oc-aSe+, . �s an eX,s- o..�o�ao,rer�� \� . l�Gts cti � 1 o w e...� .�.' r +1•.� b u . l.�.� r . - - I �ouA-. no-� qq o n cx�e���r oLpreayernCAL p,f- „tpcegq a+(an OiCY1S�'vl o� Waol� in no WQI Q4�eG-1- 6 e- i -�'pw r, 0-� voat� when we rrnovecl Xr-orrt Wasv),r)g4G 1 -1�>• G, Oa v� �\e6 1peer, 40uc\s,�s here: �-Or S colts aid C O J �d a ff re c kOA-- �Ine C�va� �-� ,-� O-C k4e 4-7 l kve 1 wI a, S' Y-P-' Ck -Por• r r U.S -�-o P urcl-Zane. -�-ht� i ...._... ., . { � fie. _ ��?,�? ��. fea 11 � ...� sre, -E-�•. � �. s,rna t I oa<�a--,... �.. _ .... ,since.. , pack 4-o hec`-� -i. \ ns u re- ��- ..... _. o., is . P 5.. .76 u sue. 4-t 1, s space. �-� uzo ►3.l 1J, Minor C�cr�� r ...W_�T ^._•.. I I opinion that the unavailability of the applicant could be interpreted as insufficient information. Upon consultation with Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead, staff would •recommend that the Vail Town Council grant an approval of the applicant's request for a 30-day extension of the appeals process hearing due to insufficient information. Lapin moved to grant a 30 day extension, with a second by Slifer. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. �3 The twelfth item on the agenda was an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC) denial of a request for a density (GRFA) variance to allow for the conversion of attic space to GRFA located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6-A, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. �alic nt: Jeffrev & Eileen Shiffrl'n. Randy Stouder presented this item to Council. The applicants converted an area above their garage to habitable space (GRFA) without design review approval or a building permit. Staff became aware of the unpermitted construction after the Fire Department responded to an alarm at the subject property. Construction was on -going when the Fire Department arrived, and no building permit was in evidence. The Fire Department alerted the Community Development Department of the unpermitted construction and the job was red -tagged (stop work order issued) on July 26, 1995. A letter was sent to the applicant requiring that the unpermitted GRFA be removed (copy attached). The applicant decided to request a density variance in an attempt to gain approval to allow the GRFA to remain. •On October 9, 1995 the PEC unanimously denied (by a vote 5-0) the applicant's variance request. The applicant is appealing the PEC decision to the Town Council. Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request for a density variance. Jeff Shiffrin asked council to grant a density variance. Osterfoss explained the Town of Vail has clear guidelines to follow on density, Council must follow these guidelines. Strauch moved to uphold the PEC decision and deny the density variance, with a second by Lapin. A vote was taken and passed, 5-2 with Navas & Slifer against. The thirteenth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. There report. / Vail Commons Discussion & Decision. The Council agreed public session. Lapin once again recused himself and left th asked for public comment. Jeff Christensen thanked C u. not appreciate the Town releasing to the preKeproperty I from Wi this to be a smear campaign. Lew Meskimathe mast however he feels the people should vote use. the Council pursued all avenues befo eciding on City Marke this is a administrative issue. Pa ohnston believes this to h, administrative process. Nav grees with Johnston and truly move ahead with the proSteinberg does not feel it neces: go to a vote. We wKead ver need a land plan or a Town Cot Wants to procee ith the project as it is administrative, an administr a project. If this went to a vote what would the ballot? P Pies Ordinance 1 asks for a master plan to be appi The P les Ordinance 1, 1995 is very badly written and wouli as hole to remain in eting. Osterfoss :is for her help. He did tam D. Rosell, as he felt r plan is administrative, Bob Fiske does not feel :. Rob Levine believes ve been an 3elieves council should ary to have everything Zcil if this was the case. Slifer said this is clearly Hording be on the )ved by the electorate. have to go to court to �2ce interpreted before it could go on a ballot. Strauch has heard no evidence the has been legislative. He called 30 people who signed the petition asking them why and he received 30 different answers. He votes to proceed with the project. nl +4 fn e+a+.rl h, c A — +ka �_!F_......!;__-___.._a_ r - __ - • • e. : MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING May 21, 1996 7:30 P.M. REVISED 06.04.96 A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 21, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Kevin Foley Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz Sybill Navas MEMBERS ABSENT: Rob Ford TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance amending Title 18 Zoning, Chapters 18.12 (Two -Family Residential (R) District), 18.13 (Primary/Secondary Residential District, 18.54 (Design Review), 18.56 (Environmental Impact Reports), 18.58 (Supplemental Regulations), 18.60 (Conditional Use Permits), 18.62 (Variances), and 18.66 (Administration) With respect to Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipal Code. Sybill moved to remove Ordinance 7 from the Consent Agenda, with a second from Mike Jewett. Sybill and Mike said they were concerned about the new filing fee proposed in the ordinance to cover town costs. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello, suggested using language that would allow Council to set the fee, however not require it. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead stated that requiring a fee was quite appropriate, given the staff time involved. Council members requested some minor changes be made. Mike Jewett then moved to table Ordinance 7 to the next evening meeting to allow for staff review and other changes. Assistant Director of Community Development, Mike Mollica, suggested specific changes and moving forward with the ordinance, and Mike Jewett then withdrew his motion to table the ordinance. Sybill then moved to approve Ordinance 7, with a second from Ludwig Kurz. Discussion continued when local attorney, Art Abplanalp asked Council to consider several other changes, including extending the amount of time to file records for appeal beyond the 10 day time frame, and requested Council table the ordinance. Mike Jewett then questioned Tom Moorhead about the effect that Ordinance 7 would have on past approvals in relation to Chapter 18.56, Environmental Imnact Reoorts. In response to the question it was pointed out that the ordinance would not be retroactive, and would not have any effect on any approval that had previously been granted. At that time, Sybill withdrew her motion and moved to table Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996. Mike Jewett seconded the motion and a vote was taken, which passed unanimously, 6-0. Third on the agenda was Resolution No. 7, Series of 1996 a Resolution Renaming North Frontage Road East to lall Line Drive. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead and Public Works Director Larry Grafel presented the item, cplaining the Town of Vail had been presented with a petition signed by the residents of that area, requesting a change of the name from North Frontage Road East to Fall Line Drive. Larry stated that the Colorado Department of Transportation and other required agencies had approved the requested change, and that staff also recommended adopting Resolution No. 7. Council members were provided with a copy of the petition and asked to approve, modify or deny Resolution No. 7, Series of 1996. Paul moved to approve Resolution No. 7, Series of 1996 on first reading, and Kevin seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. At the request of Mayor Armour, Tom Moorhead explained the procedure required to change a street. Agenda item number four was the appointment of one Planning & Environmental Commission Board Member.. Director of Community Development, Susan Connelly and Mike Mollica presented the item, and informed Council that an opening existed on the seven member PEC due to the resignation of Kevin Deighan., and that the appointee would fill the remainder of Kevin's two-year term serving through March, 1997. Council was asked to appoint a new member or direct staff to re -advertise the vacancy. The following citizens had submitted letters of interest for appointment to the PEC and were interviewed at that afternoon's work session: Jerome B. Jacobs, John B. Schofield, and John C. Zahner. Ballots were then distributed to council members, and voted. Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon, then tallied the votes VW&nd presented the results to Mayor Armour. Paul Johnston moved to appoint John Schofield to fill the unexpired rm on the PEC, serving through March, 1997. Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Fifth on the agenda was an appeal of the PEC decision to approve with conditions, Vail Associates, Inc.'s Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes May 21, 1996 conditional use permit application for a new gondola at the Lionshead base area by Mr. and Mrs. David P. Ransburg, the owners of Lot 5, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing and Mr. John Jordan, the owner of a portion of Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 6th Filing, Town Planner, Jim Curnutte, summarized the history of events, presented the item and referenced a letter of appeal dated May 2, 1996, from local attorney, Art Abplanalp. Jim updated Council, stating the approved conditional use permit would allow for the placement of a low profile, high-speed gondola and associated terminal building, to be located approximately 10' west of the existing Chair 8 lower terminal, and that an additional three towers associated with the new gondola would be located within the Town of Vail Wunicipal limits. Jim then referenced a staff memorandum to the PEC dated April 22, 1996, the approved minutes from the April 22, 1996 PEG meeting, and a letter to Mr. Joe Macy dated May 14, 1996, which summarized the action taken by the PEC and the conditions attached to the approval. Jim then informed Council that the PEC's motion to approve the conditional use permit request included the staff's findings that the criteria for approving the requested conditional use permit had been met, and that the PEC approved the conditional use permit by a vote of 3-1. Jim stated the staff recommended that the Town Council uphold the PEC's conditional use permit approval of the Lionshead Gondola, with the conditions specified by the PEC on April 22, 1996, and that the staff believed the review criteria for granting a conditional use permit had been met, as specified in the staff memorandum to the PEC. Mayor Armour stated he had received letters from three individuals concerned about the night skiing issue, and made it clear to members of the audience that appeal of the PEC decision had no relevance to night skiing. Tom Moorhead defined the zone districts involved (Commercial Core II and Agricultural Open Space) and stated that ski tows and lifts were specified as a conditional use in those zone districts. Tom further explained that the application for the new gondola had been approved by the Forest Service, and that if Vail Associates wished to pursue night skiing, other processes would have to take place, and that the objection to night skiing did not relate to the application. Appellants' legal representative, Art Abplanalp requested Council put a condition on the gondola permit which would address the night skiing issue. Mar. Abplanalp stated that the Town of Vail should reserve the right to review such a request and to hold a public hearing if and when the issue came up. Right now, he said, only Worest Service approval would be required. Tom Moorhead responded, saying that under the current zoning code there were no standards on the use of Vail Associate's property for skiing, and suggested such a request be addressed as an amendment to the zoning. Senior Vice President and General Council for Vail Associates, James Mandel, addressed Council and introduced members of Vail Associates staff who were on hand to answer any questions, and asked council members to uphold the decision of the PEC. Attorney, Bruce Chapman, representing adjacent property owner Larry Field of 586 Forest Road, also urged Council to add conditions to the approval, as did Lionsquare Lodge General Manager, Jim Gemhoffer. Others in the audience, including attorney, Jay Peterson, PEC member Greg Moffet and Lionshead Merchants Association president Rob Levine spoke in favor of the project without additional conditions. Paul Johnston moved to uphold the PEC's approval of Conditional Use Permit with no additional conditions, and the motion was seconded by Sybill Navas. Mayor Armour then stated he could not justify controlling the use of land outside the Town of Vail boundaries. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Kevin wished Buddy Lazier good luck this weekend, as he's in the second row at the Indy 500 here being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:10 p.m. V fully submitted, W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: Holly cCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Hotly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) 0 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes May 21, 1996 r TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 • 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY May 22, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR MAY 21 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Employee Recognition Tim Lahey, a captain with t e Town of Vail Fire Department, was honored for 20 years of service to the town. Lahey received a certificate and a check for $2,000. --Interviews for Planning & Environmental Commission Member The Council interviewed three applicants for a mid-term opening on the Planning and Environmental Commission in preparation for appointment at the evening meeting. The applicants were: Jerome B. Jacobs, John B. Schofield and John C. Zahner. --VVTCB Update Re: Unified Call Center and Year -Round Air Task Force Frank Johnson, president of the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau (VVTCB), along with Jim Gregg, a consultant for Vail Associates, 'presented an update on efforts to unify the two reservation centers now operated by the VVTCB and Vail Associates. While Vail Associates will move its reservation center to Denver beginning July 1 to take advantage of a larger labor pool and expanded floor space, the VVTCB will continue to operate its center out of Vail, Johnson said, to avoid any additional risk to the valley. He said the two centers will be "cohesive," whereby each will serve as a backup to the other with roll-over lines. Johnson said the two entities will continue to work out the details of a single business consolidation to occur next spring. Council member Sybill Navas, noting her frustration in obtaining site -specific information from national outlets such as TicketMaster, wondered if the center's relocation to Denver will • cause a loss in Vail's personality. Acknowledging awareness of the concern, Johnson said the issue would be addressed through training, enhanced technology and numerous site visits by the reservationists. As for year-round air service at the Eagle County Regional Airport, Johnson said a task force appointed to research the possibility has suspended its work until the County and the Vail/Beaver Creek Jet Center resolve the terminal issue. Initial research, however, has indicated the valley's convention business during May to October last year could (more) ice.• RECYCLEDPAPER r Council Highlights/Add 1 have grown by $4.5 million if direct air service had been in place, Johnson said. Airlines are willing to talk about summer service, so long as they're accommodated during the winter season, according to Johnson. He said that interest is further . complicated by existing winter carriers and their subsidies. The task force is attempting to attract a year-round carrier with international connections that would fly small or mid- sized planes (75-90 seats) into the Eagle airport beginning next summer, he said. Commuter service from Denver or Colorado Springs also is a possibility, Johnson said, although that isn't the focus of the task force effort. For more information, contact Johnson at the VVTCB at 479-1000, ext. 3008. --Information Update Public Works/Transportation Director Larry Grafel briefed the Council on a remodel plan for the Vail Transportation Center Terminal building. The preliminary design includes improving entryways, more windows for increased orientation to the mountain, heated pavers around the building, improved climate control, relocation of restrooms, improved tenant finishes and the addition of other user-friendly amenities. The town has budgeted $500,000 for the project. Construction would begin in August following the necessary approvals from the PEC, DRB and Town Council. For more information, contact Grafel at 479-2173. --Council Reports • Paul Johnston gave an update on his Council involvement with the Chamber of Commerce. He said the Chamber is interested in advancing a health care coverage cooperative program; has received results on an employer housing survey; and is working on a priorities survey to be circulated soon. Kevin Foley said the Arts in Public Places Board will be coming to the Council soon to talk about the Seibert Circle project. Also, the next regional transportation meeting is scheduled for June 6. Bob Armour reviewed his activities from the past week which included: presentation of a Mayor's Cup award to Dana Carlson at Battle Mountain High School; attending a Chamber leadership coalition meeting and a presentation on the Eagle County Regional Airport by Kent Myers from Vail Associates; participation at the May 20 lottery drawing for the Vail Commons housing; and providing the opening remarks for a convention in Vail by the Federation of Government Information Processing Council. --Other The Colorado Municipal League will hold its annual convention here in June. i Michael Jewett asked for clarification regarding distribution of the town code book to council members. Following up on a suggestion by Paul Johnston at the last meeting, Bob Armour asked for more information from Public Works Director Larry Grafel on installing an American (more) Ji Council highlights/Add 2 flag in the middle of the roundabout. Grafel asked to wait until a more comprehensive report on an "avenue of flags" concept can be presented. • --Site Visit The Council visited the Lionshead Gondola site in preparation for the evening meeting. Evening Meeting Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation There was no citizen participation. --Consent Agenda After removing Ordinance No. 7 (administration and appeals procedure of the Vail Municipal Code) from the consent agenda, the Council voted 6-0 to table the matter until the next evening meeting on June 4. The ordinance, approved on first reading by a 5-0 vote at the May 8 meeting, essentially places the appeals process into one section of the town's zoning code, alleviating inconsistencies which currently exist. The revision also formalizes the notice of appeal process through use of a written form specifying the reason for the appeal; clarifies who has the right to appeal; and • establishes a new filing fee to cover town costs. During discussion, Council members Sybil[ Navas and Michael Jewett said they were concerned about the new filing fee proposed in the ordinance. Currently there is no fee for an appeal. Because the town has a complicated set of regulations, Navas said she didn't think it was reasonable to require an appellant to pay a filing fee. However, Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said a fee for an appeal is appropriate given the staff time involved. Local attorney Art Abplanalp asked the Council to consider several other changes, including extending the amount of time to file records for the appeal beyond the 10 day period proposed in the ordinance. For additional details, contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community Development Department at 479-2148. --Resolution to Rename North Frontage Road East to Fall Line Drive After reviewing a petition requesting the name change signed by residents of the area, the Council approved the resolution on a 6-0 vote. Public Works Director Larry Grafel said the Colorado Department of Transportation and other required agencies had approved the request. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead then explained the procedure required to change a street name upon a question from Mayor Bob Armour. . --Appointment of a Planning and Environmental Board Member The Council appointed John B. Schofield to fill a mid -year term on the Planning and Environmental Commission. Schofield replaces Kevin Deighan, who moved outside the town's boundary. Schofield's term will run to March 1997 --Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Conditional Use Permit Approval of Lionshead Gondola (more) Council Highlights/Add 3 After making it clear to members of the audience that appeal of the PEG decision had no relevance to night skiing, the Council voted 6-0 to uphold approval of a conditional use permit (with previous conditions required by PEC) for a new gondola at Lionshead. This approval allows for the placement of a low profile, high-speed gondola and associated terminal building, to be located approximately 10 feet west of the existing Chair 8 lower terminal, and construction of an additional three towers associated with the new gondola to be located within the Town of Vail municipal limits. Mayor Bob Armour acknowledged receipt of letters from individuals concerned about the night skiing issue, but reiterated the conditional use permit request was for a gondola, not night skiing. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said ski tows and lifts are specified as a conditional use in that zone district. Moorhead further explained that the application was approved by the U.S. Forest Service. If Vail Associates wanted to pursue night skiing, other processes would need to take place, beginning with the U.S. Forest Service, he said. Local attorney Art Abplanalp, representing the home owners who had appealed the permit, said a condition on the gondola permit which would address night skiing was the only way the Town could protect itself and his clients. In response, Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said Abplanalp was correct in that the town cannot require standards on the use of land outside its boundaries. However, lighting placements within the town's jurisdiction would require approval by the Design Review Board. he said. Also, he suggested Abplanalp's request for a condition on a conditional use permit be addressed in a zoning change. Attorney Bruce Chapman, • representing another property owner, also urged the Council to add conditions to the approval, while others in the audience, including attorney Jay Peterson, PEC member Greg Moffet and Lionshead Merchants Association president Rob Levine spoke in favor of the project without additional conditions. For more information, contact Town Attorney Tom Moorhead at 479-2105. --Other Council member Kevin Foley wished Buddy Lazier good luck this weekend. He'll be in the second row at the Indy 500. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS May 28 Work Session Cancelled June 4 Work Session Review Ordinance No. 5, Animal Control Interview Liquor Board Applicants Community Survey Results Presentation Conceptual Review of Lionshead Redevelopment June 4 Evening Session Appointment of 2 Liquor Board Members First Reading, Ordinance No. 12 (amending Title 17)