Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-21 Town Council MinutesVail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 21, 2012 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 Andrew P. Daly. Members present: Andrew P. Daly, Mayor Kerry Donovan Kevin Foley Ludwig Kurz Margaret Rogers Susie Tjossem Members Absent: Greg Moffet Staff members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Dick Neal, resident, stated he believes the Council and town staff have the best interest of the town at heart on the Municipal site project but he thinks the process that the project is going through is not in the best interest. He said not having a long range development plan from the hospital prior to the project being approved is backwards. He wants to see a development plan showing where the helipad will be permanently placed is important and the community needs to see it now. Neal said having the helipad on the hospital roof is where it belongs but that idea will bring out the NIMBY's (not in my back yard). He suggested the medical center move to the Timber Ridge site. And he suggested the town offices be moved out to the town's Public Works facility. He would like to see the town municipal site be redeveloped for commercial uses that would bring in more tax revenues into the town. Rich Brown, a general contractor in the Eagle Council area, said he has been here for over 40 years. He said there are known carbon monoxide problems at the Vail Trails Chalets. He has spent 200 hours of his time trying to get the town building department to address this problem over the past two years or so. In 2009, he told Mike McGee, Assistant Fire Chief, about the illegal and dangerous projects that were done without permits being pulled. McGee inspected and found legitimate concerns at the Vail Trails Chalets and in November of 2009, notified the owners that they had to change the venting of all boilers and water heaters. The plan was to be submitted to the town within 30 days. The plans need to be produced and stamped by a professional engineer, licensed and registered in Colorado. In the spring of 2010, the boilers and water heaters were installed without a professional engineer or design. Brown said Building Inspector Martin Haeberle approved the inspection of this project. Brown employed a mechanical engineer to get the town to address his concern that this was not done properly. Matt Mire, town attorney, stated the responses to Brown's concerns are of public record for the timeframe he is addressing. Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012 Page 1 Jonathan Levine, owner of Hummers of Vail, handed out an email between Dwight Henninger, Police Chief, and himself. He said he will continue to come to council meetings until he meets with someone from the town to resolve the issues on the limousine and taxis at the Vail Transportation Center (VTC). He said this is a safety issue, not about the regulations of the taxis and limousines. He said he had contacted the Public Utility Commission (PUC), which regulates the transportation rules for limousines and taxis. A representative of the PUC was at the VTC last weekend and did an inspection. Levine said the companies in violation were severely fined. Daly said the town manager has committed to put up two signs and the town will monitor late night evening activities. Council has decided to take no further action until next fall. Levine asked if litigation was his only way to solve this issue. Daly said Levine needs to do whatever he feels is his right. Daly reiterated this issue would not be discussed further until next fall. Stan Zemler, town manager, said the email sent from Henninger was at his direction, as Henninger is his employee. Zemler asked Henninger not to spend more time on this issue. Levine said he would be back in front of Council in two weeks with the PUC report from last weekend. Michael Cacioppo said he wanted to know the process to call an election to overturn any Council decision on the municipal site project. He wants this project to go to the voters to allow the sale of any town property. Daly stated the Council has to agree to an election. Rogers pointed out that Cacioppo is not a resident of Vail. Daly asked if four Councilmembers wanted to direct this issue to the town attorney. There wasn't any support from the Councilmembers to direct the town attorney to move forward on this topic. Daly said the initiative and referendum process is part of Colorado law and any citizen can research and access the information himself. Cacioppo said the other issue he wanted to discuss was the limousine and taxi issue at the VTC. He went to the VTC to review how folks could access the limousines. He said the pickup area for the limousine service was in a terrible place. The second item on the agenda was the approval of the Consent Agenda. The consent agenda included the request to approve the meeting minutes of January 3 and 17, 2012. Foley made a motion to approve the consent agenda with a correction on the January 17th meeting to correct a typo, and the motion was seconded by Rogers. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The third item on the agenda was the Town Manager Report. Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012 Page 2 Greg Hall, Public Works Director, updated the Council on the Variable Message Signs (VMS) in town. He said the VMS have passed their useful life. Staff will continue to pursue replacements as is or through the Guest Enhancement and Wayfinding process through upgrades. He said software in the two signs at the VTC are not supported and will be turned off. Daly thanked the staff for getting as much use as possible out of the VMS. The fourth item on the agenda was a discussion and request to proceed through the design review process for a Public Safety Radio Tower. Dwight Henninger, Police Chief, requested the Council, acting as the property owner, to approve the use of town land for the proposed location of a new public safety radio tower located in the northeast corner of the police department building and authorize the application to move through the design review process. Henninger said in September 2011, the Vail and Eagle County public safety agencies migrated from the County 800 MHz analog radio system to the State of Colorado digital 800 MHz radio system. They joined the state system to save dollars throughout the County. The changeover resulted in a significant decrease in radio operational capabilities within the densely built-up areas of Vail Village and Lionshead. The system technicians had expected a minimal decrease in service but in -building coverage issues are much more severe than anticipated and have prompted concern for public safety personnel responding to incidents in core area buildings where up to a 48% reduction occurs. The experts have told staff the most effective solution to rectify this situation would be to add a radio repeater site in the Main Vail area and replace the current radio tower. Henninger asked the Council to authorize the proposal to proceed through the design review process to have this tower built. Several user agencies participate in this system. The communication center is at the same corner and will reduce the cost of the system. This is the best proposal for short and long term goals. Foley asked how much will this system cost. Henninger said this will not cost the town anything at this time. The funding will come from the county capital fund. The bids they are reviewing for the tower are currently less than $50,000. They still need to look at the costs for equipment needs and replacement. Kurz made a motion to have the public safety radio tower request proceed through the design review process and the motion was seconded by Donovan. Michael Cacioppo asked if this system will do anything for cellular service in Vail Village and Lionshead. Daly said at the last council meeting the town attorney was directed to work with Crown Castle to get an agreement with them for cellular service to increase the capacity and be ready by next November to dramatically improve the service. Henninger said the public safety radio tower sites are separate from the public cellular sites. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012 Page 3 The fifth item on the agenda was the release of four deed restrictions from existing employee housing units, in accordance with Section 12-13-5, Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Exchange Program, of the Vail town code. Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator, requested Council authorize the Town Manager to execute the release of four deed restrictions at Crossview at Vail/1460 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot 10, Dauphinais Moseley Subdivision, Lot 6, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision/5114 Grouse Lane and Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing/126 Forest Road in exchange for the deed restriction of four new units at Vail das Schone, Condominium A-24/2111 N. Frontage Road, Unit A-24, Vail Wilderness Townhouses, Unit 1/2700, Larkspur Court No. 1, Vail Wilderness Townhouses, Unit 1/2700 Larkspur Court No. 3 and Meadow Creek Condominiums L-3/2510 Kinnickinick L-3 in the Town of Vail. Timm said on February 7, the Council requested the proposed EHU Exchange be tabled to the February 21 Council meeting to provide the Council time to discuss the proposed EHU Exchanges to release four EHU's. In exchange they would deed restrict another four EHU's in Vail. She said the current square footage was a total of 6,532 square feet. The proposed new EHU units were a total of 6,622 square feet. She the square footage doesn't line up exactly with three units complying and one would not. She said the town wouldn't get as much square footage if each of the units came in separately. Timm said when they adopted the changes to the code last August, the staff didn't contemplate bundling. She said the town attorney has stated these exchanges comply with the town code as written. Timm stated at the January 24 Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) meeting, they didn't approve the bundling as the VLHA wanted a policy change and clear direction from the Council. The VLHA believed the bundling was a form of mitigation banking. The town code states no future credits will be given. The exchange units are providing an additional 90 square feet and there will be no credit given. The VLHA asked if Council believes bundling is appropriate and if the exchange is complying with the town code, they need Council policy direction and clarification to not change the code. Timm said staff is recommending approval of the four exchanges as proposed. Daly asked Timm to clarify that staff is recommending the Council make a policy change and not change the code. Timm said they shouldn't be amending the town code if they are complying with the fundamental regulations. Staff doesn't think they should be amending the town code. Tjossem asked if the town considers the number of pillows in the exchange. Timm said this is strictly a square footage program and doesn't consider the number of pillows. The new square footage of the units is much larger than the current EHU's so the number of bedrooms is larger and there are more pillows. Tjossem said it is the responsibility of people interested in the bundling exchanges to bring those exchanges forward. It is not staff's responsibility. Timm said staff would verify the existing EHU continues to comply with zoning and that the proposed EHU also complies with zoning. Donovan asked about the new deed restrictions and the exchange rates. She asked if the four units were unenforceable units. Timm said they are relatively new deed restrictions so staff Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012 Page 4 needs to verify that the units are occupied. Donovan said she can no longer support these exchanges in general, as her understanding is this would apply to mother-in-law units or units that they couldn't enforce to comply with the deed restrictions. She feels they are pulling EHU product out of the market that fulfills an important niche in the community. She said they are taking away smaller, entry level units that younger professionals could buy as a permanent residence. She said this is an unintended consequence. Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group, stated all his clients appreciated taking part in this process and they have been in the process since November 2011. Mauriello said none of these current EHU's are ever to be sold separately and were only occupied by renters. He stated the new exchange properties could be rented or sold. Tjossem clarified that Donovan was concerned that the ownership of free market units would be reduced for younger folks to buy. They would have deed restricted units on the market instead. Donovan agreed. Steve Lindstrom, a board member of the VLHA, said the changes in the EHU exchange program have been more effective. It has created a mechanism for more owners to take advantage of the exchange and to help get larger units into the occupancy pool. The VLHA realized some would be owned and some would be rented. The VLHA wants as many units as possible to be occupied. The VLHA struggled with the language in the code as sharing of credits was not contemplated the first go around. He asked the Council to give the VLHA clear direction for consideration of future projects. Daly asked Lindstrom what the disadvantages of bundling were. Lindstrom said he didn't know if there was a disadvantage. He said the program was originally "use it or lose it." But now it's just use it. They are getting usable units that are occupied. The VLHA doesn't have a comment on the criteria but they want clear, known policy direction and want clarification on the shift of the credits. Rogers made a motion to authorize the town manager to execute the release of the EHU's as submitted as it is consistent with the code and criteria, and with the appropriate findings on page three of the memorandum. The motion was seconded by Kurz. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, with Donovan opposed. The sixth item on the agenda was a request for Units 303/306 and Units 402/403 to proceed through the development review process with a proposal to construct and maintain private improvements (bay windows and deck) on the Town of Vail owned Hanson Ranch Road and Chute Road rights -of -way, generally located adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Building at 302 Hanson Ranch Road, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Warren Campbell, Chief Planner, stated the Mill Creek Court Building was constructed in 1965 and the building footprint is less than one foot off the property in multiple locations. There are existing bay windows and decks located within the adjacent right-of-ways. These existing encroachments are located above circulation areas for the first floor commercial and landscaping and do not negatively affect the use of the rights -of -way for traffic circulation. He said Units 303/306 exterior deck extension and bay window will encroach into the town's right- of-way. In Units 402/403 the bay window would also be in the town's right-of-way. He reviewed the memorandum with Council including the survey. He said most decks and windows already Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012 Page 5 in place are encroaching into the right-of-way above street level and these encroachments wouldn't affect the walkways either. He said the town's development review process requires all applications to have the authorization of the property owner. Since the subject private improvements are located on Town of Vail owned property, the applicant must obtain the Council's authorization, as property owner, before proceeding with the applications. Kurz asked if any of the encroachments are on ground level. Campbell said no. Daly asked if they had their homeowner's association approval. Campbell said the applicants have the homeowner's association approval. Sid Shultz, GPSL Architects, the applicant's representative, stated Campbell explained the project well. He said these improvements would help improve the building. The "Troy' sign would be relocated to the end of the deck. Tjossem asked when the other bay window was installed. Schultz said it was done in 1988. He said the new bay windows are close to what is presently there. Daly asked if the windows proposed are larger or smaller than what is already there. Schultz said the bay window was seven feet wide and the flankers were three feet. Kurz made a motion to proceed through the development review process as submitted and the motion was seconded by Rogers. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-1, Donovan opposed. The seventh item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, an ordinance approving a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a rezoning from Ski Base Recreation District to Ski Base Recreation 2 District, located at 598 Vail Valley Drive/part B of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Donovan recused herself from this item even though she doesn't have a conflict of interest by definition but is intimately involved with this organization and does not think she could hear this item without being biased. Rachel Dimond, Planner, reviewed the power point and memorandum with the Council. She said on January 30, 2012, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing on a proposed rezoning of the Ski and Snowboard Club Vail (SSCV) from Ski Base Recreation District to Ski Base Recreation 2 District and has forwarded a recommendation of approval for the amendment to the Council by a vote of 4-2-1 (Rediker, Pierce opposed, Cartin recused). On February 7, 2012, the Council continued the first reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, to the February 21, 2012, public hearing. She went through the basics of the process with Council. Rogers asked if any residential units could be developed on this site now. Dimond stated no residential units could be on the SSCV site now as the Golden Peak Lodge property has all the residential units that were allowed on their site. As a result, Ski Club Vail wants to redevelop and rezone their property, not related to the VRI site at Golden Peak. The applicant approached staff to get guidance on what processes were appropriate to move through the development process. Dimond said rezoning doesn't always have the development plan Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012 Page 6 included at the time of rezoning. She reviewed the differences between the Ski Base Recreation District zoning and the Ski Base Recreation 2 District zoning. The property is currently legally nonconforming and with the rezoning they would become a legally conforming lot size. She said the proposal is in line with the development criteria and the master plan. Any other issues, including traffic issues, will be addressed in the future during the development plan review process. Rogers asked why Rediker and Pierce opposed the rezoning. Dimond said Rediker stated he couldn't adequately review the criteria without a development plan. Pierce wanted to see a development plan as well. Tjossem said if the zoning is changed, the applicant will still need to go through the development process and have impact studies done. The zoning is completely separate from the development plan. Daly asked under the current town code, in a situation like this, can the town make a choice to require a development plan as part of the zoning process or after the zoning process. Dimond said it doesn't require the applicant get approvals of the zoning and development plan simultaneously. Daly asked Ruther what the general process has been to require a development plan prior to a zoning change. Ruther said it depends on the size of the development. He said Mountain Plaza came in with thirteen applications. This project is smaller than most. There are a number of factors and it depends on whether the change in zoning affects the development plan. They need to know what is allowed by the zoning district. Rogers clarified that the applicant needs to have the zoning in place so they can comply with the zoning before the development process is done. Daly stated the town received a lot of emails and letters from citizens that were concerned with traffic issues near SSCV and Golden Peak. He said the traffic issue is not going to be resolved by SSCV alone, but will have to be addressed by SSCV, Vail Resorts (VRI) and the town. Ruther said in Sub -Area 10 in the Vail Village Master Plan, regardless of zoning on this property, one of the criteria is compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan. It obligates the owners to evaluate impacts during the development review process. Tjossem asked if the SSCV has any leverage to get VRI to help solve the traffic issues. She said Council should get the partners together and figure out the traffic issues and mitigation of traffic in this area between the town, VRI and SSCV. Ruther said at the PEC meeting it was evident that everyone is aware the master plan needs to have a traffic plan. Ruther said this is a bigger issue to tackle than just for SSCV. He said regarding mitigation of development impacts, SSCV would only be obligated to address their traffic impacts, which is a small portion of the traffic issues in this area. Rezoning the property as suggested by PEC would help direct SSCV to move forward and help mitigate the traffic concerns collectively in the process. Daly said the operational plan obligates VRI to join in the conversation to help mitigate the traffic issues. Rogers wants to know why a development plan is not part of this process. She said this is a critical location. She is uncomfortable with this process. She said if the development plan is approved, it doesn't matter what the zoning is. If they do like the development plan, the Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012 Page 7 zoning will be changed to accommodate it. She wants to see a development plan now as this is an important project for the town, community and neighborhood. Tjossem said changing the zoning would force the issue of addressing the traffic issues prior to the development plan. By rezoning, it forces all partners to come together to fix it. SSCV is being forced to spend money on a development plan that may or may not ever be approved if the traffic plan is not approved. Why put the burden on the SSCV at this time. Rogers asked if that is true. Ruther said there is an operation and management plan for Golden Peak ski area. There is enough information forcing this issue to be addressed. Rogers asked if rezoning triggers any process that would require the traffic problem be addressed or would a development plan trigger a need to address the traffic concerns. Ruther said that neither rezoning nor a development plan will force the traffic issue to be addressed prior to the SSCV redevelopment. Tjossem asked why the operation and management plan isn't being enforced. Ruther stated the rezoning will trigger impacts and elevate this to the forefront. Daly said if this rezoning isn't approved, there is a much greater risk that SSCV does not redevelop their property and thus doesn't tee up a discussion on the traffic issues. Additional discussion ensued. Tom Braun, with Braun Associates, and representing SSCV, said whatever happens to this project, the SSCV is willing to participate in traffic discussions and solutions. He said the quirks and nuances in the zoning, without knowing what the zoning is, is a risky operation for a building design. Aldo Radumus, Executive Director of SSCV for ten years, said they began with less than 100 competitors and 15 staff in the 80's. Now they have more employees than they had kids back in the 80's and have 500 kids in club. Growth of the organization has grown as same rate that the population of the county has. Several initiatives have been done with the club house over the years, including a pass through lane. Currently they have completed the first phase of an early training environment at Golden Peak and provide the opportunity for early season training. They also draw teams to Vail to train in November. Over 60 teams have come from around the world to participate. He reviewed several initiatives the SSCV has done and what they want to do in the future. He said the coaching staff, academics and training have all come before redevelopment of the SSCV club house. Daly asked if moving the academy down to Minturn has changed traffic patterns. Radumus said the daily schedule has eliminated one half of the pick up and drop off traffic during the week. There is no change to the traffic on weekends. Tiffany Hoverstein, the Chief Financial Officer of the SSCV, said the SSCV has locker space for less than 15% of the kids (60 out of 500). She reviewed how the SSCV has grown, and that the facility does not accommodate the current needs of the club. She said the SSCV has many positive impacts to the community. Braun said the space is terribly undersized and not adequate at all. They would like to redefine the building program: the lobby entry, assembly room, locker space, modest administrative area and the coach space. The applicant wants structured parking as well as two condominium units Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012 Page 8 on the upper floor. He discussed his memorandum in more detail with the Council. This request allows for a new zone district to help stage the next steps of the development process. Braun said there were common themes in the letters received from the community which included the traffic issues and wanting to see a development plan. He said the SSCV facility is located at the base of the largest ski area in the country. There is going to be congestion. They want to be part of the solution. He said changing the zoning is a first step in the process. He referenced the letter from the Vail Village Homeowners Association stating the review process, in practice, requires a development review plan. He said the PEC did not act arbitrarily. He stated several projects were done in the past without a development plan prior to the project being approved. He said some of the comments were misstated. He said he went through past project files and said Timber Ridge, the Evergreen Lodge, Vail International and the Sonnenalp are some projects that were rezoned and reviewed without a development plan. He said approving the rezoning is not a right of the club to be redeveloped. It allows for an opening for the SSCV to see what can be redeveloped on the site. He asked the Council for consideration to approve this rezoning. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, asked to have the development standards read into the record for this zone district as well as different uses. Dimond reiterated the uses and the differences for this zone district into the record. Ruther said a comparison table and a PEC memorandum describing the development standards for this zone district. Lamont also wanted to have the development standards read into the record. Dimond said these standards are in the memorandum that was submitted. She read the standards into the record for the public. Additional discussion ensued. Lamont said VRI had a comprehensive plan in place that has not been enforced. Daly said the Council is not going to address the Golden Peak comprehensive plan that VRI did at the evening meeting as it didn't apply to the SSCV application. Daly said the project is trying to go through the process and is in diligent hands for review. It will be reviewed to meet the needs and requirements of the applicant and community. Michael Cacioppo questioned who owned the land that SSCV is on. Daly said Golden Peak is on land owned by VRI. Braun said the SSCV owns their property. Stephanie Willitsey, a Vail Trails East owner, and said she is concerned about children crossing Vail Valley Drive to go to Golden Peak due to the traffic issues. Diane Mulligan, manager of Rams Horn Condominiums, reiterated their concerns regarding traffic and the safety of pedestrians. She is concerned there is a master plan in place but it is not being enforced. Kaye Ferry read the letter she sent to Council prior to the meeting stating the traffic is a dangerous problem and safety is a concern. There is too much traffic as it is. Bob McCleary, general manager of Manor Vail Lodge, said traffic needs to be addressed. Not knowing the conceptual idea of what the building will be in height and scale and how it comes together are concerns for the Manor Vail owners, as are pedestrian and traffic impacts. They want to see a development plan of what that building might look like and how high it would be. Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012 Page 9 David Viele, board member of SSCV, discussed what the vision of the SSCV is and said the development plan would be costly. The SSCV doesn't want to spend the money for the development plan if they don't have to right now. The SSCV is interested in helping to solve issues in the neighborhood. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association (VVHA) said they want to see the SSCV redeveloped and have a successful program to promote ski and snowboard racing. The community loves the SSCV racers. The VVHA's primary concern is to do the project right. If other people have to put money into the project, then that should be done. Kurz made a motion to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, and Foley seconded the motion. Further discussion ensued. Tjossem said she is voting in favor as it is the only way to get the community together to solve the traffic problem and get this process going. Rogers said she is in favor of SSCV redevelopment as the current facility is very inadequate. She said there will be a lot of opportunities for the community, neighbors, PEC and the Council to have input. Daly said significant issues have been raised. All who utilize Golden Peak will be involved. Kurz made a motion to amend his motion to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2012, with the addition of the findings in the staff memorandum and the amended motion was seconded by Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-0-1, Donovan recused. A five minute break was taken at 8:38 p.m. The eighth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, an ordinance amending Chapter 12-6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to establish a new zone district, Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto; and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, amending Chapter VII, Vail Village Sub -Areas, East Gore Creek Sub -Area (#6), Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter Vill, Implementation and Amendment, Vail Village Master Plan, to include recommendations related to a new Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Bill Gibson, Planner, said the discussion was to introduce the proposed new VVT. Final action on the proposed ordinance and resolution will be requested at a future public hearing. This ordinance is a new one this year as the application from last year was withdrawn. He said all properties were platted as townhouse properties, currently zoned High Density Multi - Family (HDMF). The existing townhouses have a lot of nonconforming issues. A work session will be held to reintroduce this project to Council. Most units are nonconforming. The other nuance is there are two types of plats for this property. Some units have been condominiumized and others are individual development sites. Units 1-6 and 7-14 are different from each other. There are a lot of inequities and inequalities to this project. Gibson said the three goals for proposing the new zone district are: streamline the development review process by establishing a new zone district to specifically address townhouse properties, which reduces legal non -conformities and the need for future variances; create incentives for Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012 Page 10 redevelopment of existing townhouse properties; and preserve the existing residential character of the townhouse properties and the neighborhood. He discussed the changes from the current zoning of HDMF to VVT and discussed the design guidelines. Rogers asked what the difference was from last year's application. Gibson said the difference is that there are design guidelines this time. He said parking is a big part of this application. Rogers asked if getting the parking off the street and into the buildings would mean the units would have to be built taller. Gibson said PEC discussed this possibility but that requirement would change the appearance of the neighborhood. Donovan asked if there was discussion on privatizing the street. Gibson said that is a very complicated issue. He said that would have to be a separate plan review process. Gibson said the guidelines address uniformity and consistency. The building owners need to pick one or the other, either to be different or similar to each other. There needs to be a consistent theme to the buildings. Architectural themes are a perception of units from bottom to top. The goal is to perceive the units as a row house development even if it isn't. He said there is no consistency to these units. A demolition/rebuild is not feasible for most of these owners. Each existing unit allows for an additional 250 square feet. He said in 2004, the gross residential floor area (GRFA) was changed again. He reviewed the purpose of the zone district, development standard changes from HDMF to VVT district and townhouse design guidelines. Gibson asked Council for feedback on this application. He asked the Council to table the first reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, to its March 6, 2012, public hearing for further deliberation. Daly asked the staff to do the computations between existing and proposed GRFA. Gibson said staff did an as -built condition analysis and proposed development analysis. Further discussion ensued. Tjossem made a motion to table the first reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2012, and Resolution No. 7, Series of 2012, to the March 6, 2012, public hearing and the motion was seconded by Foley. Dominic Mauriello, on behalf of Mr. Galvin, one of the applicants, said the current ordinance is more restrictive and there are four additional options that wouldn't make an impact to those walking by the project. He said most of the lots are around 4,000 square feet. The Vail Trail's East and Vail Trail's West units are on a larger piece of ground. He encouraged the Council to take a look at his handout that shows additional options that could be considered. Models were brought in for the Vail Row Houses as they are now and what it might look like under new regulations. Rogers asked that the models be brought back to the next meeting. Jim Butterworth, one of the owners at Vail Trail's East and Vice President of the homeowners association, said he agrees with Mauriello about insuring access to parking where they park today. He said it would be difficult to redevelop if the properties are under the current zoning Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012 Page 11 and can't build because they are legally non -conforming. He said the issue of parking is a separate discussion. John Dunn, representing the Bridgewater's, one of the unit owners, stated they have been part of this process since 2009 and are the only objectors to this rezoning as they are protecting their interests. Jim Lamont asked about the building envelope, GRFA, bulk and mass and design standards. Gibson said up until 2004, GRFA directed how big the bulk and mass were. A vote was taken and the motion passed, unanimously, 6-0. The ninth item on the agenda was a request to continue the Ever Vail major subdivision and Ordinance Nos. 7, 8, and 9, Series of 2011 be continued to the March 20, 2012, public hearing by the applicant. Donovan made a motion to table the Ever Vail major subdivision and Ordinance Nos. 7, 8, and 9, Series of 2011, continued to the March 20, 2012, public hearing and the motion was seconded by Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The tenth item on the agenda was adjournment. As there was no further business, Tjossem made a motion to adjourn and the motion was seconded by Donovan. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Re;rewP. y S bmitted, ri AnDaly, Mayor Attest: OFV p�•' � rel4i Donaldson, Town Clerk ~;' •: : S Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012 Page 12