HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-04 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
June 4, 1996
7:30 P.M.
Aar tar meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 4, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the
Vunicipal 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
Rob Ford
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, Vail resident, Bill Wilto distributed photos showing an array
of newspaper boxes in the Village core and suggested the town work to improve the presentation of dispensers.
Nei&Fred Lutz, new area manager for TCI Cablevision of the Rockies introduced himself and TCI's technical
m er, Mark Graves, to council members.
Item number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the approval of the Minutes for the
meetings of May 7 and 21, 1996. Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon distributed revised minutes for the May 21
meeting and Paul Johnston moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second by Sybil[ Navas. A vote was
taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance creating Section
17.32.050, Plat Title Formats, and amending Sections 17.16.130C, Final Plat -requirements and Drocedure and
17.22.030, Condominium and Townhouse Plats -submittal requirements,, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Mayor Armour read the title in full and Town of Vail Planner, George Ruther, presented the following background:
The Community Development Department was proposing three amendments to Chapter 17, Subdivision
Regulations and Construction Design Standards, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The amendments propose
to include Plat Title Formats. as Section 17.32.050 and to amend Sections 17.16.130C, Final Plat-reauirements
and Drocedure and 17.22.030, Condominium and Townhouse Plats -submittal requirements.. The purpose of
amending Chapter 17 was to define a standard format for plat titles in the Town of Vail and modify the
requirements and procedure. Staff felt that the creation of a standard format for all plat titles would help reduce
past inconsistencies which have caused indexing and referencing problems for the Town of Vail and Eagle
County. George informed council members that on April 22, the PEC had voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend
val of the proposed amendments to Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Sybill Navas moved to approve Ordinance 12, Series of 1996 on first reading and the motion was seconded by
Kevin Foley. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Agenda item number four was 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. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello, presented the item, and gave
the following history: At a meeting of the Town Council on May 21, 1996, Council tabled Ordinance No. 7 on
second reading in order for staff to make some revisions to the ordinance. Concern was raised by Council
regarding the language included in the provision for a fee. The language had been modified to reflect the changes
proposed by Council. Concerns were raised by Art Abplanalp over the use of the words "appellee" and "request"
and also about the listing of adjacent property owners. The word "appellee" had been replaced with the word
"appellant" and the word "request" had been replaced with the word "appeal" throughout the ordinance. Staff felt
that the amount of time required to assemble a list of adjacent property owners was acceptable, and that such lists
rarely exceed 7 names and addresses. Dominic then stated that staff recommended approval of Ordinance No.
7, Series of 1996, on second reading. Art Abplanalp applauded Council and staff for their willingness to listen to
and incorporate suggestions, but stated he still had concerns. Those concerns were discussed in detail and council
n&ers made several suggestions.
Paul Johnston moved to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996 on second reading, incorporating changes as
discussed, Rob Ford seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes June 4,1996
Fifth on the agenda was Resolution No. 8, Series of 1996, a Resolution renaming Lion's Ridge Court to Glacier
Court. Mayor Armour read the title in full and George Ruther reviewed details, explaining that the property owners
on Lion's Ridge Court had requested a change of the name from Lion's Ridge Court to Glacier Court, as
evidenced by a petition signed by all of the property owners on Lion's Ridge Court. George further stated that Staff
found the applicant's request reasonable, and recommended the approval of Resolution No. 8, Series of 1996,
Pat 171puphinais, one of the two property owners was present to answer any questions.
A motion was made by Sybill to approve Resolution No. 8, Series of 1996, and Ludwig seconded the motion. A
vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. Six on the agenda was the appointment of two Local Licensing Authority Members. Town Clerk, Holly
McCutcheon presented the item and requested Council appoint two individuals to fill the expiring terms of Don
White and Connie Knight. Don White and Connie Knight had both submitted letters for reappointment by the
published deadline and no other letters were submitted. Ballots were then distributed to council members, and
voted. Holly then tallied the votes and presented the results to Mayor Armour. Sybill moved to reappoint Don
White and Connie Knight to serve new terms, due to expire June, 1998. Rob Ford seconded the motion. A vote
was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Mayor Armour thanked the two for their continued service.
Seventh on the agenda was an appeal of the Planning & Environmental Commission's (PEC) denial of
a request for a height variance to allow for a residence, 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). Applicant: Bill Anderson representing Mr. and Mrs. Hovey. Dominic Mauriello presented the item and
provided council members with the following background: On January 8, 1996 the PEC unanimously denied a
similar request for a building height variance for the structure. The denial was appealed to Council on January
6, 1996. The council failed to pass a motion to either uphold or overturn the PEC decision, therefore the PEC
de ' 'on was automatically upheld. On May 13, 1996, the PEC denied another request for the same variance, and
thplicant was appealing that denial. Dominic stated the applicant was in the process of constructing a
rest ence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and that the Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the
applicant indicated that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot
maximum height allowance for residential structures. The ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying's
ILC were constructed a maximum of 8 inches above the 33-foot height allowance. The applicant's requested that
the PEC grant a height variance to retain the roof ridges at the existing,. constructed heights.
Dominic stated the applicant believed that the Town's topographic survey policy allows for a one foot variation in
existing elevation and that if given a one foot variation the building would be within the height limitations. The
Town's policy did not allow variations in building height, and now require a spot elevation under proposed roof
elevations prior to the site being disturbed. In this particular case, Dominic stated, the building height problem
resulted from the addition of heated floors and not from a survey error, and that it was the Staffs recommendation
to deny the applicant's request to overturn the PEC decision.
Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead explained that because there was a 3-3 vote, the PEC decision stood, as there
must be a majority vote. Bob Armour questioned why the issue was once again before Council, and if one could
appeal time after time. Tom said there was no limit on the number of times an applicant could submit an
application for a variance and appeal.
j Peal stated there were new issues that had come to light, concerning the accuracy of the Improvement
Ll�ltion Certificate and the actual topo, and that the national standard allowed for a 1' plus or minus tolerance
based on 2 foot contours, and Dan Corcoran, professional land surveyor, explained the discrepancy in detail. He
also stated he was here on his own, not at anyone's request or payment.
Discussion continued regarding the construction process, changing plans, and the Town's new survey policies
which went into effect March 28, 1996.
Paul moved to overturn the PEC decision, and Sybill seconded the motion. A vote was taken and was defeated,
3 - 4, Rob Ford, Kevin Foley, Bob Armour and Ludwig Kurz voting in opposition.
Dave Peel then presented Council with an improved design solution, and Paul Johnston moved to allow the
applicant to modify two of the three roof ridges, as presented in the improved design solution. Kevin Foley
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed, 4-3, Rob Ford, Sybill Navas, and Bob Armour voting in
opposition.
item No. Eight on the agenda was an appeal of the PEC denial of a request for a density variance to allow for the
construction of additional GRFA within an existing prima rylsecondary residence, located at 3130 Booth Falls
Court/Unit B, Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Brent and Barbara Bingham.
D is Mauriello provided Council with the following background: In November of 1995, an inspection of the
reWence revealed a vaulted area had been converted to GRFA without a building permit. The additional GRFA
was in excess of that permitted by the Zoning Code. On November 20, 1995, the appellants were sent a letter
stating that the additional GRFA must be removed. The appellants then decided to apply for a density variance
to allow the additional GRFA. On May 13, 1996, the PEC denied the density variance request (3-1-1) finding that
the granting of the variance would be a grant of special privilege. The appellants were appealing that denial.
Vail Tw n Cwncil Evening Meeting Minutes June 4, 1996
Dominic continued, stating the applicant had converted a vaulted area (183.5 sq.ft.) above their garage to habitable
space (GRFA) without a building permit. Staff became aware of the violation following the discovery of a similar
conversion in the adjoining duplex Unit "A" (the Shiffrins). In the Shiffrin's 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 Shiffrins were
re ed to remove the improvements since there was only 11 sq.ft. of available GRFA on the property. The
Shuts 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.
The allowable GRFA for the property was 4,700 sq.ft. The duplex received a Certificate of Occupancy on February
10, 1993. The approved GRFA for the duplex was 4,689 sq.ft. The conversion added 183.5 sq.ft. of GRFA to
the duplex. Therefore, the variance request was to allow 172.5 sq.ft. of additional GRFA. Dominic then stated
that the recommendation of Staff was for denial of the appellant's request to overturn the PEC decision.
Resident and applicant, Barbara Bingham addressed Council and referenced a letter she had written, explaining
her variance request in detail. Rob Ford moved to direct staff to draft an agreement between the parties requiring
payment of a fine in the amount of $400 and to work with Council on the GRFA issue in the future, that the
applicant post a bond, and that the agreement be recorded with Eagle County, leaving the space as is.
Tom Moorhead suggested the remodeled area be subject to inspection for health and safety reasons, and further
stated the item could be tabled until the next evening meeting, giving staff time to reach an agreement with the
Binghams. Mrs. Bingham stated they were willing to work with the Town.
Rob then withdrew his motion, and moved to table the item, allowing time for an agreement to be reached between
the parties. Paul seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed, 4-3, Sybill, Bob and Ludwig voting in
op sition.
fih0ext item on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob Mctaurin reminded Council members
about the public meeting schedule in connection with the West Vail Interchange project.
There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at
approximately 9:30 p.m.
Respectf Ily submitted,
mour, Mayor
APW
TEST:
Ind��
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon
(`Names of certain indi Jiduals who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
r�
u
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes June 4, 1g96
,
..
r`
^-�
1.
It It cL
MEMORANDUM
. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: .tune 10, 1996
RE: A request to amend Section 18.04.035, the definition of Brew Pub, and
Section 18,28.040 (L) modifying the percentage of the product
manufactured for off -site consumption and the area used for brewing.
Applicant: Hubcap Brewery and Kitchen, represented by owner Lance
Lucey
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a Zoning Code amendment to modify the definition and the
conditional use criteria for a brew pub. A brew pub is an eating establishment which
includes the brewing of beer as an accessory use. The current definition limits the area
in a brew pub used for brewing and bottling to 25% of the total floor area. The amount
of beer produced is limited to 1,500 barrels a year (46,500 gallons). The conditional
use criteria limits sales for off -site consumption to 15% of the product manufactured.
The applicant is proposing to increase these limitations. The proposed definition would
limit the area in a brew pub used for brewing and bottling to 50% of the total floor
area. The amount of beer produced would be limited to 7,500 barrels a year (232,500
gallons). The conditional use criteria would limit sales for off -site consumption to 45%
of the product manufactured.
Attached is a copy of the proposed text changes and a copy of the applicant's request.
II. BACKGROUND
On August 21, 1990, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1990,
allowing brew pubs as a use by right in the Commercial Service Center (CSC) zone
•district and as a conditional use for those brew pubs with sales for off -site consumption.
At that time, staff researched restrictions placed on brew pubs by other communities. It
was found that few communities placed restrictions on the size of such operations and
the brewing capacity beyond the normal zoning restrictions placed on any restaurant or
commercial establishment. The issues of concern in 1990 centered around the impacts
to, and compatibility with, other uses in the CSC district. Specifically, issues relating to
odor, deliveries, and loading. Conditions were established in the code to ensure that
the use would comply with regulations regarding loading, delivery, and odor. Also, as a
matter of practice, conditions have been placed on the conditional use permit approvals
for the Hubcap Brewery which further ensures compatibility with other uses in the
district. a
The limits adopted in 1990 were based on several factors. The production capacity
(1,500 barrels) was established based on the average 1990 production levels of brew
pubs across the nation and the fact that the owner of the Hubcap Brewery at that time
anticipated only producing 750 barrels a year. Brew pubs across the nation have
experienced an increase in demand for "micro -beers" and hence have expanded their
production levels of beer.
The limits placed on the area used for producing beer (25% of total area) was
established to ensure that the brewing operation remained accessory to the restaurant.
It was a limitation set at the time, due to our limited experience in Vail with such a use.
The staff believed a conservative approach was necessary.
The limitation placed on the amount of beer sold for off -site consumption (15%) was
based on the Town's desire to ensure that the use remained compatible with other uses
by limiting potential deliveries to and from the site. The applicant has indicated that by
increasing the brewing capacity, he can actually reduce loading and delivery demands.
Since the brewing capacity is so limited now, they can only dispense a small amount of
product at a time to outside venders. This requires that these venders make more trips
per week to pick up the beer. With a larger capacity brewing potential, venders can
pick-up more product in one trip and therefore reduce the overall number of trips per
week.
These proposed limitations comply with all State limitations placed on such uses. Staff
believes the proposed levels are appropriate to allow this use to be successful in Vail.
The existing levels do not reflect the market trends for such uses and therefore may
arbitrarily hinder the success of such an operation. Staff has done additional research
and found no such limitations in other municipalities. Staff believes the proposed limits
will allow the use to remain compatible with other uses in the district. There are
existing regulations within the code that ensure that odor, loading and delivery, noise,
and other similar impacts are mitigated and compatible throughout the Town.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the definition and •
conditional use criteria for brew pubs, finding that the change in the limitations to brew
pubs will continue to ensure compatibilty with other uses in the CSC district.
Existing regulations
Definition:
. 18.04.035 Brew Pub.
"Brew Pub" means an eating place which includes the brewing of beer as an
accessory use. The brewing operation processes water, malt, hops, and yeast into
beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting. The area used for brewing, including
bottling and kegging, shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the total floor area
of the commercial space. The brewery shall not produce more than one thousand five
hundred (1,500) barrels of beer or ale per year. A barrel is equivalent to thirty one (31)
gallons.
Commercial Service Center, Conditional uses:
18.28.040 Conditional uses.
L. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sell beer or ale for off -
site consumption so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off -site
consumption do not exceed fifteen percent of the product manufactured by the
brew pub on an annual basis.
. Proposed regulations
Definition:
18.04.035 Brew Pub.
"Brew Pub" means an eating place which includes the brewing of beer as an
accessory use. The brewing operation processes water, malt, hops, and yeast into
beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting. The area used for brewing, including
............................
bottling and kegging, shall not exceed fEfty percent
the total floor area of the commercial space. The brewery shall not produce more than
one thousamd five humdredSe�etr.hriand #ire httaired75t?i barrels of beer
or ale per year. A barrel is equivalent to thirty one (31) gallons.
Commercial Service Center, Conditional uses:
18.28.040 Conditional uses.
L. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sell beer or ale for off-
• site consumption so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off -site
consumption do not exceed fifteen pereent � � f*d percent (45"/c,} of the
product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis.
f:\everyonelpeclmemoslbrewpub.610
ATTACHMENT TO THE PETITION FORM FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OR REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Summary of the Proposed Revision of the Rt Ala ion
Under the current conditioned uses of a Commercial Service Center a brewpub is allowed 41
with the following attached conditions.
1) The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed 25% of the
total floor area of the commercial space.
2) The brewery shall not produce more than one thousand five hundred barrels of beer or
ale per year.
3) The total of wholesale sales and sales for off -site consumption do not exceed 15% of
the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis.
Proposed Changes in the Regulations
That the above conditions be revised to allow the following:
1) The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed 50% of the
total floor area of the commercial space.
2) The brewery shall not produce more than seven thousand five hundred barrels of beer
or ale per year.
3) The total of wholesale sales and sales for off -site consumption do not exceed 45% of
the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis.
n
LJ
Under the current conditions the Brewing Company of Vail, Inc. is very limited in
our growth potential. As you know, space in Vail is quite expensive. In order to produce
more beer we must increase our brewing area and we simply cannot afford to take on
more space and keep our brewing area at 25%. This would mean we can only allocate I
foot of every 4 feet we take on in expansion to brewing. Given the overhead costs
associated with space in Vail I would quickly drive this business into the ground under the
current restriction of not more than 25% of floor space being allocated to brewing.
The current cap of 1500 barrels per year completely restricts our ability to grow.
Our long term plan is to not only produce better beer, but more beer. The most
promising growth area for the Brewing Company of Vail, Inc. is on the beer side of the
business. 1500 barrels is the minimum we can produce and service all our on -site
restaurant and bar business while operating an extremely modest off -site business. The
7500 barrel restriction I suggested was based on the fact that we can produce this level
without changing our brewing schedule, which currently allows us to have a minimum
effect on neighboring businesses. Please keep in mind that the process that produces the
odor in beer making comes approximately three hours into the beer making procedure.
Current Brewing Schedule During Busy Season: One Brewer •
6:00 p.m. 1st Batch
10;00 P.M. 2nd Batch
Proposed Brewing Schedule During Busy Season: Two Brewers
6:00 p.m.
1st Batch
7:00 p.m.
2nd Batch
8:00 P.M.
3rd Batch
9:00 p.m.
4th Batch
• 10:00 P.M.
5th Batch
Our on -site sales are capped by the physical boundaries of our space. It is possible
for us to sell only so much beer based on the size of the Hubcap. Our future is in off -site
sales. Currently we distribute on a very modest basis in Vail and neighboring areas. In my
three months here I have already had to turn down several offers from various distributors,
restaurants and bars to carry our beer based on the restriction of 15% off -site and
wholesale sales.
Please see attachment for comparison of comparable breweries.
•