Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-19 Town Council MinutesVail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Dick Cleveland. Members present: Dick Cleveland, Mayor Kevin Foley Kerry Donovan Susie Tjossem Margaret Rogers Members Absent: Andy Daly Kim Newbury Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Dan Corcoran, Eagle County Surveyor, introduced himself and explained he is running for re-election of County Surveyor in this November's election. Mia Vlaar, with the Vail Jazz Foundation, expressed her gratitude for the contributions from the Council and the recognition of the Stone's at a future council session. She requested additional funding from the Commission on Special Events (CSE) for additional summer jazz concerts to be added in July, 2011. Matt Mire, town attorney, stated the ordinance for special events exempts the iconic cultural events from receiving funding from the CSE and they should request the additional funding from the Town Council out of the funds set aside for Council Contributions. He said it's up to the Council to change what account funding would come out of, whether it's from the Council account or CSE funds. The intent of the ordinance was to fund culturally designated events separately from the CSE funds. Zemler said the Council could add more money in the Council account for Council contributions. Tjossem stated she thought iconic events weren't prohibited from requesting additional funding from the CSE. Rogers said she would like Council to fund it and not the CSE. Mire said that was more in line with the intent of the ordinance. Vlaar said they received additional funds last year which made a great Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 1 difference in what they provided. They want to add all Thursday nights in July to their lineup. Cleveland asked Vlaar to come back to the next meeting with specific funds needed for adding the additional days in July so the Council could discuss in further detail. The second item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. There was nothing to report at this time. The third item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda: Approval of the September 7 and 21, 2010 meeting minutes. Foley made a motion to approve with minor corrections, the motion was seconded by Tjossem, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. The fourth item on the agenda was a discussion of the Comcast franchise agreement. Matt Mire, town attorney, explained the Comcast franchise agreement had expired and Comcast was operating on a month -to -month agreement. The discussion was two fold: to receive public comment and for Council to ask questions of Comcast. Mire said In 1995, the Town of Vail (the "Town") entered into a cable franchise agreement with TCI Cablevision. Several years later, TO was purchased by AT&T and finally Comcast. As part of this agreement, the Town was given a fiber optic network connecting all five of our municipal buildings. At the time, this was an in -kind contribution to the Town of approximately $250,000. The franchise agreement ended on January 4th of 2010. The agreement provides for continuation of service on a month -to -month basis until a new agreement can be agreed upon by the Town of Vail and Comcast. At present, Comcast is the only land based television service provider in Vail. They own the infrastructure and they carry the franchise agreement, which (among other things) provides them right-of-way access for their network. While the Town is more than willing to entertain other entities in this process, there simply are no other companies who have shown interest in buying the system from Comcast. In addition, the town received multiple emails from Vail residents with complaints regarding Comcast service, as well as a letter from Channel 5 with comments and additional requests. These have been included in the council packets to be added to the town records. Janet Rinaldi, Director of Government Affairs for Comcast, and Mark Griffith, local representative from Comcast, were in attendance to answer questions. Tom Carpenter, representing the Village Center Association, said the association remodeled their building three years ago. With the advent of HDTV and Tivo, the residents wanted multiple outlets in each unit. Comcast told them they could have Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 2 commercial service if everyone signed up. Comcast also stated the quality of service was up to the quality of other towns such as Steamboat Springs. The agreement presented by Comcast did not have the changes agreed upon, service is intermittent, the quality is poor and he has given up trying to contact Comcast for service issues. He said the Council has an opportunity to make a deal with someone else at this time. Glenwood Springs buys cable services in bulk, makes their own deal and the city makes money. He said representatives from Comcast in Denver that had agreed to contract terms didn't have the authority to make those agreements. Rinaldi stated Comcast has entered into a partnership with CDOT so that on -demand services can be added in the next six to nine months to expand HDTV, before next summer. Rinaldi also stated that Xfinity voice and data packets will include pay per view, and the movies will come out the same day they come out on DVD. The services will also include any services offered in other areas that the town residents don't get currently. All additional services added will be comparable to other cities and will be completed before next summer. J.K. Pent' from Channel 5 thanked the Council for their support and programming. He stated he sent the Council a letter and emphasized Channel 5 is important to the town's constituents. He reviewed his letter with Council and would like any new agreement to provide capital improvement funds for Channel 5, in addition to the franchise fees already funded including PEG funding. John Goode, a resident, said he was told the town would get services par to the services in Boston, and we didn't get them. Janet Rinaldi apologized and said she has taken notes and will check into the issues brought up at the meeting as well as the email issues. Rogers said Comcast service is appalling and the bad experiences expressed are not unique. Rinaldi said they are always working to improve services. New Improvements include a service window within two hours and the technicians will pre -call the customer when they are on their way. Touch point surveys are on the service person and their goal is to solve issues immediately. Cleveland said the disconnect of service is between the service representative and the telephone office personnel. The office personnel make comments that are not true. Rinaldi said Comcast has a seven point customer guarantee, in which Comcast credits the customer account if: they are late; if issues are not resolved to customer satisfaction; guarantees customer options to get issues resolved; and prioritize repeat callers. Rinaldi stated the field technicians know the seven customer guarantees; however, at this time she didn't know all of them and the customer service representatives don't know them. Rogers said she is not willing to enter into any contracts until the Council knows what the town is paying for. She wants a comparison done with what other services cities and towns have and what the town has, and to have firm dates and timelines on when upgrades will be done. She also stated there is a need for a technical service Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 3 audit on living up to their contract. Cleveland is not in support of signing another agreement until the audit is done by a third party. Mark Hollenbeck, with Village Center Homeowners Association, said they have service issues, poor audio, intermittent breaks, and were told the expansion of the system was supposed to happen last August, not next summer. He wants a firm and accurate date of when the upgrades will happen. He stated everything on Direct TV is high definition. He suggested the town have the fine print of the franchise agreement looked at in detail. Rogers said they could put penalties in the contract. Pete Defail, deals with Comcast on daily basis. He said the frontline personnel have been in discussion with CDOT for 5 years. He doesn't see first class service with Comcast. Stan Cope, Gemini Management, stated he would like to see the town negotiate a bulk rate as part of the contract. Michael Cacioppo said Comcast has good internet but the television service is poor. He wants public access television increased and wants that to be part of the negotiation, as well as having multiple cameras and mixers available for public television. He feels the customer service is appalling and customer service personnel need more training. Tjossem said she thinks the agreement from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has been the holdup. She wanted to know how Aspen was able to get better services when they are so far from Denver. Rinaldi said there is a robust connection that is provided by a third party for the Aspen area and that connectivity doesn't come to Vail. Comcast will use the fiber optic in the right-of-ways that are already in existence. Ron Braden, Vail IT Director, said they have been in a competitive bid process. He stated the bulk of the fiber optics is in the ground. Braden said he doesn't know of any plans to go from Vail Pass and into town. He said fiber optic has been in Summit County for some time. Rinaldi said Comcast has access from CDOT to use the right-of-ways from Golden to Vail. The access doesn't go beyond Vail and Avon. When Comcast adds the additional 100 channels, the local channels will not be moved due to HDTV. Rinaldi said they have taken lots of notes about the issues voiced and will take them back with her to discuss with other Comcast personnel. Mire said if staff gets Council direction on guarantees, service upgrades,etc., he would ask for a motion to direct staff to get an audit done and a date to reopen the discussion. A date of January 4, 2011, was suggested. Kendra Carberry, outside counsel for the town, stated the current agreement will continue on a month -to -month basis. Foley made a motion to have an audit done and have Comcast return on January 4, 2011, the motion was seconded by Rogers. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 4 The fifth item on the agenda was a request for permission to proceed throug development review process for use of Town of Vail owned property, adjacerl< <u Me applicant's property at 232 West Meadow Drive/ Lot 7, Vail Village Filing 2, to allow an existing bridge and retaining wall, located on Tract B, Vail Lionshead Filing 2. George Ruther, Community Development Director for the Town of Vail, said on April 1, 2009, at the request of Town Council, a Request for Bids (RFB) was released by the Town of Vail. The purpose of the RFB was to solicit bids from qualified professional survey firms to provide surveying services for public stream tracts along Gore Creek and the primary tributaries in the Town of Vail. On May 19, 2009, Town Council authorized staff to proceed with the issuance of a contract in the amount of $55,000 to PLC, Inc. for the surveying of public stream tracts along Gore Creek and the primary tributaries in the Town of Vail. On October 6, 2009, the Vail Town Council directed staff to take a zero -tolerance policy with any encroachments into the stream tract. Further, the Vail Town Council instructed staff to contact owners and work out a compliance strategy for each encroachment. As a result, the applicant, Mery Lapin, was sent a letter regarding his encroachment, which resulted in multiple meetings with staff to discuss options for compliance. On August 17, 2010, at the Vail Town Council evening session, the applicant requested that his request to proceed through the process be placed on a future Vail Town Council agenda. Per the established Vail Town Council policy, staff recommends that the Vail Town Council deny the applicant's request to proceed through the development review process and directs staff to work with the applicant to ensure the removal of the subject encroachments. Rogers asked if the Town of Vail had ever granted permission for the encroachments to be on the public right-of-ways. Ruther said staff couldn't find any permits or anything that acknowledges the improvements on town property. Mery Lapin, property owner, said there was very high water flow through this area. The water was ripping away the trees on the bank and the island (about six trees). He said when Peter Burnett, a past town public works employee, saw this, he came up with the idea to add the riprap and bridge, around the 1972 to 1975 timeframe. He also stated the Trout Unlimited group did a lot of the rock placements. Riprap was built because it was eroding his property. Lapin said the town provided the logs and the bridge came off the Vail golfcourse. He said fishermen were using the bank on his property to cross over. He stated that no one can get by in high water during the summer. Lapin said he improved the bridge four to five years ago. Council asked who initially put up the bridge and Lapin said Burnett and his crew added the bridge. Donovan asked how often people access the bridge to fish. Lapin said in the summer, there can be 10 to 15 fishermen daily accessing the bridge. Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 5 Tjossem asked if Burnett put the bridge in, and did that mean it was implied that it was town approved and if the people who discover the bridge, does it have signage. Lapin feels it is a public amenity. Chris Burns, a neighbor, who lives at 212 Meadow Drive, (East unit), which Lapin owns, said there are up to 10-15 people a day on busy days. He also feels the bridge is a public amenity. Lapin said there will be a lot of trees that will fall down if the bridge is removed. If the riprap is removed, the trees on the island will be destroyed due to high water and on the bank. Mire said it is not the town's responsibility if the bank is eroded. Ruther said the channel that the bridge goes over was dug in and the channel would have to go away and some form of mitigation would have to be replaced with approximately a four -foot wall. Ruther said the timbers look like they were put in place after 1975. In 2009, Council made the determination to have the stream tract for public use and to not have private property owners place improvements in the stream tract. Foley asked if the applicant was allowed to proceed, would it go to Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). Ruther said potentially it would because the abatement may require modifications and it and would be a certainty to go before the Design Review Board (DRB). Rogers said this needs to be practical. She said if the retaining wall is protecting the stream, she doesn't want it taken down, just to put something else up. Ruther said the channel was dug in and put in purposefully. This is a high water issue and the town has done mitigation on other sites. So it's up to the Council to make a policy decision. Cacioppo said this a classic liberal vs. conservative issue. He said folks bought properties near streams, and then liberals came in and had to have riparian areas. He feels the wall should be grandfathered in. He said some people on the Council are friends of Lapin, and they will find a way to make it work for Lapin. He feels the process should be fair for everyone. Cacioppo said if Chuck Boetcher came in and built something on town land and Lapin paid for something that was not his property, he shouldn't get special treatment. Art Abplanalp, representing Jim Lamont, of the Vail Homeowners Association (VHOA), said for the record, and consistent with the principals the VHOA, urges the Council to protect open space from private entities. Abplanalp said it is up to the Council to make the decision as it's the town's property. Donovan said zero tolerance is as strong as you can get. Rogers said when the policy was made, the land was for public use not for private use and the town needs to control their own stream tract. She would like to see that we don't make the stream worse. When Council says no, the town will enforce the No. Rogers is not in support of Lapin going through the process. Foley asked what happens next if the Council denies the request. Tjossem said the public works staff go out and evaluate the bridge and walls. Rogers said public works and community development did go out to identify stream bank erosions. Ruther said there were 60 plus properties on Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 6 the list. Foley made a motion to deny the applicant going through the process, Rogers seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. The sixth item on the agenda was a request for permission to proceed through the development review process to remove trees on town -owned property adjacent to the Gore Creek Plaza Building. George Ruther said on April 28, 2000, Blu's Beanery was granted permission to utilize 139.3 square feet of town -owned property adjacent to the Gore Creek Plaza Building for outdoor seating. A five-year contract was granted and was subsequently extended until December 31, 2010. The applicant is requesting permission to proceed through the development review process to remove three cottonwood trees from the dining area because they are infested with aphids, causing excess residue to form and fall on the outdoor seating area and the trees have outgrown the grate area. Mark Hallenbeck, representing the property owners, said they have had problems throughout the years with the trees, including property damage. The concrete support has been broken in the area and problems with materials from the trees coming off and hitting patrons while they are dining has been witnessed. Cleveland asked if they were going to replace them with anything. Allen said Blu's wanted the trees removed. Ruther said there was some discussion about the town helping to fund the replacement. Ruther asked if the Council approves, will the homeowners pay for the removal or is the town was going to help finance the removal. Hallenbeck said he is a general contractor in town and he has estimates from R & H Mechanical and Gallegos Corporation about repairing this area. Ruther said the regulations state there will be no net loss of landscape in the Village, but this may be an exception. Ruther said if permission is granted, the applicant will need to go through the PEC process and the application for this request to remove the trees would be staff reviewed. Rogers said she is not in favor of foot -by -foot replacement of the trees. However, she likes the ambiance of the trees in the promenade and adding smaller trees would be in order. Ruther said the Council could recommend removing the trees and require the applicant add more trees in the spring of 2011. Rogers made a motion to approve the applicant to go through the process and add three small trees in the spring of 2011, at the applicant's expense. The motion was seconded by Foley. A vote was taken and was passed unanimously, 5-0. The seventh item on the agenda was a discussion on the recent realignment of roadway striping on the South Frontage Road through the Intermountain neighborhood. Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 7 Gregg Barrie, Public Works Senior Landscape Architect, said in May of 2010, the Department of Public Works, in conjunction with CDOT, realigned the roadway striping on the South Frontage Road in Intermountain. The realignment project had been discussed in recent years in response to the following: 1) Numerous comments and concerns about unsafe conditions from the biking community, 2) Accepted roadway standards recommend against two-way, one-sided bike and pedestrian facilities; 3) Efforts to accommodate numerous user groups in a confined corridor; and 4) Similar alignment in place on Bighorn Road in East Vail for close to two decades. Shortly after the work was completed, neighbors raised concerns that the new alignment was less safe than the original because the south shoulder was narrowed. Additional signs and a painted crosswalk were added to encourage west- bound bikers to ride with traffic per traffic laws, thereby reducing congestion on the south shoulder. The new alignment meets or exceeds accepted roadway design standards. Because the new alignment meets or exceeds accepted roadway design standards, staff recommends no immediate changes to the new alignment. When the roadway is scheduled to be resurfaced, staff recommends minor adjustments to provide additional room on the south shoulder by reducing the north shoulder to the minimum standard. Foley asked how wide the shoulder lanes are in the Bighorn area. Barrie said the lanes were seven feet wide. Barrie stated that in Intermountain, the lanes are six feet and in other areas it's nine feet and is the accepted standard. There is 1,400 feet of guardrail and this may make it feel narrow in places. Tjossem said the size goes in and out on the north side and there may be room to make it uniform. Barrie said the pavement is not in good condition. There are sections that are seven feet wide near Stephen's Park. Sara Newsom, an Intermountain resident, said it's not about bike riders. The major concerns are that it is still narrow. She said the buses barely stay in the lanes and she says safety is a big concern. The Kinnickinick Road to the round -about is too narrow. She would like Council to reconsider the south lane and making it wider. Cleveland asked if the traffic lanes were narrowed. Barrie said they were reduced about six inches. Kay Cheney, resident of Intermountain, said she was delighted, as a bicyclist, now that they have two lanes. Rogers said it is much safer now. She said signage, such as, bikers yield to pedestrians, could be utilized and made clear that the pedestrians have the right-of-way. She is not in favor of changing the new configuration. Donovan said the bus concern has been mentioned to her and maybe they need to notify the bus drivers to be more careful and aware. Foley suggested removing some of the curb and gutter may also be considered. Greg Hall said removal is a concern as there is a retaining wall. Cleveland said this was a perception problem. Tjossem said the bikers said it has a Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 8 better flow, and to keep listening to the pedestrians. Cleveland is in support of leaving it the way it is. Rogers asked if he was in favor of the signs. He didn't think that was an issue. No action was taken by Council. The eighth item on the agenda was First Reading of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2010, an ordinance amending Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 11-3-3, Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to establish regulations for ski yard signs, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Warren Campbell, Community Development Planner, said Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, does not address ski yard signs. Until recently, the base areas of Vail Mountain were not located within the Town of Vail. Signs associated with lift ticket booths are also not addressed within Title 11, Sign Regulations. To date, the town has worked with Vail Resorts to develop ski yard sign regulations that meet the intent of the Sign Regulations. The PEC held a work session on ski yard signage at the September 13, 2010, hearing and provided staff with comments that are detailed in Section III of the September 27, 2010, staff memorandum. On September 27, 2010, the PEC recommended approval of the proposed regulations amendments to the Vail Town Council (6-0-1, Cartin recused). Warren said Vail Resorts, Inc. (VRI) requested a need to keep the regulations user friendly as technology keeps changing and to provide flexibility for the mountain to change as necessary. A -frame type of signs would replace the signs that are not attractive. In ski yard sign regulations, the signs will not advertise competing signage with businesses in town. Lift lines signs may be digital and as technology changes they want to anticipate changes. Donovan wants ski rentals and ski storage added to prohibited advertising. Foley is concerned about electronic signs and content. He sees it as sales tax draining from the Town of Vail. Rogers said that's why they need to change it to include prohibition of ski rentals. Rogers made a motion to approve on first reading with changes directed staff to prohibit ski rentals and ski storage, including findings on page three of the memorandum, the motion was seconded by Tjossem. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1, Foley opposed. The ninth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 25, Series of 2010, a Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the Town of Vail and the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. Gregg Barrie, Public Works Senior Landscape Architect, said in April of 2010, the Department of Public Works applied for a Safety Modification Grant through the ECO Trails Committee. The grant was approved in the amount of 70% of the cost of the project up to $6,340. An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Vail and The Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority is required for the Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 9 grant funds to be dispersed. Once approved, the town can invoice ECO Trai reimbursement of the work. Foley made a motion to approve as read, seconded by Rogers. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. The tenth item on the agenda was Second Reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2010, an ordinance amending Chapter 12-6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, to establish the Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Bill Gibson, Planner, said on October 5, 2010, the Vail Town Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2010, by a vote of 5-2-0 (Rogers and Tjossem opposed). Gibson asked Council to consider both the 2"d reading and Resolution 23, Series of 2010, at the same time. He explained how staff came up with the 1.25 and 1.35 numbers and explained in detail the memorandum with Council. The ridge heights and gross residential floor area (GRFA) were the main concerns from Council from the last meeting. The Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC) recommendation is 1.35. Council said they approved the 1.25. Gibson had charts attached to the memorandum that compared the differences between 1.25 and 1.35 ratios. Rogers asked if the buildings, under the new plan, have room to build the additional GRFA. Rogers said the Vail Row Houses don't have the land to use the GRFA. Gibson said they would have to go up and back of the property. Gibson said the current zoning allows 48 foot height limit. Rogers would like to see an addition to the ordinance regarding height requirements. Donovan asked if there was any urgency in getting this passed now. She does not feel comfortable passing this and would like to table the item. Rogers agrees. She would like to see architectural drawings of what this could look like. Tjossem said she wanted to remind the Council that the PEC went through lots of hours with this and they have recommendations that the Council should listen to and the Council moved the ratio down from 1.35 to 1.25. Rogers asked if there were any buildings that would be non -conforming if built today. Gibson said no. Rogers said the worst would be to limit potential. Tjossem said limiting the size is a significant change for the larger units. Gibson said it's a policy decision for the Council. Mire said the PEC is trying to be fair and not leave anyone out. Cleveland said the biggest concern and impact is giving a blank canvas for a redo. Gibson said there are drawbacks and one of the reasons why the owners haven't demolished the residences and start again is they lose the GRFA. The ordinances' intent is to equalize this for all the owners. Mire said the approval would take a 4 to 1 vote to pass this ordinance. Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group, representing the applicants, stated they have been in the process for two years. They have widespread support of most Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 10 of the owners of these properties, with only Mr. Bridgewater against this proposal. Last time it was approved 5-2. Foley stated for the record, he would have been more restrictive at 1.15. Mauriello said Council's 1.25 may create some angst among the property owners. He went over the presentation that he gave on October 5th. He feels the 1.35 would appease all owners, except Mr. Bridgewater. He gave an analysis of comparisons of the 1.5 to 1.35 and 1.35 and 1.25 ratios of each property to show that the square footage sizes are pretty low. He gave examples of how it would look if they added the square footage per current regulations. The initial eave height limitation of 33 feet is what they are proposing. Rogers and Cleveland still have concerns about stepping the height back. Rogers doesn't want to see a wall of a building and change the character of the neighborhood. Mauriello says the DRB has impact on quality. Rogers said the bulk and mass is through PEC and the DRB doesn't look at the bulk and mass. Mauriello said there is language in the ordinance to control the bulk and mass. Donovan said can they realistically do the 48 foot scenario. Mauriello said they are happy to be tabled if they want to see more detail and information. John Dunn representing the Bridgewater's said there is an issue with the middle row and how it could be built under the current GRFA limitations. Dunn said the Bridgewater's are not against the general concept; however, they have a problem of the history of how they got here and they want to keep the character of the neighborhood. Dunn said in 2009, there was an SDD application for Lots 9 and 10 and a set of plans were available for inspection. The application showed a building of four stories next to a 2-1/2 story building and there was a common wall between them. The application was not approved by Council at that time. Dunn said they want to know what the goal of the applicant is and what is the appropriate GRFA. The Bridgewaters are not sure what they will see once it is built. They asked if the 1.25 would protect them and would it protect the character of the neighborhood. An August 9 staff memo said each project would be approved on a project by project basis so the town wouldn't end up with something being built that is completely out of character with neighbors. Trying to look at unintended consequences now is in order. Mark Donaldson, Architect, and working with Dunn, was looking at the possible scenarios. Mr. Bridgewater is intent on keeping the character of the neighborhood. The good parts of the ordinance and resolution are creating the additional zone district that is appropriate to this neighborhood with little or no change to standard definitions and simplification of GRFA formulas. Donaldson said there were three objectives: simplifying the review process; preserving the majority of existing development rights; and conserving and enhancing the current eave height. He went over the formulas and said there is a good safety factor with 1.25. The eave height of 33 to 35 foot allows for more height than they were comfortable with. He recommends a 28 foot eave height which still allows for a third story. In reducing the eave height and maximum building height of Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 11 35 feet, the new allowable GRFA with basement credits could generally be easily reached and 75 % buried within the lot and would be appropriate to preserve the neighborhood character. Some people would see this as a taking, but it could be mitigated with lower building heights. If you add a 4th floor, the character changes and adds more people. Some structural engineers said shedding snow may be an issue and snow loads would need to be managed. Party wall agreements may not cover these issues. The object of preserving the character of neighborhoods, the town needs to be careful. The 1.15 to 1.25 ratio more than preserves the development rights and 25 feet to 28 feet on the south elevation would be appropriate. Mauriello stated the 35 foot height on the north side hasn't been an issue. The problem with reducing to the 25 foot height and 35 foot height is no one would zone their property. People will perceive they are losing something. Mauriello suggested tabling this item due to lack of a full board and it will give them time to come back with other suggestions. Rogers said it was a good idea to table and would like to see in the ordinance, a requirement regarding stepping of the units, if they are stepped back. Gibson said the High Density Multi Family (HDMF) zoning didn't take the townhomes into consideration which makes them nonconforming. The ordinance crafted is close. Donaldson said the 45 foot building height is only in CCI, CCII, and CCIII and the they want a more medium density, and the height in the rear of the property could be higher. Tjossem asked what changed from first and second reading. Rogers said seeing what it looked like was a great change and what it will take to maintain the character of the neighborhood. If the character changes, she is not in favor of approving this ordinance. Cleveland said photographs with the heights on it made a huge difference, and it was clear that mandatory step back and eave heights closer to 2- 1/2 stories instead of 3-1/2 stories is necessary. Foley made a motion to table this item to the December 7, 2010, meeting; seconded by Rogers. A vote was taken and the motion was approved by a vote of 4-1; with Tjossem opposed. The eleventh item on the agenda was Resolution 23, Series of 2010, a resolution amending Chapter VII, Vail Village Sub -Areas, East Gore Creek Sub -Area (#6) to include recommendations related to a new Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Bill Gibson, Planner, said on October 5, 2010, the Vail Town Council tabled the final decision on Resolution 23, Series of 2010, to coincide with the second reading of the related Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2010. As the ordinance was tabled, he requested this item be tabled to be heard with the second reading of the related Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 12 Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2010. Foley made a motion to table Resolution 23, Series of 2010 to the December 7, 2010 meeting; the motion was seconded by Rogers, a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. The twelfth item on the agenda was Adjournment. Foley made motion to adjourn, seconded by Donovan, and passed unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Respectfully submitted, Richard D. Cleveland, Mayor 2p � . S •:r E L: Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010 Page 13