HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-01 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
July 1, 1997
7:3G P.M.
A reqular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 1, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Vail
M#ipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro -tern
Kevin Foley
Rob Ford
Michael Jewett
Paul Johnston (arrived at approx. 7:45 p.m.)
Ludwig Kurz
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Joe Staufer of the Vail Village Inn urged Council to reject
the concept of a lodging tax to fund regional marketing, Staufer said a study by the American Hotel/Motel Association
indes a bed tax is detrimental to resort communities and harmful to convention cities. Additionally, he said the
bu should not be placed on one segment of the community to carry the load for marketing.
Next, Intermountain resident, Sue Dugan suggested the town address several problems impacting the success of
the Main Vail roundabout. Her suggestions included adding directional arrows and/or striping to the lanes. She said
the roundabout is more like a "race track" with most offenders being locals.
Lou Meskimen, Vail resident and owner of Masked Man Services, suggested the town consider converting its
seasonal employees to full time with benefits to help with retention.
Agenda item number two was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following:
A. Approval of the Minutes of the meetings of June 3 and 17, 1997.
Ludwig moved to approve the Consent Agenda with a second from Kevin Foley. A vote was then taken which passed
unanimously, 6-0.
Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, second reading of an ordinance providing for a
development plan and its contents; development standards; and other provisions; and setting forth details in regard
thereto. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town of Vail Planner, George Ruther presented the item. The applicant
was&nnenalp Properties, Inc., and was represented by Gordon Pierce. Council was asked to review and discuss
OrdWhce No. 12, Series of 1997. George reviewed in detail conditions which had been incorporated into the
ordinance following first reading and provided the following background:
On June 17, 1997, the Vail Town Council reviewed and approved Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, on first reading
(5-0). The Council's approval carried with it several modifications. Each of the changes had been incorporated into
the revised ordinance which establishes Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus: The project includes
18 member -owned fractional fee club units, 25 hotel rooms and one on -site manager's residence, plus 5,402 sq. FL
of new commercial/retail space, meeting room facilities, an outdoor pool and other accessory facilities commonly
associated with hotels and lodges.
Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association applauded the project, stating a part of the Village Master
Plan had been achieved. He then asked Council to consider revising the town's SDD, rezoning, and master planning
process to better serve the community.
Ludwig Kurz moved to approve Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, on second reading with the following conditions:
That Section G be included in the Developer's Agreement, and that a restoration plan for the streambank be worked
on with town staff.
Kevin Foley stated he still had concerns about loading and delivery on the west end of the project. He also said he
wa;leappointed the streamwalk was not maintained, as supported by the community survey.
Paul Johnston said he supported the Austria Haus redevelopment after reviewing the construction schedule, which
indicated construction would cease during the ski season.
Sybill Navas said she hoped the process would be improved future projects, especially when redevelopment in
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes July 1, 1997
r
Lionshead comes before the Council. She expressed frustration that a draft streambank restoration plan wasn't
available until the day of second reading. She said Vail's stream issues need to be taken more seriously.
A vote was then taken which passed 6-1, Kevin Foley voting in opposition.
Item number Four on the agenda was a request to review and approve the proposed public view corridors to be
'*red in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The final adoption of public view corridors, if any will occur
in�ge 5 of the Master Plan process. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello, presented the item and referred to the staff
memo dated July 1, 1997, as well as the consultant memo dated June 23, 1997 (attached).
The recommendation of staff was for approval of the proposed public view corridors as reviewed by Council on June
24, 1997. The exact view points and delineated views will occur in Stage 5 of the master planning process. The views
recommended by Council at the June 24 meeting included:
View #2 (from the east end of the parking structure) to be included as a design parameter.
View #3 (from the west end of the parking structure) to be designated in Stage 5 as a view corridor.
Views #6 or 7 (from the mall area looking up gondola line) to be designated in Stage 5 as a view corridor.
View #.8 (from the east of the Landmark looking south through the VA core site) to be included as a design
parameter.
View #9 (from the east of the Landmark looking south through the VA core site from a higher elevation that
View #8) to be designated in Stage 5 as a view corridor.
Foe consideration and adoption of public view corridors, if any are to occur in Stage 5 of the Master Plan process.
Ethan Moore of Design Workshop showed slides of the 5 views.
Rob Ford moved to approve the proposed public view corridors, with a second from Paul Johnston.
David Corbin of Vail Associates, said he supported the view corridor recommendations. The idea of knowing that
a design constraint exists will be useful to VA as it looks to design its core site, he said. Also, Dave said he
appreciated the fact that the view corridors and design parameters haven't been narrowly defined that might
otherwise inhibit design concepts. In addition, Dave said the view from the popcorn wagon area may need
adjustment following a survey of VA's property line (since view corridors may only be preserved from public spaces.)
Sybill Navas noted that although other views were found to be critical in Lionshead, they don't need additional
protection because the views don't appear to be threatened by any future development or redevelopment.
A vote was then taken, which passed unanimously, 7-0.
Agenda item number five was a Town Council call-up of a Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) decision
(5-1 msden against) to overturn a staff decision regarding a proposed batting cage on the outdoor dining deck of
GaRP's Saloon, located at 143 E. Meadow Dr., Vail, Colorado. Appellant: Dave Garton.
Town of Vail Planner, Lauren Waterton presented the item, and explained that the issue centered on interpretation
of the zoning code and corresponding definitions of permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses. The
request was to place an accessory use outside, and that staff's interpretation was that only a permitted use could
be allowed out of doors. Therefore, staff had originally denied the request. Dave Garton then appealed the decision
to the PEC, and the PEC voted to overturn staff ruling, finding that an accessory use be allowed outside.
Council members then discussed the operation with Dave Garton and Steve Olson from Garton's Saloon, who
explained their request in detail. Brian Canepa, a Minturn resident spoke for the added use, expressing his feeling
it would benefit the local youth baseball population.
Jim Lamont stated his concern with the process, urging Council to use the criteria to involve adjacent property owners
in decision -making.
Town resident, Lou Meskimen said that although a batting cage was a good idea, Garton's was not the place for it,
due to traffic concerns, views and lighting. He suggested placing the amusement at on the softball fields.
Paul Johnston moved to uphold the decision of the PEC, allowing the appellant to go through the application process
for iftmendment to its conditional use permit to allow for operation of a batting cage on its outdoor dining deck.
Rob rd seconded the motion.
Mike Jewett felt the operation of a batting cage was an amusement devise, and said he was in favor of the motion.
Ludwig Kurz was concerned about how the neighborhood would be impacted, enticing minors onto a liquor licensed
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes July 1, 1997
establishment, and noise issues.
Mayor Armour felt the code was clear and that the request did not fall within what was allowable
Sybill Navas recommended the code should be more clearly defined, and Kevin Foley agreed that the applicant
should go through the application process.
Awas then taken which passed, 6-1, Mayor Armour voting in opposition. Sybill then moved to direct staff to
evaluate accessory uses as a conditional use and clarify language. Rob seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and approved unanimously, 7-0.
Next, Paul Johnston addressed fellow council members from behind the podium as a citizen representing the
interests of the Vail Village and Lionshead. He asked Council to revisit the Town's policy on the hours of construction
occurring in the business districts. Current hours allowed by the Town Code are 7 AM to 7 PM, Monday through
Saturday, and from 8 AM to 5 PM on Sunday. Paul said the policy should be changed to be more in keeping with
the needs of overnight guests, and suggested no work be allowed on Saturday or Sunday during the months of July,
August and September. Also he proposed an 8 AM to 5 PM workday Monday through Thursday, and an 8 AM to
4 PM schedule on Fridays.
A report from the Town Manager followed. Bob McLaurin noted the 1-70 underpass at West Vail would be shut down
Wednesday and Thursday to allow for paving of the underpass and the north side roundabout. The work should be
completed by the end of the day Thursday, he said.
Finally, Dick Stratton, District Manager for Holy Cross Electric, introduced himself and provided an update on the
utility's new emphasis on improved customer service.
ThObeing no further business, a motion was made for adjournment by Kevin and seconded by Rob Ford. The
meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:40 p.m.
Resp ully submitted,
Ro rt W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
�Peon!,Town
,
Hotly cCutc Clerk
Minutes prepared by Holly McCutcheon
(*Names of certain individuals Who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes July 1, 1997
MEMORANDUM
O TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 1, 1997
SUBJECT: Request to amend the Zoning Code to allow interior conversions
Staff: Russell Forrest & Tom Braun (Consultant)
PURPOSE
The Town of Vail has been reviewing three potential alternatives to the existing Gross
Residential Floor Area policy for single family, duplex, and primary/secondary development. The
review was initiated at the request of the Town Council, primarily to examine how to create more
flexibility within the existing system.
The Vail Town Council, on April 15, 1997, directed staff to implement Alternative 1, the interior
conversion alternative. Alternative 1 involves keeping GRFA as a toot to control floor area but
. would allow interior conversions for existing homes that have no remaining GRFA allowance.
Alternative 1 would only allow interior conversions for homes existing at the date of the approval
of this policy by the Town Council. New construction would not be eligible for interior
conversions.
The purpose of this worksession is to review the Planning and Environmental Commissions
recommendation for implementing alternative 1 and to receive Council's direction on final
language for an ordinance. Section V of this memo describes staff's recommendation for
ordinance language to implement alternative 1 which the PEC supported with several
modifications that are described in section Vlll. In addition, staff would recommend
consolidating the numerous references to GRFA in the Zoning Code into one consolidated
section. This would help to better communicate current policy on GRFA to applicants. This
consolidation would also include the codification of several staff interpretations currently being
used to calculate GRFA (See Attachment A).
PROBLEM STATEMENT & GIVENS
In 1996, the Vail Town Council directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system and
determine whether this is an effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives.
Three reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which include:
A) Is GRFA an effective tool in controlling mass and bulk;
B) Is it appropriate that the Town should be reviewing interior floor space; and
C) Is it an effective use of staff time (both TOV and designers/builders)?
7OWN4VA11
The givens for this process include:
A) The Vail Town Council will make the final decision with input from the community and
recommendations from the PEC and staff.
B) There will be some form of regulatory control of size and mass.
C) This process will only address residential development (single-family, duplex, and
primary/secondary type structures).
D) "No action" (i.e. keeping the existing GRFA system) is a viable alternative.
E) Homes should not get significantly larger in size.
F) New design guidelines should not inhibit design creativity.
Ill. BACKGROUND
A. Initiat Public Process
In October of 1996, Tom Braun, the planning consultant for this project, prepared a paper which
addressed the following
" Reoccurring concerns/issues with the existing system,
" Objectives of having mass and bulk controls,
" Alternative mechanisms for controlling bulk and mass,
• History of GRFA in Vail,
• Analysis of how seven other resort communities control bulk and mass, and
" Analysis of five alternatives to the Town of Vail's GRFA system.
At the public meetings on October 30th and 31st in 1996, Tom Braun presented the findings in
the background paper. A majority of the time at the meeting was spent obtaining input from the
public on the existing system, discussing pros and cons of alternatives, and identifying new
alternatives. Approximately 45 people attended these meetings.
B. Review of Alternatives
The PEC reviewed the background paper and public input on November 11, 1996 and the Town
Council considered this information on November 261h. At the conclusion of these meetings the
staff was directed to further asses the following three alternatives in greater detail.
Allow interior modifications to exceed the maximum GRFA allowance for existing
structures, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home.
Amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space from calculation as GRFA.
Eliminate the use of GRFA for controlling mass and bulk for single family, duplex,
and primary/secondary type structures.
C. Choice of Alternatives
The Vail Town Council was very clear that any alternative to the existing GRFA system should
not significantly increase bulls and mass. The Council was also very sensitive to any
recommendation that might inhibit creative design solutions. On March 10, 1997, the PEC, in a
4-3 vote, recommended alternative one with several conditions. At the April 1 st Council
worksession, staff reviewed the alternatives along with the recommendations from the PEC and
staff. At the evening meeting on April 15th, Council directed staff to work on the implementation
of alternative one.
•
IV.
PROCESS OVERVIEW
The process for this project is broken into three phases 1) identification of alternatives; 2)
analysis of alternatives; and 3) legislative review of the preferred alternative. The following are
specific steps in the process.
Phase I
Identification of Alternatives
1)
Background analysis of existing GRFA system and alternatives.
September &
October, 1996
2)
Public meetings to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system
October 30th &
and alternatives.
31st, 1996
3)
Presentation to PEC and Town Council to review prostcons and
November 11 &
(PEG) public input. The purpose of these public meetings was to
November 26
determine if any of the alternatives could be eliminated.
1996
Phase II
Analvze how to implement alternatives and identifv the imoacts of each alternative
4)
Complete analysis of alternative approaches.
December & January
1996/1997
5)
PEC worksession to review 3 alternatives
February 10, 1997
6)
PEG hearing to recommend an alternative
March 10, 1997
7)
Council worksession
April 1, 1997
8)
Evening Council meeting to decide on alternative
April 15, 1997
Phase
Leaislative Review of preferred alternative (assumes code modifications)
8)
Staff prepares language to modify Town Code
May/June, 1997
9)
PEC: hearing to consider code revisions
June 23, 1997
10)
Town Council: worksesslon to review proposed revision to
July 1, 1997
the existing GRFA regulations
11)
Town Council: first reading of an ordinance
July 15, 1997
12)
Town Council: second reading of an ordinance
August 5, 1997
* Currently on step 10
i
3
RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR GRFA IMPLEMENTATION
A. P"nosed Ordinance - Interior Conversions
The interior conversion amendment will be Implemented by creating a section in a new
consolidated GRFA Chapter of the Zoning Code. This new consolidated GRFA Chapter
would incorporate the GRFA definition, current staff policies for calculating GRFA, a
summary of GRFA regulations for each zone district, the 250 sq. ft. additional GRFA
provision, and the proposed interior space conversion provision. The only substantive
change in GRFA policy through this consolidation of GRFA regulations would be the
interior conversion provision.
The following is staff's recommended approach to implement alternative one. Following
PEG review, staff will prepare the formal ordinance language for this amendment.
t
The purpose of this section is to provide flexibility and latitude with the use of interior
spaces within existing dwelling units that meet or exceed the allowable Gross Residential
Floor Area (GRFA) without increasing the size of the building. This would be achieved by
allowing for the conversion of existing interior spaces such as vaulted spaces, crawl
spaces, and other interior spaces into floor area provided certain conditions and
standards are met. This provision is intended to accommodate existing homes where
residents desire to expand the amount of usable space in the interior of a home. The
Town has also recognized that property owners have constructed interior space without
building permits. This provision is also intended to reduce the occurrence of interior
building activity without building permits and thereby further protect the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
Aoolicability
Single family, duplex, and primary/secondary type dwelling units that meet or exceed the
allowable GRFA will be eligible to make interior conversions provided the following criteria
are satisfied.
Any existing single-family dwelling unit or any existing dwelling unit within a structure
containing no more than two dwelling units (exclusive of EHU units) shall be eligible to
add additional GRFA, via the "interior space conversion" provision in excess of
existing or allowable GRFA including such units located in a Special Development
District, provided that such additional GRFA complies with the standards outlined
herein.
For the purpose of this section, "existing unit" shall mean any dwelling unit within a
structure containing no more than two dwelling units (exclusive of EHU units) that has
been constructed and has received a certificate of occupancy, has been issued a
building permit or has received final Design Review Board approval for a new house'
prior to the approval of this ordinance.
• Multi -family dwelling units are not eligible for additional GRFA permitted by the
provisions of this Section.
3. Standards
• No application for additional GRFA under the provisions of this Section shall be made
until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property, or an
application is presently pending in conjunction with the application for additional floor
area that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the property.
Additional floor area established under the provisions of this Section shall be
constructed utilizing the floor area or volume of the building that is in existence prior
to the effective date of this ordinance. New structures or exterior additions to
existing structures built after the effective date of this section will not be eligible for
interior conversions. Examples of how additional GRFA can be established under the
provision of this Section include the conversion of existing basement or crawl spaces
to GRFA, the addition of lofts within the building volume of the existing building, and
the conversion of other existing interior spaces such as storage areas to GRFA.
• Proposals for additional GRFA under the provisions of this Section may involve
exterior modifications to existing buildings, however, such modifications shall not
increase the bulk and mass of the existing building. Examples of exterior
modifications which are considered to increase building bulk and mass include, but
are not limited to, the expansion of any existing exterior walls of the building,
re -grading around a building in a manner which exposes more than two (2) vertical
feet of existing exterior walls and the expansion of existing roofs. Examples of
exterior modifications which are not considered to increase building bulk and mass
include, but are not limited to, the addition of windows, doors, skylights, dormers and
window -wells. For the purpose of this Section, dormers are defined as a vertical
window projecting from a sloping roof of a building, having vertical sides and a gable
or shed roof, in which the total cumulative length of the dormer (or dormers) does not
exceed 50% of the length of the sloping roof, per roof plane, from which the dormer
projects.
• Proposals for the utilization of interior conversion GRFA under this provision shall
comply with all Town of Vail zoning and building standards and applicable
development standards.
Proposals which involve the conversion of a garage shall not utilize any garage space
obtained through a garage space credit.
4. Process
Applications shall be made to the Community Development Department staff on forms
provided by the Department. Application for interior conversions to units located in a
Special Development District (SDD) shall also be accompanied by an application for a
minor amendment to the SDD. Minor amendments to an SDD can be staff approved. The
planning staff wiil review the application to ensure the building has utilized all available
GRFA and that the proposed interior conversion would occur in a structure that was built
or approved by the DRB before the effective date of this ordinance. Submittal shall
include:
s Application fees pursuant to the current fee schedule.
• Information and plans as set forth and required by Section 18.54.040, subsection C of
this Title or as determined by the Community Development Department staff.
Applicants would need to submit "as -built' floor plans of the structure so that staff can
identify the existing buifding from any now additions that have occurred after the
approval of this ordinance.
• Proposals deemed by the Community Department staff to be in compliance with this
Section and all applicable zoning and development regulations shall be approved by
the Department of Community Development or shall be forwarded to the Design
Review Board in accordance with Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal Code. Proposals
deemed to not comply with this Section or applicable zoning and development
regulations shall be denied.
• Upon receiving approvals pursuant to this Section, applicants shall proceed with
securing a building permit prior to initiating construction of the project.
• Any decisions of the Community Development Department pursuant to this Section
may be appealed by any applicant in accordance with the provisions of Section
18.66.030 of the Vail Municipal Code.
B. issues Relative to the Pro osed Amendment
The provisions for implementing this alternative are a result of input from the public, the
Planning and Environmental Commission, the Town Council and staff over the past six
months, The purpose of this section is tp explain the rationale for some of the major
elements of the proposed ordinance.
1. Whv are interior conversions limited to existing units only
The potential concern with allowing interior conversions for future construction is that new
homes will comply with GRFA but may be designed to allow for the conversion of space in
the future. For example, it would be relatively easy to design over -sized void spaces in
basement levels or to design additional or larger vaulted spaces on upper levels, both of
which could then be converted to floor area In the future if this alternative is available to new
construction. The end result of this scenario could be new homes that are larger than they
would otherwise have been (if interior conversions were not permitted).
Three alternatives have been discussed for mitigating the potential impacts of new homes
being "over -designed" to allow for future interior conversions:
• Regulate vaulted spaces
A multiplier to calculate floor area of vaulted space (over a certain height) at a higher
rate than spaces with normal floor to ceiling heights could be Implemented. A
multiplier could discourage the over -design of vaulted space. A multiplier system is
currently used in Aspen. However, calculating the volume of vaulted space would
add to the complexity of the existing GRFA system.
• Reauire waitina period similar to 250 Ordinance
It has been suggested that establishing a waiting period before new homes could do
interior conversions could discourage owners who may otherwise over -design their
homes in anticipation of adding interior conversions in the future. However, this type
of provision would not be a guaranteed deterrent to the over -design of homes. This
provision also raises the question: if an interior conversion would be acceptable after
a five-year wait, why is not acceptable after a three-year wait or a three-month wait.
Without alternative means for controlling the size of buildings, allowing future homes
to utilize this ordinance would undermine the GRFA system and raises the question of
whether GRFA is even necessary.
gesian Guidelines
A third alternative for addressing the potential impact of new homes being
over -designed for future interior conversions is to regulate the bulk and mass of new
homes with design guidelines. Conceptual design guidelines to control bulk and
mass were prepared for the "No GRFA alternative" and these types of guidelines
could be utilized to regulate the bulk and mass of new construction. While not a
formal element of this proposal, the staff is interested in pursuing revisions to the
Town's design guidelines. If bulk and mass guidelines were to be adopted they could
provide a viable alternative to prevent the over -design of new homes, in which case
the applicability of the interior conversions could be extended to future construction.
2. Whv does all allowable GRFA have to be utilized orior to utilizina the interior
. conversion ordinance?
This provision is suggested primarily as a "bookkeeping" measure intended to ease
the administration of this ordinance. The Town essentially has two types of GRFA -
1) allowable GRFA based on the size of a lot, and 2) GRFA permitted by the 250
Ordinance. GRFA permitted by this proposed ordinance would create a third type of
GRFA. Requiring all allowable GRFA to be used prior to utilizing "interior conversion"
GRFA will greatly simplify the administration of the GRFA system. The primary goal
of this ordinance is to allow for interior conversions to homes that have constructed all
allowable GRFA and this provision is consistent with this goal. GRFA permitted by
the 250 ordinance would not be affected by this ordinance. Any new addition that
utilizes the 250 addition (that occurs after the effective date of this ordinance) would
not be eligible for an interior conversion.
3. Whv not include provisions for EHU's?
Establishing a "linkage" between GRFA and EHU's was originally discussed in the
context of abolishing GRFA. The scope (i.e. how much GRFA a person could
construct) of the interior conversion alternative is quite limited as compared to the "no
GRFA alternative" and as such linking interior conversions to GRFA is not considered
appropriate. In essence, the interior conversion ordinance is seen as a means for
is addressing issues with the GRFA system, not issues with employee housing.
This in not to say, however, that the Town should not pursue linkages between GRFA
and EHU's. GRFA could be used as an incentive, by allowing additional GRFA if
used to construct an employee unit. Staff is currently analyzing how to improve the
EHU section of the Zoning Code.
4. Whv the "datQ pertain" proposed to define when a unit Is "existino"?
As proposed, only existing homes would be eligible for interior conversions and the
"date certain" is proposed to define when a home is existing. While the proposed
date could be considered liberal in the sense that homes which have received design
review approval or are under construction would still be considered existing, the date
does establish a cut-off point in order to prevent the over -design of homes as
discussed in item #1 above. The proposed cut-off date is the date of the approval of
this GRFA amendment.
5. Whv limit the size of dormers?
The underlying premise of this ordinance is to allow additional floor area to existing
homes pmided the size of the home is not increased. It is recognized that interior
conversions may require slight modifications to the exterior of a building to provide
light and air to new spaces and to also provide adequate egress. Dormers are
specifically defined to not exceed a percentage of a roof plane in order to prevent
proposals that would raise an entire roof plane under the guise of a dormer. The
concern is that if the size of dormers are not limited, proposals to raise large portions
of a roof will be made that will increase the size of existing buildings. This scenario
would be contrary to the underlying goal of this ordinance.
6. What can peQple do who have already completed interior conversions without zoft
or buildina permit approvals? •
It is recognized that many interior conversions have been completed over the years
without approvals from the Town. At the direction of the Town Council, the
Community Development Staff could investigate the feasibility of an amnesty program
which would allow homeowners the opportunity to have such improvements reviewed
and approved by the Town. Such approval would be subject to compliance with
applicable zoning and building code requirements. This type of amnesty program
could be implemented independent of this ordinance and as such, specific elements
of the amnesty program are not proposed at this time.
7. Whv not limit interior conversions to lust oermanent residents?
During the course of this process it has been suggested that any amendments which
increases allowable GRFA be limited to permanent residents only, in order to provide
an incentive for keeping local's in Vail. From a legal standpoint this could be done.
However, from a practical standpoint this would be difficult to administer. As with the
issue of EHU's, this ordinance is seen as a means for addressing issues with the
GRFA system, not issues with permanent residents and second -home owners. No
limitations are proposed with this amendment.
8. Whv not allow interior conversions as part of demo/rebuild oroi cg,l*?
The underlying goal of this amendment is to allow for flexibility in the use ofexi$t'no
interior spaces in a way that does not increase the size of homes. Allowing
demo/rebuilds to utilize this ordinance would be inconsistent with these goals.
9. Whv not allow multi -family units to convert existing interior spaces?
At the direction of the Town Council, this amendment process is limited to existing
single-family, two-family and primary/secondary units only.
10. What about homes that are located in a Snecial De_ velopment District that may have
specific GRFA limitations?
The ordinance has been structured such that GRFA which is created by interior
conversions shall be permitted in addition to allowable GRFA through the application
and approval of a minor SDD amendment. Minor amendments can be staff approved
and can be concurrently reviewed with an interior conversion application.
11. Is a property eligible for an interior conversion if plat rastrirtions or covenants limit the
Amount of GRFA within a structure?
If the plat or covenants for a property limit GRFA, an interior conversion may only be
possible if there is a plat amendment or a change in the applicable covenants.
12. How will staff determine whether conversion are located within space that was
xi tins prior to the effective date of the ordinance?
This will create an administrative challenge for the staff. Following approval of this
• amendment, staff will begin requiring "as -built" plans (prior to the effective date of the
amendment) for all new construction projects. Applicants will provide 8.5" x 1 V
drawings of floor plans, which will be kept on file in order to document what space
was existing prior to the effect date of this amendment.
C. Examines of how the Amendment will be Imolemented
The following hypothetical scenarios have been prepared in order to provide an Indication
of how this amendment can be used and to also understand some of the limitations of
this ordinance.
1. The Ruther's have constructed all allowable GRFA, including square footage allowed
by the 250 Ordinance. They would like to add a loft of 190 square feet to an existing
vaulted space. Two skylights would be added to the roof to bring light into the loft.
Process - The interior conversion ordinance would allow for this addition. Depending
upon the design of the skylights and subject to compliance with other zoning
regulations, this application would probably be reviewed at the staff level.
2. The Waterton's have constructed all allowable GRFA, but have not utilized the 250
Ordinance. They would like to add a 225 square foot dining room by expanding an
existing exterior wall and to convert 1,000 square feet of crawl space to storage and a
recreation/family room. They would like to complete the project utilizing the provisions
of the interior conversion ordinance.
Process -The crawl space conversion could be accomplished utilizing the interior
conversion ordinance, however, the dining room could only be added by using the 250
Ordinance (because the expansion of exterior walls would increase the size of the
home). Due to the use of the 250 Ordinance, this application would require review {
and approval by the PEC. The 225 square foot addition would not be eligible for an
interior conversion.
3. The Williamson's have an oversized garage of 600 square feet which currently
accommodates two cars, storage and a workshop. They would like to convert 200
square feet of the garage to GRFA by modifying interior walls, leaving approximately
400 square feet in the garage. The Williamson's have used all allowable GRFA.
Process -This proposal would not be allowed because the garage was constructed
using the 600 sq. ft. garage GRFA credit.
4. The Mason's would like to add a 200 square foot loft as an element of a major
remodel of their home. The loft would be located in a new vaulted space to be
constructed as a part of the remodel. The remodel plans would utilize all allowable
GRFA, with the exception of the loft space, which the Mason's proposed to be
created utilizing the interior conversion ordinance.
PCQ.gm - The square footage associated with the loft could not be constructed
utilizing the interior conversion ordinance because the loft is located In space that was
not in existence before this ordinance was adopted. The ordinance requires that
"additional GRFA shall be constructed utilizing the floor area or volume of the building
that is in existence at the time such application is made".
5. The Rodriguez's have an additional 800 square feet of GRFA available. They receive
DRB approval and build an 800 square foot addition. Two years later they submit
plans to convert a crawl space under the original part of the house into a basement
and to add a lofted area in the new 800 square foot addition. is
Process- The Rodriguez's would be allowed to convert the crawl space into a
basement since it was part of their original house that existed prior to the interior
conversion amendment to the GRFA policy. However, they would not be allowed to
utilize the lofted space in the 800 sq. ft. addition since it was built after the approval of
the interior conversion policy.
0
10
VI. CONSOLIDATION OF GRFA REGULATIONS IN THE ZONING CODE
A. Purpose for Consolidation:
There are numerous references to Gross Residential Floor Area within Title 18 of the Zoning
Code. To better communicate to the public how GRFA is calculated in different zone districts,
staff is proposing to consolidated references to GRFA into one section of the Zoning Code.
B. Proposed Changes
Currently GRFA is referred to in the following sections:
18.04.130 -Definitions
18.09.080-HSR
18.10.090 SFR
18.11.080 PIS
18.12.090 TFR
18.13.080 P/S
18.14.090 RC
18.16.090 LDMF
18.18.090 MDMF
18.20.090 HDMF
18.22.090 PA
18.24.130 CC1
18.26.100 CC2
18.27.080 CC3
18,28.100 CSC
18, 29. 080 AB
18.32.090 AOS
18.57 EHU
18.71 Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250)
Staff would like to consolidate the above mentioned references and the interior conversion
provision into one section in the Zoning Code. The following summarizes this consolidation:
1) The reference to GRFA in the Definition section would be moved to the consolidated
GRFA section. In its place would be a simple definition of GRFA which could be simply:
"Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) means the total square footage of all levels of a
bulding as measured using standards in Section 18.(Consolidated GRFA Section)"
2) The GRFA section in each zone district would remain the same. A summary for each zone
district would be included in a table in the consolidated GRFA section. (See Attachment B for
an example of what this table would look like)
• 3) Section 18,71 (Additional GRFA) would be included in the consolidated GRFA Section.
4) The interior conversion standards, if approved, would be incorporated into the
consolidated GRFA section.
5) Staff interpretations currently used to calculate GRFA would be incorparated into the
consolidated GRFA section. See attachment A to review existing staff interpretations.
It is important to note that this consolidation would not change the Town's current policy for
regulating GRFA. It would simply help make the GRFA process easier to understand for
11
development review applicants. This consolidation would also codify existing staff interpretations
for calculating GRFA. Again, this would not result In a change in how GRFA is regulated.
Specific sections of this new consolidated GRFA Chapter would include:
Section Ift
18.80.010 Purpose and need for GRFA
18.80.020 Summary of GRFA for Zone Districts (This would be in a tabular format -See
Attachment B for example)
18.80.030 Calculation of GRFA (will incorporate definition section and staff
interpretations)
18.80.040 Interior Conversions
18.80.050 Additional GRFA
Note: Section numbers are intended to be an example. Actual section references will be
assigned when and if the ordinance is approved.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Town Council has directed staff to implement Alternative 1. This alternative keeps GRFA as
a tool to control bulk and mass of structures but allows interior conversions to existing homes.
Staff recommends that the approach outlined in Section V of this memo is the most effective way
of implementing Alternative 1. With this approach, only existing homes on the effective date of
this ordinance that are existing or which plans have been approved by the DRB could take
advantage of doing interior conversions. This alternative will address the most pressing issue
that initiated this process, which was to create greater flexibility for homeowners to make interior .
conversions to their existing homes even if they do not have any remaining GRFA allowance.
Staff would recommend that the policy of allowing interior conversions be reexamined after the
design guidelines have been modified, since staff anticipates that property owners of homes that
will be constructed in the future will want to convert crawl spaces into basements or turn lofted
areas into floor area.
Staff also recommends consolidating the GRFA regulations in the existing Zoning Code to help
clarify current policy on Gross Residential Floor Area. Staff received numerous public comments
during the review of this policy on how difficult the GRFA policy Is to understand. This
consolidation would not change how GRFA is regulated but would help clarify how GRFA is
currently calculated.
The following is a summary of the staff recommendations:
Only apply interior conversion to structures that are in existence as of the effective date of
the approval of this ordinance.
* Additions to structures after the date of this amendment would not be eligible for Interior
conversions.
" Structures must not have any remaining GRFA allowance (excluding the 250 GRFA credit)
before applying for interior conversion GRFA.
" Implement Alternative 1 as per the other standards outlined in this memo.
* Consolidate all GRFA references in the Zoning Code into one section,
" Reevaluate the GRFA policy after new design guidelines have been adopted. F
12
E
VIII REC RECOMMEND I
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed the staff recommendation for
implementing Alternative 1 on June 23, 1997. the PEC recommended implementing alterative 1
as per the staff recommendation with the following additional amendments:
• That grade provisions be modified to allow access (i.e., a door) to basement levels. The
PEC felt that limiting grading to 2 feet below the existing grade would prevent safe access
to basement space.
• That the 50% cumulative roof dormer limitation be clarified with an illustration.
The following are requests by the PEC for the Town Council to consider:
• That the amnesty program be pursued.
• That a recommendation be directed to Council to include multi -family structures.
The PEC approved this recommendation 5-1 (Galan Aasland dissenting).
13
Attachment A
Currant Staff Policy for Calculating GRFA
Calculation:
" Interior walls are included in GRFA calculations, For duplex and primary/secondary structures,
common party walls shall be considered exterior walls.
" Bay windows, fireplaces, and mantels shall be included in GRFA calculations.
" Greenhouse windows (self-supporting windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. Greenhouse
windows are defined according to the following criteria (see graphic):
1, Distance Above Inside Floor level - In order for a window to be considered a greenhouse
window, a minimum distance of 36" must be provided between the bottom of the window and
the floor surface, as measured on the inside face of the building wall. (Floor surface shall not
include steps necessary to meet Building Code egress requirements). The 36" minimum was
chosen because it locates the window too high to be comfortably used as a window seat and
because it allows for a typical 4' high greenhouse window to be used in a room with an 8'
ceiling height.
2. Projection - No greenhouse window may protrude more than 18" from the exterior surface of
the building. This distance allows for adequate relief for appearance purposes, without
substantially adding to the mass and bulk of the building.
3. Construction Characteristics - All greenhouse windows shall be self-supporting and shall not
require special framing or construction methods for support, with the exception that brackets
below the window may be allowed provided they die into the wall of the building at a 45 degree
angle. A small roof over the window may also be allowed provided the overhang is limited to 4" .
beyond the window plane.
4. Dimensional Requirement - No greenhouse window shall have a total window surface area
greater than 44 s.f. This figure was derived on the assumption that the maximum height of a
window, in an average sized room, is 4' and the maximum width for a 4' high self-supporting
window is between Wand 8' (approximately 32 s.f.). Since the window would protrude no more
than 18", the addition of side windows would bring the overall window area to approximately 44
s.f.
5. Quantity -Up to two (2) greenhouse windows will be allowed per dwelling unit, however, the 44
s.f. size limitation will apply to the combined area of the two windows.
6. Greenhouse windows do not count as silo coverage,
" Vaulted spaces and areas "open to below" are not included in GRFA calculations.
* Storage areas, mechanical areas, stairs, landings, void spaces, and the like are included in GRFA
calculations.
" The conversion of all areas counted as "credit area" prior to January 1, 1991 shall be allowed.
Rock storage areas may be converted to GRFA.
Garage credit: .
* Allowable garage area is awarded on a "per space basis," with a maximum of two spaces per
allowable unit. Each garage space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular
access. All floor area included in the garage credit shall be contiguous to a vehicular space.
" Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located In the garage and which are 25%
or more open to the garage area shall be included as garage credit.
" Garage space in excess of the allowable garage credit shall be counted as GRFA.
14
Crawl and attic space:
Crawl spaces created by a "stepped foundation;' hazard mitigation, or other similar engineering
. requirement that has a total height in excess of five feet may be excluded from GRFA calculations
at the discretion of the Director of Community Development.
Pre-existing crawl space or attic areas, no matter what the head height, can be converted to
habitable area only if the project or development has available GRFA or approval for additional
GRFA under the 250 ordinance when analyzed using current GRFA regulations.
Pre-existing crawl space areas, unfinished with an earthen floor and limited access, no matter what
the head height will not be counted as GRFA until such time as conversion to habitable area is
proposed and approved through the normal design review process. Again, conversions can only
be approved if the project has available GRFA when analyzed using current GRFA regulations.
' All crawl spaces constructed must meet the following definition:
Crawl spaces shall include any below grade or substantially buried area enclosed within the
foundation walls, with a ceiling height less than or equal to 5 feet as measured from the
surface of the earth to the underside of the structural members of the floor/ceiling assembly
above. Crawl spaces must be accessed with an opening not greater than 12 square feet in
area.
Enclosed spaces not meeting this definition will be considered to be GRFA. Enclosed spaces
counted as GRFA will be clearly noted by the planner on the red -lined floor plans. True crawl
• spaces shall be shown on floor plans and labeled with a note indicating: 1) that the height of
the space will be 5 feet or less, and 2) that access will be provided via a hatch or door not to
exceed 12 square feet in area. All crawl spaces shown on any approved floor plans shall have
such a note, or the planner will count the space as GRFA.
If a roof structure is designed utilizing a non -truss system, and spaces greater than five feet in
height result, these areas shall not be counted as GRFA if ALL of the following criteria are met:
1. The area cannot be accessed directly from a habitable area within the same building level;
2. The area shall have the minimum access required by the Building Code from the level
below (G s.f. opening maximum);
3. The attic space shall not have a structural floor capable of supporting a "live load" greater
than 40 pounds per square foot, and the "floor" of the attic space cannot not be improved
with decking;
4. It must be demonstrated by the architect (to the staff) that a "truss -type' or similar structural
system cannot be utilized as defined in the definition of GRFA; and
5. It will be necessary that a structural element (i.e., collar -tie) be utilized when rafters are
used for the roof system. In an unusual situation, such as when a bearing ridge system is
used, the staff will review the space for compliance with this policy.
• 25% contiguous opening:
In order for a covered (roofed) area NOT to count as GRFA, there must be a continuous and
contiguous opening in the exterior walls of not less than 25% of the total lineal perimeter of the area
in question. An exception shall be made for railings up to 3' in height and support posts with a
diameter of 18" or less which are spaced no closer than 10' apart. The space between the posts
shall be measured from the outer surface of the post (see graphic).
15
Primary/Secondary units:
The 425 s.f. credit per unit shall be applied to each unit AFTER the 60/40 split has been calculated
(i.e., the secondary unit shall be allowed 40% of the total GRFA + 425 s.f.).
" On Primary/Secondary and Duplex lots, GRFA is calculated based on the entire lot, S
0
16
Attachment B
Example of Consolidated Table for GRFA
-
c d i,� `a....k �. �E. a; r;a
z .,b YZi' ti a ¢
ssrzti, kl�`#'t�gfil�.15fE!"t ° �� �`.»._.,,.R'
"z�
. &a ?
7.ona DL IMcta
CRFA
CRF'A
RatlolPercenlaga
Credits
(added to results ofappllcatlnn ofpercentage)
l lli
2VI/ of lot area of first 21,78O sq, ft. +
None
f111111dc
5% orloi area ovc4721,780sq. it.
Residential
SFR
250/ of lot area of Fiat 12 500sq. R. +
425 sq. ft. perallowable dwelling unit
Single Famlly
10% of lot arcaover 12,500 sq. R.
Residential
It
25% oflot area of first 15,000sq. ft.+
425 sq. R. per allowable dwelling unit
Twn-Famlly
Mo of lot area over 12,500 sq. R. and up to 30,000 sq. R. +
Residential
5% of lot area over 30,000 sq. R.
PIS
25% or lot area of first 15,000 sq. fit.+
425 sq. R. poi allowabio dwelling unit
Primaryl
I M/a of lot arcs over 12,500 sq, R. and up to 30,000 sq. R. +
Secondary
5% of lot area over 30.wasq. R.
Residential
(tha secondary unit shall not exceed 400/ of GRPA on -site prior
to xppliwlion of credit)
RC
25% ofbuildablo lot area
225 sq. R. for single- family and two-family atmc(uma only
Residenllal
Gum"
301/6 ofbuildable for area if
225 Rq.ft. for singte4amily and two-family strucwms only
.IdIMF
I.aw Density
Multiple
Fancily
MDA41"
35% ofbuildable lot area
225 sq. R. forsinglo-family and two-familystmcuves only
Medlum
Density
MuMplc
Family
IIDMF
(A% of buildable lot area
None
1ligh Density
I
Mullipla
Family
PA
I
R(N/o ofbuildablo tot area 1
None
Public Men in.
ncoda/1nn
CCl
ROa/o ofbuildable lot area
None
Commercial
Core 1
CC2
KOK ofbuildable lotarea
Non
Commercial
Care 2
CC3
30% ofbuildable lot area
None
Commercial
Core 3
iCSC
40% ofbuildablo lot arcs
None
Commercial
GRPA shall riot exceed 5011of total building floor area on any
Service Center
site
ADD
60% ofbuildablo lot area
None
Arterial
Business
118
None permitted
None
Ileary Service
Up to 2,000 iq. R. total
None
Agricullural
and Open
Space
17
r
TOWN M
&.�„�.. ....cz. ::,<,g#?:, gn•:; :�. 1:: i�,, �;L'::E `:3?att'Ae :B>ct„s::?�:?';-�: �,s;. ;.+n;("aa `�.ii. _, ...i'gak�y>�;a:
;: ;: �g ��3 , �i �azi�� 33<�8:<# •.a 8 �3•:_.. �!1 '�tR1 .�`{ $: �g, g: �. �. �•<�:'',�`'is �'s���E. •a �� ., >s�#`i��.'``'i�; �. E?�i•?�`
:;:�a>�:�,�`.c:�`E,ts�,,4,•�3•.s:<a�axza�ea§::g.�f�:�.�:.���.;>?�!!�>;:n v�EE3;a,�;�a.#':'�: : aaxaAi;�,i;:;',: z>,. <.:�::.,��.«. ra,,$�...,..�#�tt�sR'��x�k��A.§
7nne DMIrloia CRFA CRFA
RatlelPerceniage Credits
(added to resolls of appiicaden ofpereentagc)
OR None pen -Lilted Nene
..."or
Recreapon
P j None permined None
Parking
Ctl Per PEC approval None
(',,moral Use
NAP
None permitted None
Natural Area
Preservation
SUR
Onlimited,per Council approval None
Sict Base
.
Recreation
SVD
Per underlyingzening oT perdovolopment plan approval by None
Special
Council
Devclepmcni
❑kiricl
f:eve ryone\russ\memos\grfa.623
18
s
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Team
DATE: July 1, 1997
RE: Public View Corridor selection to be considered in Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan
The Town Council, at its June 24, 1997 worksession/site visit, examined the potential public view
corridors to be considered in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The Town Council
expressed interested in considering five potential view corridors.
The Planning and Environmental Commission, at its June 23 meeting, recommended View #1
(over the Library), View # 2 (from the east end of the parking structure), View #3 (from the west
end of the parking structure), View #7 (from the main mail area looking up the gondola line), and
Views 8 and 9 (from east of the Landmark looking south through the VA core site).
The Town Council suggested the following views be considered in the development of the Master
,Plan:
View #2
(from east end of the parking structure) to be included as a design
parameter.
View #3
(from west end of the parking structure) to be designated in Stage 5
as a view corridor.
Views #6 or 7
(from mail area looking up gondola line) to be designated in Stage 5
as a view corridor.
View #8
(from east of the Landmark looking south through the VA core site)
to be included as a design parameter.
View #9 (from east of Landmark looking south through the VA core site from
a higher elevation than #8) to be designated in Stage 5 as a view
corridor.
Final designation and adoption of any public view corridors will occur, via ordinance, in
Stage 5 of the master planning process.
*Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the public views recommended by Town Council on June 24, 1997, be
considered in the master planning process as critical design constraints.
He: f:leveryono\oouncil�nemoslviewcor.701
4VAIL
TOWN
To: Planning and Environmental Commission ORIGINAL
� (� j � +�
From: Lionshead Master Plan Team V
• Date: June 23, 1997
RR: Lionshead Master Plan Proposed Public View Corridor Designation
This memo is an overview of the Lionshead Master Plan public view corridor selection process, and
makes recommendations for public view corridors within the Lionshead Master Plan study area. The
information in this memo is outlined as follows:
I. Lionshead view corridor designation criteria
I1, View corridor public input sessions
I1I. Summary of public input
IV. Master plan team recommendation for Lionshead public view corridors
V. Action Requested of the Planning and Environmental Commission
Attachment "A"- Master plan team evaluation of 14 initial view corridor candidates
Attachment "B"- Map and photos of 14 initial view corridor candidates
Attachment "C"- Photographs of view corridors proposed for designation
Attachment "D"- Overview of Lionshead Design Charette
• I. Lionshead View Corridor Designation Criteria
At th* May 20't' meeting, the Vail Town Council approved the use of the existing Town of Vail view
corridor ordinance as the criteria to be used during the Lionshead master plan process for the selection
and designation of public view corridors. In essence, the criteria define what a view must meet in order
to qualify for protection under the town's ordinance:
i . Is the view critical to the identity, civic pride, and sense of place of Lionshead? In other words,
being a nice view is not enough- the view must be such that without it the identity and civic
pride of Lionshead would be damaged or lost.
2. Is the view seen from a commonly recognized and accessed, public view point? Again, views
fromprivate property cannot be recognized or protected by this ordinance.
3. Is the view threatened? Is there development potential on the properties or real estate in front of
the view that has the potential for blocking it?
If a view meets these tests, then it can be considered for designation under the language of the exis�3ting
ordinance. The master plan team applied these criteria to the full range of views in Lionshead, and
narrowed the initial field of 45 views down to 14 potential public view corridors. As outlined in the
. following section, these 14 public views were then presented to the community for input.
II. View Corridors Public Input Sessions
A. View corridor walkine tours. Two public walking tours were given, on Tuesday June 3`d (9
attendees) and Sunday June a (7 attendees), Attendees were provided with a packet containing
photographs of the 14 views, plus a locational map of Lionshead (attached). They were asked to
rank each view as "critical", "consider", or "do not consider", During each walking tour, an
explanation of the criteria for each potential view was given by the consultant, and attendees were
encouraged to submit any additional view opportunity they thought had been left off the list.
B. Self Guided Walking Tours. In addition to the guided walking tours, the tour packets were placed
in public input boxes so that members of the public could complete the walking tour on their own.
Three responses were received through this opportunity.
C. Public Inout Forum, On June 16"', from 4 to 7 p.m., a forum was held in the library community
room where members of the public were able to respond to the view corridor candidates in the same
format as the walking tours. Approximately 20 people took advantage of this input opportunity.
D. Internet Web Page. The final ongoing public input opportunity regarding the view corridors was the
Lionshead web site, where visitors were able to view the individual view corridor candidates, and
respond with e-mail in the same format as the walking tours. 2 responses were received from the
Lionshead web site.
E. Total Public Response. The complete public involvement included approximately 42 people, from
which was received 26 written responses.
M. Summary of Public Input
Vic* : Critical : ConsiderI ➢o ,Not Consili(
1 2 9 14
2 4 10 10
3 11 9 3
4 15 5 2
.5 12 4 4
6 13 5 2
7 19 2 3
8 11 7 5
9 8 5 10
10 3 8 13
11 4 9 6
12 5 10 - 8
13 6 5 8
14 10 5 �8
IV. Master Plan Team Recommendation for Lionshead View Corridors
The recommendations for designation of public view corridors is broken down into two sections:
A. Public view corridors with specific view points, recommended to be protected under the exis'Wg
Town of Vail view corridor ordinance in Stage V of the master plan process.
• 1. View number three. This view corridor is seen from the west end of the Lionshead
parking structure, standing at street level at the main pedestrian exit from the parking
structure, looking southwest towards the gondola lift line. Options for this view also
included view points from the first stair landing and the top of the structure, but this "at
grade" designation will by default protect the views from the higher vantage points,
Second to view number seven, the views from the west end of the parking structure
received the greatest amount of "critical" responses from the public input process.
This view fulfills the criteria outlined in section I of this memo:
a. It fosters civic pride and is central to the identity of Lionshead
• b. It is taken from a commonly recognized, publicly accessible vantage point. This
area is not only the primary point of entry for pedestrian traffic (from the parking
structure), .it is also the primary drop-off and pick-up point in Lionshead for the
Vail bus system and private shuttles.
c. It is potentially threatened by redevelopment in the foreground of the view (from
a building height standpoint),
2. View number seven. This view corridor is seen from the pedestrian plaza area in front of
the Lifthouse Lodge, adjacent to the current location of the popcorn wagon, looking
south directly up the gondola lift line. View six, taken just east of this view point, will by
default be protected by view seven. This view received the greatest amount of "critical'
responses from the public input process.
This view fulfills the criteria outlined in section I of this memo:
a. It fosters civic pride and is central to the identity of Lionshead.
b. It is taken from a commonly recognized, publicly accessible vantage point. This
view represents the first full view of the ski mountain from the Lionshead core,
for pedestrians walking from the west end of the Lionshead mall.
• c. It is potentially threatened by redevelopment in the foreground of the view,
particularly concerning the redevelopment of the Vail Associates core site.
Note: it is uncertain how the Vail Associates core site (gondola building, Sunbird Lodge) on the west
side of the proposed view corridor will be redeveloped, and it is recommended that the definition of this
view be made with consideration of this potential redevelopment.
Public view corridors where the view point or foreground of view is likely to be redeveloped. As
outlined in the May 19 consultant memorandum to the Town Council, these views will be described
as a design parameter within the master plan. Upon adoption of the Lionshead Master Plan by the
Town Council, and upon application for redevelopment by a property owner affected by the
designated future view corridor, the extent to which the applicant creates the future public view
corridor described in the master plan will be a consideration for approval or disapproval by the
Town, In addition, if the redevelopment application is approved by Council, and upon coinpletion
of the redevelopment project, the new view corridor would then be surveyed and formally adro�ted
in accordance with existing Town code.
1. View number two. This view is seen from the east end of the Lionshead parking structure,
and looks south across the Lodge at Lionshead buildings towards the ski mountain. It is
possible that this eastern site will be developed as some form of public facility in the future,
and this view may become more commonly accessed and important at that time.
2. View numbers eip-ht and nine. These two views, both looking south through the center of
the Vail Associates core site, have the potential of creating a north -south penetration, both
visual and pedestrian, upon the redevelopment of this site. This view would not only be
accessible from the Lionshead mall area, but from the frontage road and north day lot area as
well. Given the possible redevelopment scenarios for this part of Lionshead, this potential
corridor could be of great significance, both from an aesthetic and pedestrian circulation
standpoint.
V. Requested Action of the Planning and Environmental Commission
It is important to note that the designation of these proposed view corridors at this time is not a formal,
legal adoption as described in the view corridor ordinance. Rather, these designated view corridors, if
any, will be considered as critical design constraints for the duration of the Lionshead Master Plan
process, and will not be formally surveyed and adopted until Stage V of the master plan process. The
available actions for the Planning and Environmental Commission on this recommendation are as
follows:
1. Approve the Master Plan team's recommendation for view corridor designation as described
in section IV of this memo, or
2. Add or delete view corridors to be designated according to the criteria described in section I
of this memo, or
3. Do not approve any view corridors for designation at this time.
n
LJ
40
Attachment A
• Master Plan Team Evaluation of 14 initial View Corridor Candidates
View 1
• Not recommended for designation
• Does not fulfill test of "civic pride", is not noticed by many people
View 2
• Recommended for designation as "design parameter" in master plan, but not as formal view
corridor
• Meets "civic" pride test
• Currently, view point is not greatly accessed, but this could change given the potential
development scenarios on the east end of the parking structure
View 3
• Recommended for designation as protected view corridor.
• Clearly meets "civic pride" and "identity" test.
• Is perhaps most commonly recognized and accessed view in Lionshead.
• Is potentially threatened by increased height or expansion of buildings in foreground
View 4
• Will be protected by designation of view 3.
. View 5
• Will be protected by designation of view 3.
View 6
• Will be protected by designation of view 7.
View 7
• Recommended for designation as protected view corridor.
• Clearly meets "civic pride" and "identity" test.
• Is commonly recognized and accessed view.
• Is potentially threatened by redevelopment of VA core site.
View 8
• Recommended for designation as "design parameter" in master plan, but not as formal view
corridor.
• Has opportunity of creating important visual and pedestrian link through the VA core site,
on a north -south axis.
View 9
• Recommended for designation as "design parameter" in master plan, but not as format,view
corridor.
• • Has opportunity of creating important visual and pedestrian link through the VA core site,
on a north -south axis.
View 10
• Not recommended for designation.
• Very nice view, but does not meet "identity" test, relates more to Vail Village than
Lionshead,
View 11
• Not recommended for designation.
• View is primarily accessed by vehicles, not pedestrians.
• Buildings in foreground could experience significant height increases without threatening
view.
View 12
View 13
View 14
11
0
Not recommended for designation.
Open passage between Antlers and Lionsquare Lodge is owned by Town of Vail, view is not
threatened.
Not recommended for designation.
Open passage between Antlers and Lionsquare Lodge is owned by Town of Vail, view is not
threatened.
Not recommended for designation.
While this view is extremely important, it is highly unlikely that it will ever be developed due
to its function as the ski yard and skier queing/ staging area in Lionshead.
Land use designation/ zoning is the more appropriate method of ensuring the preservation of
this view across the ski yard.
i � r
-
•
I -
n
41.
, 7�j
Y !qkt
.41
, 10
ZS
0
•
rI
L
VIEW CORRIDOR CANDIDATE 413
VIEW CORRIDOR CANDIDATE *4
w
� I -F I V.
!1 5VWppryq{ggg$� f l -1 ZF �"IT .
�• �f� \\2
lPOI $ .....
;
.ArwwA
�.• t' �. #5 f a�TF,� A ti l�ru€� CFFi' �� nYs� y?
V � �
t r S az
h � ,. ', ih5 t_.r.{ z" k w �
Y - '
�,►,� w
�,W;, .r to 4�c :,�': �N
--s
.•-
xh �s�Ir{ a 4
A �'
J
x��
7",
* \t
:a, 4'
��,�;r'
'�
e:ti'
(5 � <
�
�S T �
�c r�.{,�
r '�����' y3rooa
�.
.;r� a�` ., r'
�
rd ti���fi
.(i �
�i'.. 4A� �
t,, r
}
}
{ ��yr . �:
;, s ar rrnn��i s5 It35s�fdi �,, f 4 s I
r.� %.wP�'vfikv r Av ,t.5 I }};;r1•w� t
1 Sir A}t ,!p! 1.. f" 4 +�31 NM1rrrssst {•. JA .p P t _ ..
ti4t r K t c�3�}
s.t�•lu sF 0.{ F M�` Ili a ; h� �A> " y iz' ' 77
I!, WI Ann4yt
I ;� - d � 1 •:, a ,,+ }�Jr3�ro � ¢0,� -� �'k;. , � ..
,� � F � V it .,}Y� rS+:, }rS; • a ��g'slx {�Yt y+p���R.� s 4 A
ji%S+4.Jy,(., � Y jk.H ty t r74irlrl{'r �i }b kMty,�t4• " A t3! M y
rt S js
a r ,
k �✓ _ � f7 �Y ,
ifgty
�.
�Art
A ,
tiiF yiu
r ,lit,
7,
Ml
f �Ofi OlSEi) VEW # 5
L•;
k,
1 �
I f
d
'r k1 �
s
Y
L ,
"�
C�
i
�:
� �
ti
��� ..��
� i
r
4�`�
}
t si.. y
Attachment D
Overview of Lionshead Master Plan Design Charette
On Saturday, June 10, approximately 30 architects, landscape architects, and planners met from 8:00
a.m. until 7 p.m., at the Antlers conference facility, and brainstormed about the future of Lionshead.
This event, organized by the master plan team, brought together some of the most talented and
experienced minds in our valley, and produced a wide range of intriguing thoughts and potential
solutions to the issues present in Lionshead. Attendees were randomly divided into different teams for a
morning and afternoon session, with each team tackling one of ten pre -defined problem statements. The
problem statements studied were as follows, and addressed the most prominent public ` wishlist" items:
1. Treatment of the Gore Creek Corridor
2. Lionshead Architectural and Streetscape Guidelines
3. Treatment of Vail Associates Core Site
4. Development Potential for East end of Parking Structure
5. Treatment of South Side of Parking Structure
6. Central Services and Delivery Complex
7. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
8. Locals/ Seasonal/ Affordable Housing
• 9. Concert Hall Plaza/ Lionshead West Gateway
10. West Lionshead
Firms represented at the Charette included:
1.
Colorado Alpines, Landscape
Architects
2.
Cottle, Graybeal & Yaw Architects
3,
Design Workshop, Planning,
Landscape Architecture
4.
Fritzlen Pierce Briner, Architects
5,
Land Art, Landscape Architects
6.
Land Designs by Ellison, Landscape
Architects
7. Michael Hazard Associates,
Architects
8. Morter Architects
9. Pierce Segerberg Architects
10. Robertson Miller Terrell, Architects
11. Vail Associates
12. Zehren & Associates, Architects
13. James Lamont, Planner
14. Saby Ben -David, Architect
Design Workshop and the Lionshead master plan team would like to thank all of the architects,
landscape architects, and planners who made this event a success. Results of the charette are on display
in Dobson Arena.
40
I!
�i
#WN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
0, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADVISORY
July 2, 1997
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JULY 1
Work Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Joe Kochera 25 Year Anniversary
Joe Kochera, a maintenance supervisor H in the Public Works Department, was
honored for 25 years with the town. Kochera is one of only two employees to celebrate
25 years of service in the town's (short) history. Kochera received a check for $3,000 in
recognition of his contributions to the town.
--Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Water Quality/Quantity Committee
Following an update on past actions of the NWCCOG Water Quality/Quantity
Committee, which included a briefing on water quality performance standards and
legislative lobbying efforts, the Council authorized staff to begin reviewing the town's
current water quality standards. In particular, Vail's stream setbacks --currently set at 50
ft. from the high water line --are among the weakest in the area, said Councilmember
Sybill Navas, who represents Vail on the QQ Committee, Russell Forrest, the town's
senior environmental policy planner, proposed using the department's summer intern to
plot possible setback changes on an aerial map. Forrest said the water quality
standard review would involve input from the public throughout the process. For more
information, contact Forrest at 479-2146.
-Executive Session/Alpine Gardens Lease
After a brief executive session, the Council returned to open session and voted 7-0 to
•approve a 49-year lease between the town and the Alpine Garden Foundation. The
terms of the lease allow the foundation to continue operations of the gardens in the
town -owned Ford Park and to have nonexclusive possession of the town -owned soccer
field parking lot until such time a building permit is issued for construction of the
proposed environmental education center. Councilman Michael Jewett asked that the
public record reflect his support for a lease longer than 49 years. For more information,
. contact Town Attorney Tom Moorhead at 479-2107.
(more)
�a RECYCLEDPAPER
TOV Highlights/Add 1
--Austria Haus SDD •
In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council reviewed modifications to the
Austria Haus Special Development District ordinance for second reading. The
ordinance was later approved by a vote of 7-0. For more information, see evening
meeting briefs, or contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department
at 479-2145.
--GRFA Policy for Interior Conversions
The Council authorized staff to move forward in preparing an ordinance for first reading
that would allow for the interior conversion of existing single family, duplex and
primary/secondary structures that have no remaining Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA). The ordinance, to be considered for first -round approval on July 15,
completes a nine -month process in which the Council, responding to citizen requests,
agreed to evaluate the existing GRFA system and explore alternatives. As proposed,
the modification would keep GRFA as a tool to control bulk and mass of structures, but
would allow interior conversions to existing homes. This would be achieved by allowing
for the conversion of existing interior spaces such as vaulted spaces, crawl spaces and
other interior spaces into useable floor area. During discussion yesterday, consultant
Tom Braun said the proposal would apply only to structures that are in existence as of
the effective approval date of the ordinance. Reaction by Council members was
upbeat. Mayor Bob Armour said the changes would address recent complaints by It
those who've said the current GFRA standards make it hard for families to live in Vail
due to the inability to convert interior space. Council members suggested adding
several provisions to the ordinance, including establishment of a maximum length for
dormers and the possibility of allowing basement doors to be added as part of an
interior conversion for increased safety. For more information, contact Russell Forrest
in the Community Development Department at 479-2146.
--Rockfall.Mitigation for Booth Falls Condominium Association
The Council voted 7-0 to fund up to $20,000 for the engineering and design of a rockfali
mitigation wall to protect the Booth Falls Condominiums in East Vail and to build the
wall on town -owned land. Meanwhile, Gerry Greven, representing the condominium
association, agreed to pursue home equity loans with each of the 18 condominium
owners or a loan for the homeowners association to finance construction, estimated at
$200,000 to $300,000. Greven had originally asked the town to finance the project on
behalf of the condominium association. But a town -financed timeiine won't meet
Greven's goal of constructing the wall this fall. The Council agreed to revisit Greven's
request for creation of a local improvement district to finance the project if the
condominium association is unable to obtain independent financing. Greven said he •
wanted to construct the rockfall wall as soon as possible before someone gets hurt. In
March, several large rocks above the townhomes broke loose, causing extensive
damage to one of the units. For more information, contact Russell Forrest in the
Community Development Department at 479-2146.
--Regional Marketing Funding Discussion •
The Council heard from representatives of the Vail Valley Marketing Board, Vail Valley
(more)
TQV Highlights/Add 2
• Tourism Bureau and the Chamber of Commerce who've been exploring concepts for a
•permanent funding source for regional marketing. The best approach --a business
improvement district --is still years away because it would require legislation by both the
state and county, according to the group. An alternative approach, they said, would be
to pass a lodging tax of between 1.5 percent to 2 percent for Vail and Beaver Creek.
The same percentage of funding, estimated from lodging revenues, would be sought
from Minturn and Edwards, they said. Also, the Town of Avon would be asked to
allocate a percentage of its existing 4 percent lodging tax towards regional marketing.
Implementation of a lodging tax in Vail would require voter approval. A 1.5 percent
lodging tax in Vail and Beaver Creek would generate about $2.2 million annually. Frank
Johnson, president of the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau, said the group
was floating the concept with various constituencies to determine if the issue should be
pursued for the November election. Reaction from the Council was mixed: Paul
Johnston said he wouldn't support a lodging tax because the winter guest would bear
the brunt of the load. Rob Ford said although the concept is moving in the right
direction, he thought November was too soon to put the proposal to a public vote.
Sybill Navas said she'd hate to see the current momentum and energy level lost if the
election were deferred to a later date, while Bob Armour wondered if it would be
possible to consider a lodging tax that would not only take care of the regional
marketing needs, but would also help pay for a civic center or performing arts center.
41
Ludwig Kurz agreed with Armour. Kevin Foley said he looked forward to hearing an
update on the group's progress. Michael Jewett, who said he personally has a problem
with new taxes, said he thought a ballot measure would have a difficult time generating
voter approval in Vail. Public comment came from Jim Lamont of the East Village
Homeowners Association. Lamont urged the marketing alliance to continue to exhaust
efforts to pursue the business improvement district approach as it looks to other
alternatives. For more information, contact Ross Boyle of the Vail Valley Marketing
Board, 479-9164; Brian Nolan of the Chamber of Commerce Board, 845-8666, or Marc
Hoffman of the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau Board, 476-4444.
--Council Reports
Bob Armour was elected president at the most recent meeting of the Colorado
Association of Ski Towns; Town Manager Bob McLaurin was elected secretary.
Evening Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Citizen Participation
Joe Staufer of the Vail Village Inn urged the Council to reject the concept of a lodging
tax to fund regional marketing. Staufer said a study by the American Hotel/Motel
Association indicates a bed tax is detrimental to resort communities and harmful to
convention cities. Additionally, he said the burden should not be placed on one
segment of the community to carry the load for marketing.
. Next, Sue Dugan of the Intermountain neighborhood suggested the town address
several problems impacting the success of the Main Vail roundabout. Her suggestions
(more)
TOV Highlights/Add 3
included adding directional arrows and/or striping to the lanes. She said the
roundabout is more like a "race track" these days with most offenders being locals.
Noting that budget time is just around the corner for the town, Lou Meskimen of Masked
Man Services, suggested the town take a hard look at converting Its seasonal
employees to full time employees to help with retention.
--Austria Haus SDD
The Council voted 6-1 (Foley opposed) to approve second reading of the Austria Haus
Special Development District. In voting to approve the SDD, Councilmember Sybill
Navas said she hoped the process will be improved for future projects, especially when
redevelopment in Lionshead comes before the Council. Navas also expressed
frustration that a draft streambank restoration plan wasn't available until the day of
second reading. She said Vail's stream issues need to be taken more seriously. After
hearing a construction timetable in which construction would cease throughout the ski
season, Councilman Paul Johnston said he would support the Austria Haus
redevelopment. The project includes 18 member -owned fractional fee club units, 25
hotel rooms and one on -site manager's residence, plus 5,402 sq. ft. of new
commercial/retail space, meeting room facilities, an outdoor pool and other accessory
facilities commonly associated with hotels and lodges. In voting against the proposal,
Councilman Kevin Foley said he was disappointed in the loading and delivery plan, as
well as elimination during first reading of references to the streamwalk concept,
including a requirement to place $100,000 into an escrow account for the possible
construction of a streamwalk along the property. Also yesterday, Jim Lamont of the
East Village Homeowners Association said his group now applauds the project because
it is in keeping with the Vail Village Master Plan. Lamont urged the town to move
forward in its review of the SDD, rezoning and master plan processes. For more
information, contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-
2145.
--Lionshead Public View Corridors
The Council voted 7-0 to give preliminary approval to five public view corridors to be
included in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The views are currently widely
defined. They'll become more narrowed upon completion of the master plan process.
The five view concepts are:
1, Looking from the east end of the parking structure to the mountain. (This will be
defined as a design parameter for future development as opposed to a specific
view corridor).
2. Looking from the west end of the parking structure to the mountain. .
3. Looking from the mall area up the gondola line.
4. Looking from the east of the Landmark and looking south through the Vail
Associates core site. (This will be defined as a design parameter for future
development as opposed to a specific view corridor).
5. Looking from east of the Landmark looking south through the Vail Associates
core site from a higher elevation than view # 4.
During discussion, David Corbin, representing Vail Associates, said he supports the
(more)
TOV Highlights/Add 4
view corridor recommendations. The idea of knowing that a design constraint exists will
•be useful to VA as it looks to design its core site, he said. Also, Corbin said he
appreciated the fact that the view corridors and design parameters haven't been
narrowly defined that might otherwise inhibit design concepts. In addition, Corbin said
the view from the popcorn wagon area may need adjustment following a survey of VA's
property line (since view corridors may only be preserved from public spaces.)
Councilmember Sybill Navas noted that although other views were found to be critical in
Lionshead, they don't need additional protection because the views don't appear to be
threatened by any future development or redevelopment. For more information, contact
Dominic Mauriello at 479-2148.
--Call-up of PEC Decision on Proposed Batting Cage at Garton's Saloon
The Council voted 6-1 (Armour against) to uphold a decision of the Planning and
Environmental Commission which now allows Garton's Saloon to go through the
application process for an amendment to its conditional use permit to allow for
operation of a batting cage on its outdoor dining deck. The issue centered on
interpretation of the zoning code and corresponding definitions of permitted uses,
conditional uses and accessory uses. The Council, citing unclear language in the code,
voted to allow the batting cage application to go through the process. The application
had previously been denied based on a staff interpretation which held permitted uses
only are allowed to be located outside rather than conditional or accessory uses. Also
yesterday, the Council voted 7-0 to direct staff to evaluate the relationship of accessory
uses to conditional uses in the code. For more information, contact Lauren Waterton
in the Community Development Department at 479-2454.
--Citizen Participation
Councilman Paul Johnston stepped behind the podium to address the Council as a
citizen representing the interests of Vail Village and Lionshead. He asked the other
Councilmembers to revisit the town's policy on the hours of construction occurring in the
business districts. The current hours are 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday
and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday. Johnston said the policy should be changed to
be more in keeping with the needs of the overnight guests. He suggested no work be
allowed on Saturday or Sunday during the months of July, August and September.
Also, he proposed an 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. work day Monday through Thursday and an 8
a.m. to 4 p.m. schedule on Fridays.
--Town Manager's Report
In his report, Bob McLaurin noted the 1-70 underpass at West Vail would be shut down
•Wednesday and Thursday this week to allow for paving of the underpass and the north
side roundabout. The work will be completed by the end of the day Thursday.
--Last Call for Citizen Participation
Dick Stratton, district manager for Holy Cross Electric, introduced himself and provided
an update on the utility's new emphasis on improved customer service.
(more)
TOV Highlights/Add 5
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
i
July 8 Work Session
i
DRB Review
Parking Fees
Update by TCI re: system upgrade
July 15 Work Session
PEC Review
Parking Fees
Housing Action Items
AIPP Jesus Morales Updated Design(s)
July 15 Evening Meeting
Seibert Circle Design Approval
First Reading Ordinance No. 13, GRFA Interior Conversions
July 22 Work Session
DRB Review
Executive Session/Personnel Matters
0
0
GOWN OF PAIL
W7 South Frontage Road
'l, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADVISORY
July 9, 1997
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JULY $
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Parking Program Overview
Public Works/Transportation Director Larry Grafel presented an overview of the town's parking
program as the first step in a series of discussions that will be used to develop a parking strategy
and rate structure for the 1997-98 ski season. Grafel said the Town of Vail -Vail Associates
Community Task Force would be called upon to work with him in developing a recommendation
to be forwarded to the Council. He said the Task Force will be challenged to get to the "heart" of
the parking issue by asking the hard questions: What are the objectives? How are the
objectives to be measured? What function should the parking structures serve in regard to
employees? Who should be a primary user of the structures (guests, locals, employees)?
Grafel said he'll return next week to review parking figures and other statistics in more detail to
assess the "Park Free After 3" program; gold and blue passes; debit cards; Colorado and Vail
Valley cards; and financial and operational impacts. Yesterday, Rod Slifer, representing the Vail
Village Commercial Property Owner's Association, thanked the Council for agreeing to
experiment with the "Park Free After 3" program. Although difficult to quantify, Slifer said a sales
tax gain of $ 136,000 for the ski season was a positive indicator. Jim Lamont of the East Village
Homeowners Association asked that residential property owners have a voice in the
discussions. To receive a copy of Grafel's presentation packet, contact the Community
Information Office at 479-2115.
--Update by TCI on System Rebuild
After hearing a request by TCI Cablevision to consider a change to the franchise agreement to
allow digital compression technology in place of a fiber optic system rebuild, the Council agreed
to hire an independent consultant --proposed to be at TCI's expense --to advise the town of its
options. During yesterday's presentation Fred Lutz, TCI's regional manager, said the digital
technology would add 42 channels to the existing cable line-up, offering customers a choice to
add the digital channels or stay with the existing system. Several councilmembers wondered if
ithe digital technology proposal --in lieu of a fiber optic system rebuild --would improve the
system's overall reception. Lutz said TCI proposed to rebuild part of the system which would
improve the existing signal. After probing TCI's capital investment needed for each option, (less
than $500,000 for the digital system and between $3 and $5 million for the system rebuild),
Mayor Bob Armour said it appeared TCI was trying to cut costs at Vail's expense. The current
franchise agreement, a 15-year contract signed in January 1995, calls for completion of the
• (more)
G(� RECYCLEPPAPER
TOV Highlights/Add 1
system rebuild by January 1998 with significant penalties for default. For more information, •
contact Town Attorney Tom Moorhead at 479-2107.
--Seasonal Housing for TOV Bus Drivers
Mike rose, transit manager for the Town of Vail, discussed preliminary plans for securing master
lease housing for seasonal employees in conjunction with the Eagle County School District, and
perhaps, the Town of Avon. Acknowledging the town's Public Works housing will probably not
be available until late winter of 1998 and in order to secure housing for an important segment of
the town's seasonal work force, he said the town is working with other entities to explore this
option. The Board of Education will hear the concept later today. Rose said an
intergovernmental agreement would be used to solidify the details of the arrangement should
other entities be brought on board. By combining efforts with other agencies, Rose said full-time
use of any potential housing spaces will be maximized. For more information, contact Rose at
479-2349.
--Executive Session Regarding Council Communications with FDIC
Following an executive session, the Council voted 6-0-1 (Jewett abstaining) to send a letter from
Mayor Bob Armour to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) outlining the Council's
"disassociation" with a letter sent previously by Councilman Michael Jewett. In that letter,
Jewett, acting on behalf of the "citizens of Vail," asked the FDIC to hold a hearing on the process
used by City Market to lease space to Alpine Bank for a branch facility. Jewett has alleged
improprieties by a former councilmember in the matter. During yesterday's open session,
Councilmembers admonished Jewett for using his Council position to advance a personal
agenda without consulting the other Council members first. They said the letter, written on Town
of Vail letterhead, was misleading because it implies Jewett's request is shared by the entire
Council.
--information Update
Council members learned of a series of discussions hosted by Johnson and Wales, the culinary
school, regarding future programming needs and the school's presence in the community.
Other announcements: expect another bustling weekend with the Grundig cross-country
mountain bike race, several bike rides coming through town and the annual Vail Valley Arts
Festival. The events are expected to draw thousands of visitors to town. Also, the Colorado
Association of Ski Towns meeting will be in Steamboat Springs, July 31 and August I ... the Vail
Fire Department won the President's Award for its float in the Fourth of July parade.
--Council Reports
Paul Johnston, who represents the Council on the Eagle County Recreational Authority (Berry
Creek Fifth), gave an update on the board's most recent meeting. He said Vail Associates has
been invited to submit a proposal regarding the potential purchase of approximately 14 acres
set -aside in the property's sketch plan for locals housing. Also, Johnston said talks are
continuing regarding long-term operations of the equestrian center. The group's next meeting is
scheduled for Aug. 7. •
Kevin Foley reported that the Vail Recreation District had met earlier in the day. Also, Foley
said, Eagle County representatives are making a presentation this week for a GO CO legacy
grant associated with the railroad abandonment line from Gypsum to L.eadville.
(more) .
TOV Highlights/Add 2
. Sybill Navas distributed a request by the Vail Village Merchants Association to help cover a
deficit from last year's Turn it Up! customer focus training. The Council then voted 7-4 to cover
the $596 deficit from council contingency. funds.
• Navas had indicated at a previous meeting that she felt the streambank issue deserved more
attention from the town.
--Other
Council members received an update on efforts to mitigate the noise of exhaust fans at Vail
Commons.
With more crowds expected this weekend, Kevin Foley suggested being proactive in getting
cones set out to assist with parking and traffic management.
Bob Armour and Ludwig Kurz complimented police officers and code enforcement officers for
the customer -friendly way in which parking issues and crowd control issues were handled over
the holiday weekend.
Describing the newly -completed Dowd Junction recreational path as "awesome," Kevin Foley
thanked the council for having the foresight to help fund the improvement. Foley also said he
was taking pledges for the Courage Classic, a bike tour benefit.
Paul Johnston presented what he described as his most serious pitch to ban loading and
delivery in Vail Village and Lionshead by 18-wheeler trucks. Johnston suggested soliciting
comments to a draft ordinance that would ban such vehicles in the commercial core areas. In
response, Town Manager Bob McLaurin said the issue is part of a larger study on loading and
delivery that's now underway. McLaurin said the Council may also wish to consider dismount
zones for bicycles and skateboards during peak summer periods, such as the Fourth of July
holiday.
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
July 15 Work Session
PEC Review
Housing Action Items
AIPP,.Jesus Morales Updated Design(s)
Parking Discussion
July 15 Evening Meeting
Seibert Circle Design Approval
First Reading, Ordinance 13, GRFA Revision
July 22 Work Session
DRB Review
Executive Session, Personnel Matters
TCI System Rebuild Update
. August 5 Work Session
PEC Review
August 5 Evening Meeting
Second Reading, Ordinance 13, GRFA Revision
Presentation by TCI re: System Upgrade
Vail Tomorrow Presentation
/1
11
WWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
(01 Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADVISORY
July 16, 1997
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JULY 15
Work Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Parking Program
The Council continued its review of the parking program in preparation for upcoming
discussions that will focus on an overall parking philosophy, strategy and policies for the
41
97-98 ski season. Yesterday, the Council reviewed statistics on the gold and blue
parking pass program, debit cards, parking rates, the Free After Three program,
community survey results and sales tax collections. For a copy of the information
packet used during the presentation, please call Suzanne Silverthorn in the Community
Information Office at 479-2115. Parking discussions will resume at the July 22 work
session with an overview of trends at other ski resorts.
--PEC Review
During a review of Monday's Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting,
several Councilmembers inquired about a request by the PEC to increase enforcement
of the deed restrictions, particularly the occupancy requirements, for 14 employee
housing units that have been approved by the town since 1994. In approving the
EHUs, property owners agree to rent the units to residents who work up to 30 hours per
week in Eagle County. Susan Connelly, director of Community Development, said the
department has been uncomfortable with the town's inability to make the staffing
commitment to address the town's code compliance needs. She said an opportunity
may exist now to develop additional capacity to meet these needs following three
departures in the department's building division. She said a strategic plan regarding a
proposed department reorganization is forthcoming.
--Discussion of GRFA Ordinance
In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council reviewed a draft of an ordinance to
allow for the interior conversion of existing single family, duplex and primary/secondary
•structures that have no remaining Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). See evening
meeting briefs for more information, or contact Russell Forrest in the Community
Development Department at 479-2146.
(more)
C� RECYCLEDPAPER
TOV Council Highlights/Add 1
--Information Update S
In response to an earlier question, Councilmembers learned that 141 blue parking
passes were distributed free of charge during the 1995-96 season, while 157
complimentary blue passes were awarded in 1996-97. Many of the passes are
distributed as a result of long-standing agreements with Vail Associates, the Vail
Recreation District and Gasthoff Gramshammer, as well as benefits for town boa►d and
commission members. Announcements yesterday included notice of a private fund-
raising campaign to add a memorial plaque to a bench at Dobson Arena in memory of
Pamela Rodda, a well known instructor for local skating programs and notice of a
"roundabout carnival" this Saturday in which Mayor Bob Armour will be presented with a
check from the Dancing Bear to help support construction of the West Vail
roundabouts. The check passing is scheduled for 4 p.m. in front of the Dancing Bear.
--Council Reports
Kevin Foley indicated the Art in Public Places Board met last week in its pursuit of a
fitting art piece design for Seibert Circle.
--Other
Paul Johnston shared a list of concerns, including: 1) a street person seen July 6 in Vail
Village who was accompanied by a pan -handling musician at Seibert Circle; 2) conflicts
July 9 on Hanson Ranch Road caused by Vail Village Club construction staging (which
is prohibited); 3) lack of enforcement by the town with regard to the Hanson Ranch
Road matter; 4) lack of clarification by the town staff regarding Johnston's request last
week to pursue a ban on large trucks in Vail Village and Lionshead. In response, Town
Manager Bob McLaurin apologized for the communications gap and agreed to work
more closely with the Police and Public Works departments on problems associated
with construction staging and deliveries near Hanson Ranch Road. McLaurin also
agreed to share a time table with the Council next week regarding Johnston's request to
fast -track a ban on large trucks in the commercial core areas. During the discussion
yesterday, several Council members suggested imposing fines or penalties for those
who violate the town's construction staging and/or loading and delivery policies.
Also, referring to last week's discussion with representatives from TCI, Paul Johnston
said the town would be in a favorable position if TCI asked to revisit the existing
franchise agreement since it would give the Council the opportunity to renegotiate
anything it wanted to. On a related note, Mayor Bob Armour said he, too, had been
receiving feedback from the community. He said several people have suggested
contacting the city of Greeley to see how a digital compression system is working in that
community. Digital compression is being suggested by TCI as the technology of choice
here in lieu of the total fiber optic build -out which is spelled out in the current franchise.
Sybill Navas suggested reviewing possible inequities which may exist in allowing free
parking for users of charter/RV lot on the east end of the Lionshead parking structure.
Michael Jewett shared feedback he'd received from several town employees who've •
expressed frustration with the town's pay structure. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said
he intended to initiate a detailed discussion with the Council regarding a proposal to
(more)
TOV Council Highlights/Add 2
• implement a performance -based pay system that would help address some of the
complaints. The discussion is scheduled to occur at the Council's retreat scheduled for
aAug. 19.
Kevin Foley thanked the staff for its coordination of parking and traffic control during the
busy weekend. He said things appeared to work well. Foley also announced
distribution of the Eagle County Trails System gift catalogue, a project supported by the
Eagle County Trails Committee and the Regional Transportation Authority. In addition,
Foley reminded everyone of the Courage Classic bicycle tour which will be coming
through Vail on July 18. More than 2,000 cyclists are expected. They'll spend the night
at Ford Park.
At Bob Armour's suggestion, the Council agreed to pass a proclamation honoring Vail's
Mike Kloser for his contribution to the professional bike racing circuit. Armour, who was
involved in the award ceremonies over the weekend during the World Cup
bike races, also commended Jim Hoza and Brian Canepa of the Public Works
Department for constructing a base for a trophy on their own time and with last minute
notice!
Evening Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewell, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Citizen Participation
There was no citizen participation.
--GRFA Ordinance
The Council voted 7-0 to give first reading approval to an ordinance that allows for the
interior conversion of existing single family, duplex and primary/secondary structures
that have no remaining Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). The ordinance caps a
nine -month process in which the Council, responding to citizen requests, agreed to
evaluate the existing GRFA system and explore alternatives. The ordinance keeps
GRFA as a tool to control the bulk and mass of structures, but allows for the interior
conversion of existing homes. This would be achieved to allowing for the conversion of
existing interior spaces such as vaulted spaces, crawl spaces and other interior spaces
into useable floor area. The changes address recent complaints by those who've said
the current GRFA standards make it hard for families to live in Vail due to the inability to
convert interior space. During citizen input, Jim Lamont of the East Village
Homeowners Association said he saw no reason why the ordinance should not apply to
all zone districts, indicating that individuals living in multi -family neighborhoods don't
understand why they can't convert interior space as well. Lamont said the association
also was in favor of coming up with design guidelines. In making the motion to approve
the ordinance, Councilmember Sybill Navas complimented the process and the work
performed by consultant Tom Braun and Russell Forrest of the Community
Development Department. Mayor Bob Armour reviewed the positive aspects of the
•ordinance and echoed Navas' comments. He agreed that in spite of an increased
workload by staff, the new changes are for the better.
(more)
TOV Council Highlights/Add 3
--Supplemental Appropriations •
The Council voted 7-0 to approve first reading of an ordinance making supplemental
appropriations to the town's 1997 budget in the amount of $1.6 million. The measure
completes the budgeting process for $1.1 million in Real Estate Transfer Tax projects.
For details, contact Steve Thompson, finance director, at 479-2116.
--Town Manager Report
Town Manager Bob McLaurin provided an update on the TC1 Cabievision presentation
regarding proposed changes to the TCI franchise agreement and TCI's proposal to
eliminate the system re -build in lieu of enhanced channel capacity through a digital
compression system. McLaurin suggested setting up a tour of the National Digital
Center in Littleton or of other communities using the system.
--Other
Councilman Paul Johnston updated fellow Council members on comments he's heard
from out-of-town guests that Vail will be a hot spot for the celebration of the 2000 New
Year. He recommended the town begin preparing something special for the
celebration.
Councilman Kevin Foley thanked the Vail Valley Foundation for organization of the
1997 Cycle Class, the Vail Valley Arts Council for a successful arts festival and
congratulated Vail's Mike Kloser who has retired from competitive mountain biking.
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
July 22 Work Session
DRB Review
Executive Session, Personnel Matters
Parking Fees
August 5 Work Session
Site Visit & Discussion of Ski Storage Zone Code Change
Site Visit Dobson Arena re: Lionshead Design Charette
PEC Review
Community Task Force Interviews
Alpine Garden Update & Vail Valley Foundation Presentation
August 5 Evening Meeting
Second Reading, Ordinance 413, GRFA Revisions
Second Reading, Ordinance # 14, Supplemental Appropriations .
Presentation by TCI re: System Upgrade
Vail Tomorrow Presentation
AIPP Seibert Circle Design Approval
Appointment of Community Task Force Members
August 12 Work Session
PEC/DRB Review
41
4VAIL
TOWN
South Frontage Road
ail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADVISORY
July 16, 1997
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JULY 15
Work Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Parking Program
The Council continued its review of the parking program in preparation for upcoming
discussions that will focus on an overall parking philosophy, strategy and policies for the
97-98 ski season. Yesterday, the Council reviewed statistics on the gold and blue
parking pass program, debit cards, parking rates, the Free After Three program,
community survey results and sales tax collections. For a copy of the information
packet used during the presentation, please call Suzanne Silverthorn in the Community
Information Office at 479-2115. Parking discussions will resume at the July 22 work
session with an overview of trends at other ski resorts.
--PEC Review
During a review of Monday's Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting,
several Councilmembers inquired about a request by the PEC to increase enforcement
of the deed restrictions, particularly the occupancy requirements, for 14 employee
housing units that have been approved by the town since 1994. In approving the
EHLIs, property owners agree to rent the units to residents who work up to 30 hours per
week in Eagle County. Susan Connelly, director of Community Development, said the
department has been uncomfortable with the town's inability to make the staffing
commitment to address the town's code compliance needs. She said an opportunity
may exist now to develop additional capacity to meet these needs following three
departures in the department's building division. She said a strategic plan regarding a
proposed department reorganization is forthcoming.
--Discussion of GRFA Ordinance
In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council reviewed a draft of an ordinance to
allow for the interior conversion of existing single family, duplex and primary/secondary
structures that have no remaining Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). See evening
meeting briefs for more information, or contact Russell Forrest in the Community
Development Department at 479-2146.
(more)
Goy� RECYCLEUPAPER
TOV Council Highlights/Add 1
--Information Update
In response to an earlier question, Councilmembers learned that 141 blue parking
passes were distributed free of charge during the 1995-96 season, while 157
complimentary blue passes were awarded in 1996-97. Many of the passes are
distributed as a result of long-standing agreements with Vail Associates, the Vail
Recreation District and Gasthoff Gramshammer, as well as benefits for town board and
commission members. Announcements yesterday included notice of a private fund-
raising campaign to add a memorial plaque to a bench at Dobson Arena in memory of
Pamela Rodda, a well known instructor for local skating programs and notice of a
"roundabout carnival" this Saturday in which Mayor Bob Armour will be presented with a
check from the Dancing Bear to help support construction of the West Vail
roundabouts. The check passing is scheduled for 4 p.m. in front of the Dancing Bear.
--Council Reports
Kevin Foley indicated the Art in Public Places Board met last week in its pursuit of a
fitting art piece design for Seibert Circle.
--Other
Paul Johnston shared a list of concerns, including: 1) a street person seen July 6 in Vail
Village who was accompanied by a pan -handling musician at Seibert Circle; 2) conflicts
Juiy 9 on Hanson Ranch Road caused by Vail Village Club construction staging (which
is prohibited); 3) lack of enforcement by the town with regard to the Hanson Ranch
Road matter; 4) lack of clarification by the town staff regarding Johnston's request last
week to pursue a ban on large trucks in Vail Village and Lionshead. In response, Town
Manager Bob McLaurin apologized for the communications gap and agreed to work
more closely with the Police and Public Works departments on problems associated
with construction staging and deliveries near Hanson Ranch Road. McLaurin also
agreed to share a time table with the Council next week regarding Johnston's request to
fast -track a ban on large trucks in the commercial core areas. During the discussion
yesterday, several Council members suggested imposing fines or penalties for those
who violate the town's construction staging and/or loading and delivery policies.
Also, referring to last week's discussion with representatives from TCI, Paul Johnston
said the town would be in a favorable position if TCI asked to revisit the existing
franchise agreement since it would give the Council the opportunity to renegotiate
anything it wanted to. On a related note, Mayor Bob Armour said he, too, had been
receiving feedback from the community. He said several people have suggested
contacting the city of Greeley to see how a digital compression system is working in that
community. Digital compression is being suggested by TCI as the technology of choice
here in lieu of the total fiber optic build -out which is spelled out in the current franchise.
Sybill Navas suggested reviewing possible inequities which may exist in allowing free
parking for users of charter/RV lot on the east end of the Lionshead parking structure.
Michael Jewett shared feedback he'd received from several town employees who've
expressed frustration with the town's pay structure. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said
he intended to initiate a detailed discussion with the Council regarding a proposal to
(more)
TOV Council Highlights/Add 2
implement a performance -based pay system that would help address some of the
complaints. The discussion is scheduled to occur at the Council's retreat scheduled for
Aug. 19.
Kevin Foley thanked the staff for its coordination of parking and traffic control during the
busy weekend. He said things appeared to work well. Foley also announced
distribution of the Eagle County Trails System gift catalogue, a project supported by the
Eagle County Trails Committee and the Regional Transportation Authority. In addition,
Foley reminded everyone of the Courage Classic bicycle tour which will be coming
through Vail on July 18. More than 2,000 cyclists are expected. They'll spend the night
at Ford Park.
At Bob Armour's suggestion, the Council agreed to pass a proclamation honoring Vail's
Mike Kloser for his contribution to the professional bike racing circuit. Armour, who was
involved in the award ceremonies over the weekend during the World Cup
bike races, also commended Jim Hoza and Brian Canepa of the Public Works
Department for constructing a base for a trophy on their own time and with last minute
notice!
Evening Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Citizen Participation
There was no citizen participation.
--GRFA Ordinance
The Council voted 7-0 to give first reading approval to an ordinance that allows for the
interior conversion of existing single family, duplex and primary/secondary structures
that have no remaining Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). The ordinance caps a
nine -month process in which the Council, responding to citizen requests, agreed to
evaluate the existing GRFA system and explore alternatives. The ordinance keeps
GRFA as a tool to control the bulk and mass of structures, but allows for the interior
conversion of existing homes. This would be achieved to allowing for the conversion of
existing interior spaces such as vaulted spaces, crawl spaces and other interior spaces
into useable floor area. The changes address recent complaints by those who've said
the current GRFA standards make it hard for families to live in Vail due to the inability to
convert interior space. During citizen input, Jim Lamont of the East Village
Homeowners Association said he saw no reason why the ordinance should not apply to
all zone districts, indicating that individuals living in multi -family neighborhoods don't
understand why they can't convert interior space as well. Lamont said the association
also was in favor of coming up with design guidelines. In making the motion to approve
the ordinance, Councilmember Sybill Navas complimented the process and the work
performed by consultant Tom Braun and Russell Forrest of the Community
Development Department. Mayor Bob Armour reviewed the positive aspects of the
ordinance and echoed Navas' comments. He agreed that in spite of an increased
workload by staff, the new changes are for the better.
(more)
TOV Council Highlights/Add 3
--Supplemental Appropriations
The Council voted 7-0 to approve first reading of an ordinance making supplemental
appropriations to the town's 1997 budget in the amount of $1.6 million. The measure
completes the budgeting process for $1.1 million in Real Estate Transfer Tax projects.
For details, contact Steve Thompson, finance director, at 479-2116.
--Town Manager Report
Town Manager Bob McLaurin provided an update on the TCI Cablevision presentation
regarding proposed changes to the TCI franchise agreement and TCI's proposal to
eliminate the system re -build in lieu of enhanced channel capacity through a digital
compression system. McLaurin suggested setting up a tour of the National Digital
Center in Littleton or of other communities using the system.
--Other
Councilman Paul Johnston updated fellow Council members on comments he's heard
from out-of-town guests that Vail will be a hot spot for the celebration of the 2000 New
Year. He recommended the town begin preparing something special for the
celebration.
Councilman Kevin Foley thanked the Vail Valley Foundation for organization of the
1997 Cycle Class, the Vail Valley Arts Council for a successful arts festival and +,
congratulated Vail's Mike Kloser who has retired from competitive mountain biking.
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
July 22 Work Session
DRB Review
Executive Session, Personnel Matters
Parking Fees
August 5 Work Session
Site Visit & Discussion of Ski Storage Zone Code Change
Site Visit Dobson Arena re: Lionshead Design Charette
PEC Review
Community Task Force Interviews
Alpine Garden Update & Vail Valley Foundation Presentation
August 5 Evening Meeting
Second Reading, Ordinance #13, GRFA Revisions
Second Reading, Ordinance # 14, Supplemental Appropriations 41
Presentation by TCI re: System Upgrade
Vail Tomorrow Presentation
AIPP Seibert Circle Design Approval
Appointment of Community Task Force Members
August 12 Work Session
PEC/DRB Review