HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-18 Town Council MinutesVail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
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 Andy Daly.
Members present: Andy Daly!, Mayor
Ludwig Kurz
Margaret Rogers
Greg Moffat
Jenn Bruno
Dave Cha oin
Dale Bug*
Staff members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Kendra CRrberry, Town Attorney
Pam Bran lmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Tammy Nagel, Acting Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was recognition of Town of Vail Fire Department emergency
respondents. Daly thanked the Vail Fire Department for their hard work, dedication and
expertise. Mark Miller, Fire Chief, stated it had been a busy winter with several accidents on
Vail Pass. Miller thanked the Eagle River Fire District and the Vail Mountain Rescue, as well as
Vail Dispatch for their assistance with the an accident chat occurred over the past weekend.
The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. There was none.
The third item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda.
1) Award of contract to Old Castle SW Group dtra United Companies of Mesa County for
the Frontage Roads Shoulder. Moffet made a motion to direct the Town Manager to
enter into an agreement with Old Castle SW Group with a second by Rogers. The
motion passed unanimously 7-0.
The fourth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. There was none.
The fifth item on the agenda was the 1-70 Vail Underpass Project Update. Chief Engineer Tom
Kassmel reminded council that staff presented a revi aw of the 1-70 Underpass Project and its
progress along with ten possible locations for the underpass at the January 21, 2014 Council
meeting. Staff indicated the preferred location was location 5b, a skewed alignment which
located the north roundabout between the Simba Run Condominiums and the Savoy Villas
along the North Frontage Road, and located the soutr roundabout west of the Glen Lyon Office
building along the South Frontage Road, similar to the location that previous transportation
master plans had identified. Based on public input and discussion with the Town Council, the
design team had now refined location 5b and included two additional locations for review; one
just east and one just west of the preferred location. The refined location 5b had evolved into
Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2014 Page 1
01
location 5c. The two additional locations have been identified as locations 4b and 5d
respectively. Based on the design team's review of the three refined locations, Kassmel stated
the preferred location was 5c. Rick Erjavec, design consultant for Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig,
explained to council that each location included roundabouts on both the north and south sides
of the interstate in order to accommodate the traffic at the proposed new intersections.
Roundabouts have been identified as the recommended traffic solution for each intersection
because both a typical and modified `T' intersection failed operationally during existing and
future expected traffic conditions. Erjavec stated it gave those intersection a service level F.
Daly said the council would not like anything below a level C as a resort community and with
snow operations a level D. Kassmel reviewed all possible 1-70 underpass locations with council.
Kassmel said location 5c, Simba West Skewed Alignment, was recommended as the preferred
location for the following reasons: 1. even though this was the recommended location, this
location would have similar aesthetic, visual, noise, air quality and lighting impacts as locations
4b & 5d that would have to be analyzed and potential) mitigated; 2. this location minimized the
need for retaining walls on the south side and had the potential for the least height of retaining
walls on the north side; 3. minimal to no private property impacts on the south side; 4. no
impacts to any existing or planned buildings or parking; however it did require acquisition of
Simba Run property on north side of 1-70 in an area That is currently green space; and 5. the
North Frontage Road would have to be lowered 14 feet and the South Frontage Road would
have to be lowered 11 feet. Kassmel went onto sa-, as the project progressed public input
would be taken continuously through the project website at www.vailciov.com/underpass and
through specific stakeholders meetings and correspor dence. Daly asked for public comment.
Bob Llewellyn, representing Savoy Villas Homeowners Association, suggested minimizing the
impact to Savoy Villas and Simba Run the town builds berms and plant large trees, sound walls
made with stone siding to assist with the impacts Kass mel had listed. William Pierce, property
owner at Simba Run felt the best location was still location 4b, East Cascade Village. Pierce
said the goals should be to minimize the impact over structures that currently are there. Charlie
Calcaterra, representative of the Simba Run Homeowner's Association, said the roundabout
would be 50 feet from Simba Run units and the impact; would be big to those units. Calcaterra
requested clarification as to why stop signs wouldn't work. Rogers asked Kassmel if the
roundabout would be significantly below the grade so those units would not get the car lights,
sounds and smell. Kassmel responded there wou Id be trees to block the view of the
roundabout; berms would be built to bring the grade uF so the units on the lower level would not
have those issues. The upper level units in Simba Run would look onto the underpass. Bob
Llewellyn requested council schedule site visits prior to making a choice on location. Llewellyn
and Calcaterra offered council access to units that would be impacted. There was no further
public or council comment. Rogers asked if the proposed footprint of the roundabout was as
small as it could be. Kassmel stated there were criteria that needed to be met but staff would
shrink that foot print as much as possible once a site had been chosen. Daly asked for Kassmel
to share traffic numbers at the March 4 council meeting. Kurz thanked the public for their
thoughtful input and thanked them for a productive meeting. Town Manager Stan Zemler asked
Kassmel to present the projected traffic volume in 10 year increments and a phased plan for
roundabouts
The sixth item on the agenda was an appeal, pursua it to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town
Code, of the final decision of the Town of Vail Design Review Board on December 18, 2013,
approving, with conditions, a commercial addition an exterior alterations to the facade of the
Wall Street Building, located at 225 Wall Street/Lots &C, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and
setting forth details in regard thereto (DRB130552). hapin recused himself from this agenda
Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2014 Page 2
item because he had a property interest concerninc this discussion. Chief Planner Warren
Campbell provided council the background for this pr 'ect. On May 13, 2013, the Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) unanimously appro ed, with conditions, a request to allow for
the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage. By a vote of 3-2 (Pierce
and Bird opposed) the PEC approved with conc itions the major exterior alteration or
modification to allow for the construction of additions it the Wall Street Building. This approval
was unanimously upheld by the council on July 2, 2C 13. On December 18, 2013, the Design
Review Board (DRB) approved, with conditions, a commercial addition and exterior alterations
to the fagade to the Wall Street Building. The condition s applied to the approval were as follows:
1. In conjunction with the building permit submittal, tFe applicant shall include plans depicting
the flower boxes on the third floor balcony railings a presented at the public hearing. 2. In
conjunction with the building permit submittal, the a plicant shall include plans depicting the
incorporation of muntins in the transom windows insta led above the balcony doors on the third
floor. The muntins shall be designed as to create foui equal dimensions panes of glass. 3. In
conjunction with the building permit submittal, the applicant shall include plans which
incorporate the transom window and knee wall des gn on the first floor commercial space
located on the northeast corner. On January 7, 2014, :he council appealed the DRB's approval
because of a concern with the height of the knee wall at the base of the folding door system; a
concern with the absence of an exterior deck on tie third floor condominium unit on the
southeast corner; and a concern that the existing secc nd floor office windows on the southeast
corner should match the new office windows on the east facade. Campbell said the plans
approved by the DRB for the storefront of the Americ n Ski Exchange included a door system
which will fold up allowing for the entirety of the fagadE becoming open to the pedestrian street.
This design approach was taken in response to the PEC requirement that no outdoor display of
goods would be permitted outside of the in -filled comm rcial arcade due to the negative impacts
it would have on pedestrian flows on Wall Street. ThE knee wall of this accordion door system
was to be 10 inches in height. The Vail Village Design considerations state that ground floor
display windows are typically raised creating a knee well of 18 inches. In reviewing this element
the DRB took into consideration that the store front vas a folding door system which would
allow the interior retail space to become fully open to the pedestrian street. There currently is no
deck on the east facade of the third floor condominium unit. All existing decks on the structure
are being replaced and would have a consistent wrc ught iron and planter box design. The
DRB, Jeff Winston, design consultant, and staff did nit find the elevation above the Jewels of
the West commercial space to be in need of an addit onal design element to contribute to the
overall architectural character and design of the structure. The second floor windows above the
Jewels of the West commercial space currently existed and were not proposed to be replaced.
The second floor office windows above the commer -ial arcade infill had been approved for
replacement per the plan. The DRB, Jeff Winston anc staff did not find that the office windows
above the Jewels of the West commercial space needed to match the new office windows being
proposed above the commercial arcade. This decision was made as there was an architectural
approach taken with regard to this structure which was to create a design that appears to have
been additive over time resulting in appropriate farad s appearing different, but architecturally
compatible. This architectural approach resulted in 0 structure which would appear to have
been in place longer than its actual age. Moffet mov d to uphold the DRB's approval with the
following modifications: the flower boxes have irriga ion systems; 18 inch knee wall will be
installed; and a color change to the east side with a s cond by Kurz. The motion passed 6-0-1
(Chapin recused).
Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2014 Page 3
The seventh item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2014, An
Ordinance Enacting Title 5, Chapter 12, Vail Town Code, "Recycling Requirements."
Environmental Sustainability Coordinator Kristen Bertuglia reviewed a powerpoint presentation
with council that was provided in their packets. Bertuglia explained that this ordinance would
enact a new chapter in the Vail Town Code requiring recycling in the town and the associated
measures to ensure policy, infrastructure, econom c incentives and education to ensure
maximum waste diversion rate. Daly asked for public comment. Michael Staughton, manager
of the restaurants Los Amigos and Russell's express ad concern there are some areas in the
Village and in Lionshead that do not have the ability io accommodate and store the recycling
containers that are required. Chapin agreed with Staughton and thought the town would need
to assist business owners in figuring out the logistics, Chapin suggested the implementation
date of Ordinance No. 6 be moved from June 1 to JuN 1. Scott Hutchins, Waste Management
representative, said his company was in full support cf this ordinance and thanked the council
for being involved. Resident Marshall Turley said his neighborhood works together to recycle
and expressed the current recycling containers being used are too small. Chris Cutchins,
resident, was excited about the recycling ordinance and thought the town would be a leader in
the valley. Meghan Lovelace thanked the haulers for their support and explained the resort
guests expect to recycle. Gwen Scalpello said the biggest problem is educating people on what
can and cannot be recycled. Scalpello suggested sig is with this information be placed on the
recycle bins. Matt Donovan, owner of Vail Honeywagc n, expressed concern there would be an
increase in illegal dumping and suggested reconsideration of the wildlife resistant containers.
Public comment closed. Moffet was not comfortable with the ordinance as is currently read and
felt the ordinance would work with the current county recycling facility. Moffet requested two
"whereas" clauses are removed from the ordinance for second reading. Rogers supported the
ordinance and suggested a hardship exemption of three months be added to allow residents
and business owner's time to address any storage pro )lems they might have. Rogers also said
single stream was awesome and the county's dual stream should not hold Vail back from
passing this ordinance. Bugby requested the penalties be removed from the ordinance and the
town should provide a self -haul option. Kurz agreed with Rogers's suggestion for the hardship
clause. Though Chapin was uncomfortable with parts of the ordinance, he too agreed with the
hardship clause and would like construction materials je added to the ordinance. Roger moved
to approve Ordinance No. 6 on first reading with the recommended changes to add a three
month hardship exemption, implementation of the ordnance to be July 1, a delay in fines until
January 1 and the removal of the two "Whereas" clau yes that were requested by Moffet. Kurz
second the motion. The motion passed 6-1 (Bugby oposed).
The eighth item on the agenda was a request for nullification and vacation of a declaration of
covenant encumbering 100 Vail Road, Lot 35, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. Community Developer Director George Ruther reviewed a
memorandum which was provided to council in their packets concerning the zoning history of
the property. Ruther stated on April 21, 1978, the Planning and Environmental Commission
(PEC) voted unanimously to deny a variance for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for an
additional 2,944 square feet of GRFA and approved a setback variance to allow the structure to
encroach in the required setbacks based on the shape and topographical constraints of the lot.
On May 2, 1978, the Webster's appealed the denial cf the GRFA variance to the council. The
council found that the PEC misinterpreted what area:; of the house should and should not be
counted towards GRFA, such as the indoor swimming pool. The council concluded the GRFA
variance was approximately 2,000 square feet less than what the Community Development
Department and the PEC had determined the GRFA to be. The council overturned the PEC's
Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2014 Page 4
denial of a GRFA variance by a vote of 4-1. A conditic n of the council's decision to overturn the
PEC's earlier denial was that a declaration of covenant be made and executed against the lot
requiring that any structure built on said lot would be used only as a single family residence with
caretaker facilities. The reason for this declaration of covenant was to control population by
being more prohibitive towards multiple dwelling units m a site. After hearing this interpretation,
Mr. Webster offered the option to deed restrict the pro erty as means of preventing his property
from contributing to a potential overpopulation problem. As a result, on May 31, 1978, Mrs.
Elisabeth A. Webster signed a Declaration of Coven ant which restricted any structure on the
property at 100 Vail Road to a single family residence. In 1982, construction on the single
family dwelling unit was completed. According to property records maintained by the Community
Development Department, the single family residence is approximately 8,142 square feet in
size. Under current zoning regulations, the property would be allowed approximately 7,653
square feet of GRFA. Further analysis is needed to determine if the structure complies with the
current GRFA allowance, given the uncertainty of de uctible GRFA on site (i.e., below grade).
Ruther said council was being asked to remove aid vacate the Declaration of Covenant
recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's O ice at Reception No. 172727. The staffs
recommendations were based upon the following co siderations: 1. according to the Official
Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the lot is zoned T -Family Primary Secondary Residential
District; 2. the size of the lot conforms to the minimu lot size requirements established for the
District; 3. the Gross Residential Floor Area regulations have been amended since the single
family residence was completed on the lot in 1982; 4. chapter 18 of the Zoning Regulations of
the Town of Vail provides policy direction for addressir g non -conforming structures. The policy
of the town is to permit nonconforming structures to be maintained but encourages non -
conformities to be discontinued, or minimized, wher possible; 5. a remodel of the existing
structure into a two family dwelling unit further redijces any existing non -conformities with
regard to density controls; 6. the fears of creating "crash pads" in Vail and over population are
no longer warranted; and 7. a remodel of the existing structure on the lot further facilitates the
town's use of its right of way for the continuation of a pedestrian sidewalk along Vail Road. Jim
Wear, representing the applicant Mr. Alejandro Rojas, said the town needed to rezone that lot
per the zoning map procedure and that his client was asking to be in compliance with
neighborhood zoning. Moffet made a motion to appro to the applicant's request to remove and
vacate the Declaration of Covenant, recorded at Reception No. 12772, at the Eagle County
Clerk and Recorder's Office, on Lot 35, Block 7, flail Village First Filing, based upon the
considerations outlined in the staff memorandum, daled February 18, 2014, and instructs the
Town Manager to take the legal actions necessary tc vacate the Declaration of Covenant on
behalf of the Town of Vail with a second by Kurz. There was no public comment. The motion
passed 7-0.
The ninth item on the agenda was commercial ski storage and private ski clubs. Community
Planner Jonathan Spence reviewed the Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC)
February 10 meeting minutes, which were provided in souncil's packets. Spence explained staff
had provided the PEC with a memorandum which outlined the purpose, background and
considerations concerning this subject. Spence said it was staffs intent to explore the ideas
and alternatives presented by the PEC and return on February 24, 2014, with draft regulations
that attempt to address both the opportunities availatle through the change in policy and the
unintended consequences resulting from the expansio i of allowable use locations. Daly asked
for public comment. Tom Neyens, owner operator of Ski Valet, asked council what the need
was to have ski storage on the second floor when the�e is plenty of space available on garden
or lower level units. Neyens said a ski storage fac lity would not generate the sales tax a
Town Council Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2014 Page 5
restaurant would. Sebastian Vail Manager Lance Thompson reminded council to consider
guest experience. Dominic Mauriello, representative of the applicant reminded council this
request was only being applied to Commercial Core 1 zone district. Jeff Babb Vail Resorts, told
council their four clubs are open 365 days and are robust in the summer. The clubs run
programs and activities for their members. The applicant and owner of the Vista Bahn Building,
Rick Mueller, said he would rather a restaurant be on t ie first floor of his building and not on the
second. Mueller said he has had no requests for officE space on the second floor of his building
and was willing to incorporate any conditions council inay want to add. Daly said he could not
support a change to the zoning to allow second floor eti storage. Daly went onto say there is a
responsibility to maintain the village vitality. Daly did not believe adding lockers to the second
floor would do that nor would it generate sales tax. Moffet felt there was plenty of garden level
space available if there was a demand for the lockers Moffet did not see a need to permit ski
storage/ski clubs on the second floor. Kurz, Chapin and Bruno agreed with Daly and Moffet's
statements.
The Tenth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 4, Series of 2014, A Resolution Approving
the Ground Lease and Deed Restriction for the Timber Ridge Property. George Ruther
explained this resolution was to accommodate the recevelopment of Timber Ridge. The Town
would be entering into a long-term ground lease with the developer of the property, Lion's Ridge
Apartment Homes, LLC. Ruther said the ground leas,a would be subject to a Deed Restriction
governing the use of the property. Daly said a requirement needed to be added stating that the
insurance would to be adjusted per CPI for liability purposes. Moffet made a motion to pass
Resolution No. 2 with a second by Kurz. There was no public comment. The motion passed 7-0.
The eleventh item on the agenda was first reading :)f Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2014, An
Ordinance Amending Section 6-3C-6 of the Vail Tow Code to Reconcile the Town Code with
C.R.S. 18-18-406 Concerning Penalties for the Poss sion of Marijuana. Town Attorney Matt
Mire explained that this ordinance only addresses p nalties for the possession of marijuana.
Moffet made a motion to pass Ordinance No. 5 on first reading with a second by Rogers. There
was no public comment. Motion passed unanimously 1'-0.
The twelfth item on the agenda was the Adjournment. There being no further business,
Moffet made a motion to adjourn with a second from Bugby. The motion passed unanimously
7-0 and council adjourned at 10:02 p.m.
Attest:
amm Nagel Ac i Town Cle
Respe Ily S mitted,
Andrew P. Daly, May
MOWN• of L
•. 0
SEAL
:
C�-••.. ...:
Town Council Meeting Minutes of Feb - Page 6