Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPEC120029 View Corridors Historical Research� - -- � � � � _ `' ! - --- -- — - - --- -- — � _-_==_= _-__=--= = =-==°�=�='=> —===_- -- ----- _-- ------- - � September 26, I991 � � � � Ms. Kristen Pritz IDepartment of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vai1. CO 81657 _ Re: Vail 4'illage View Corridors �` � Dear �risten. - Per our cUnversations I am submitting the following proposal ta re- � �stablish the four e�isting Town of Vail iJiew Corridor points and tl7eir prior backsight points. We will also establish a new L.iew Point #4, with an appropriate backsight point, in the viciilitv of Founder's Flaza. After the Public Works Department has set permanent monurnent boxes at these tei�' points we wc�uld then reset the points, in`the monument boxes, and astablish elevations on the five View poirits based on the elevation base currently being . developed by the Tawn of Vail. Y"ou have also asked that I allow f�r � four hours of; mv persanal time to attend Planning Commission and Town Council meetings ta answer any questions regarding'this prc�cess. We would perfarm the above services on a ane time basis for a sum not to exceed $3600. New construction or vegetatic�n growth may ha�e impacted some of the View Points and the visibility of their baeksight points. Any revisions to the above defined scope of work mav require a revision to the proposed fee. I would be willing to prepare a new nat ta exceed sum for �his proposal when a new scope of work is defined. We can start of this project Monday September 30. 1991 if this praposal is acceptable to the Town of Vail. Please call if you have anv questions'regarding this proposal. Sincerely, Eagle Vallev Survetiing, Inc. t ,� �`. � ��'��-�t ��_ Dan Corcoran, P.L.S. j Pr�sident � � 4 i 1�� Highway 6& 24. Eagie-Vait I Post Oif:ce Bcx 1230 f Edwards, GO 81632 3i;3-949 1406 i _ _ � � i � VIEWBUDG.XLS � �' ' Access Cover y $300.85 ::::`:' Public wark's crew time $409.67 `;<::: Grout $106.95 ;»: Maferials $453.80 ::::`:::su plies $13.38 -. _.. _ Total amount spent $4,884.65 � I Amount under over $1,284.65 ! - f.. Page 1 I , � .. --- - -- -- -- ,. , � - ,; _. , ; . � f �• � � �,"�`� � , � .t� !J VIEWBUDG.XLS ! �� { �� "� �� ::`�� "�L;�' `�) , .� ;�� ,, ' l� ,� �`' �`� �.,� \ �-��'� .,�' .��,� � � . �` ��'_ ,,,f.�' l �' �i ;� � 3 � �� u � � � � � ,� �7 y � � u .v� � { �� a � � � � � � 4 � � � �W �� -�� , ��-�. . i�� h'1+� ti ' ; � � View Corridor Budget # : ` ,� _ : ` �� ' Amount allocated from Council � �3 600 ', j � ; , � �� ;. . � ` � Expenses � ; .....: i I ; . :::: ::;::: >:::::::... � ;... ;: :..: .�. . ` >.: Surve in �3,600 ; ;::. ..:... Cork 's com uter time ' ' ,..... � , ,. i. :. .< Public woric's crew time � , $410 ; ; ` ' ' ':. ` Grout ; $106 � ': monument boxes ; $453 ,;;pin for stair case t : ; , , , ; � � ; , , : � � 'i��,�. �r ; � (� r i��,�,� � rir�- lir' £� �!� ?� '-` �'� � ; � * � �t�?� � � ��r �n �°�€ f � < � . . i ;,,� � ��. ,��v �� Total amount spent $4,56�' 4'' � `�' < Amount under over , ; $969 ` ` � �i�l(�i � ti`�. �S�r ^.r `�' � n . . fjt-L �� v;i� , ; �: � ;`„ . . "� < ' - . ': ,..: < ,.:.:.. : ,. � E j �-`: _" � �x�i,'; i, � �f { A V� f r.,� ;v.�}. -� . _..--� ' 1 3 �l �' �4 , i. � � , �'t; 1 tl � i � -�� n f } � �? i � � �� _ �. :n.�� , � ,�.- : i i�� - , � �.. � s � � �F��' I. I.-�.. - si�..� . � : . ��._ : � � . Page 1 ; `• � � _.. . _ , < ''.:; � � VIEW CORRIDORS Items which need to be done include: 1) regenerating view points, correcting back sites, establishing new point on stairs of transportation center; 2) tieing all points into section lines and property corners; and 3} physically monumenting view corridors with valve boxes ana markers. Costs: Full week of survey crew $3000 ; Computer time $ 700 ;i i Total $3700 ,�� c.'_�,l�r� ,��r�' 1 ; ,�.s�s. `s �t r'� �,� .'i C� �� . Add to that the cost of constructing valve boxes. We thought it could be done in-house by Public Works. 40 man hours at $15 each $ 600 (two people, I half day ' for each monument box) backhoe and jack hammer equipment $ 450 � ` valve baxes $ 250 ' ,' Public Works total $1300 `:i � Total 55000 15o contingency $ 750 Total $5750 I r. f. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: On May 7, � During the c written to ac Corcoran, tt a future adc point of orig Christiania � lines are co back to To�n � MEMORANDUM � iown Counci{ Community Development Department July 30, 1991 Second reading of Ordinance 13, Series of 1991, adopting the proposed View Corridor from Frivolous Sais looking west over the Red Lion and Christiania roofs, to the Gore Range - :::f<�::�::;::: - . ...:<=f;:=;�>:�::::"::::::>:><::;::::�>;>`:�::::�:;::<>:::'::}:;`�:>:=::<:=>=<`:'`";;':;:<::::>:�<:;:;:::>:`?:::::::»>::;:::<;::'::;...... . 991, the Town Councii approved Ordinance 13, Series of 1991 on first reading. iscussion, Council requested that the legal description for the view corridor be commodate the Christiania expansion. After first reading, staff inet with Dan e surveyor for the project, to determine how to define a legal description based on ition. During the site visit, staff found that the roof ridges were not visible from the n because the aspen tree leaves block the line of site from Frivolous Sals to the �of. As a result, staff will have to wait unti! faN to shoot the corridor when the roof npletely,visible. Once that has been accomplished, staff will bring the ordinance n Council far second reading. We anticipate that this will be in mid-October. `. `. `',� > ` '. :' ,.: `'�I r � �' <� , , _ '�li '`'`'' � 1 � '/ L '�'S��/ �`-, '��;�, � , � � �"` \y ..�� '� i ` � �� - _ f`' -- s: 1 O. c 5. 9 1 04 : 4� P2�i �2vYC�TOROLA CO� H6�'I'S P O 2 � ? � K `..1/ � �� oBi 876-6700� ROBERT W. C3ALViN � � �. �� 1303 U8T ALOONOU�N RO/+D . . SCNAVMBURO, IllIN015 60106-�066 CERTIFIED MAIL October 25. 199I `_. Mayor Kent Rose `. Town of Ysil : 75 South Frontage Road : Vai1, CO 81657 - Dear -Mayor and Tawn Councll Membere: I am most eeriously conccrnad with the progresa thet has boen madc concerning the East Village Homtowners Aesociation rcquest ta esteblish a vicw corridor for the East Vltlage. Qn March I1, 1991 tho East Village Homeawntrs Association aubmltted a lcttcr to the Town of 'Vail, re�arding amendments to the View Corridor Ordinance #13, Se- ries 1983 (see �ttachmcnt). Tha lefter wes submitted to the Cammunity Develpp- ment Dcpartment in conjunc[ion with a public hearin� bcing conducted by the Planniag and Environmsntal Commisslon, The pt�blic haaring con�emed amcndments to the Yi�w Corridor Ordinancc. The Homeowners Aasociation's Jcttc� rcquasted that certain view corridors be es- tablished for the Eest Vilisge nti�hborhood. The view corridore being requested had s d�rect boarin� and ralationship to the Frivolous Sala (Christiania) Vicw Cqrridor undcr consideration In thc proposed emendmcnt. To our knowSedge thc Ptanning and Environmcntat Commission did not acknowledge or respond to our request nor did tho Community Development Uep�rtment staff. A secand public hearing was condueted by the Planning and �nviranmental Commisalon on Apri1 22, 1991: At that meedng our Msrch 11, 1491 ittter was not presentcd ia the Planning and Envtronmental Commiesion in the accampanying � staff inemorandum nor was thtre mention of the conflicts which existed batween thc Homeowners Assoclation's requceis and that being made by the Christiania Lodge. To our knowledge no acknowledgemont or responea to our rc��ucst was : fqrthCOming. � Qn May 7, 1991 at a regular meecing of tht V�ii Town Council the first reading of ;. � Ordinance No. 13, Series 1991 was eonducted. At chat meeting thc Hamcowners As- � sociation's March 11, 1991 Icttcr waa not presontcd' to the Town Coancil, nor was ihere a mention of the letter by Ehe planning staff. The accompanying staff mcmorandum and ptosentation medt no cnention of the canflicts which ezistcd betwtcs� tho Homeowners Associstion's requcsts and the pcoposai being made by the Christiania Lodga In my July and August 1991 �atters to you and th� Town Couneil Y reiterated thc Homeowntre Asaociation's request to eatabiish view corridors in the public inter- est from thc public atrects of the East Villagt nei�bbarhood. : . 9 � ` f i � . .. _. ..... 1 CJ. 25. 9 i 04 : 4� FZ�-I *MOTOROLA CO� H61TS �'03 v . .. . . .. . : ., . . . . . . ..,.. `. . � . .. _. ��- - � � a .: �� a Mayor Kent Rose October 2S, 1991 Page Two i A Septombor 4, 1991 latter from the Community Uevelopmcnt Director. Kristan ; Pritz indicatcd that there were problema wlth monumentstion and budgetary i considaration affiliated with the Homeowners Asaociatian'� reyuost. 5ubstquent to roceipt af this Ietter I authorized an ezptnditurt that providcd for tho documentation of tht East Vitlage View Cvrridor. The documentation was for- � warcicd to tha Town Councit on October 1, 1991. The documentation that was sub- mitted conforms to standards set forih in the View Corridor Qrdinance and are the � same as those prov3ded by pthers seekinQ to adopt ar amend a vicw corridor. As a result of this effort it waa fovnd that the monumentatiqn pr�blem refcrrcd to iA tho Diroctor's lettar is the resuit af deficiencles in the snrvty information provided in the 1983 ori�inating ordinanec. The ordinance negiects to pmvido eurveyin� documentation thai allows for tha viewpoint, the survey point from which alt vicw a3ignmcni sightings arc takcn, ta be lacated. It is my undtrstand• ing that aay pany wishing to locate the vlewpoint must do so by sgreemcnt with the surveyor who conducted the orlginal aurvey. Thia arran�ement docs nat ap- pcar to servo ihe public interest. In an article rzgarding vlew corridors thet appeared in the M�y 9, 1991 Vai1 Daily (see attachedj, I note that the Town Council ur�cd the tawn etaff to praceed with the neceesary atudiES that would provido for thc adoption of additional view corri- dors. In tha article I do not note any discussion regarding limitation imposed on the project due to budgetary constraints. i In an Octobar 10, 1991 letter from the Communiry Devetopment birector concern- ' � ing our continuing application to estabtish the East Vtllage Vitw Corridor, we are ;. toid that cansIdcration wil! be glven when funde aro availeble to study new view � corridors �n the Vitlage aree. However. tho Christiania (�rivoloue Sala) wiJl bc ' brought before the Tawn Council despitt the nppsrent conflict �'�'�kh our requcst. � It is tha "funher scudy" positton of the Community Developmeat Director tbat �ive I me mpat serlous cancern. I am troubled by the thaught that thc Ch�iatiania Vicw ' Corridor can be approved without adequstt $tudy of tha cffects upon ti�c proposcd � Bast Vitlage Vlew Corridor when there is an obvlou� interrtlstionship. � It ia my understaading the scope of study required ta evaluate a view corridor "` Satls fully within the profcesional competency of the town'd planaing ataff. Wa � do not agrec that con�idcration of our proQosed view corridor should bc dalaycd becauae of an ill-dcf�ned nccd for a largar view �orridor atudy. 1t is our position that lnternlated view eorridors should bo eonaidcrcd At thc same time, not sepe- _ ratety as is being realizcd under thc present circumstancce. >; ` . , � f j - ;, ;; :� � � _ , , , ; >. , - ; � - _ _ _ - - ---- -- T. f _ 1 U. 25. g 1 04 : 4� FM �MOTORdLA CO� Fi6tTS PO4 4 � � a � E �-� I '; . , . _ , . ;. ,. . : ,:_ .i, . � ' � Mayor Kcnt Roee � (�ctobcr 25, 19�1 Pegc Three �. The proposed East Vlilaga Viow Corridor prestrves far more than the Christiania Corridor. Thc East Village View Corridor would presarvo viewg of tha Qtirc Ran�c, Red Standstone Mountain and Vail VilIagc, C3oltien Peak, and Vali Mountain with the Vista Bsun. I am concerned that tha Town Councit has not been given noticc or adequatc in- farsnation to make an int'ormed judgement wlth regerds io the conflicts between these two proposals. Through aur efforts to provide 1he Town Council with information reQarding the � Bast Yillage View Corridar, it has been our intent to demonsttatc to tha Town Councit that thcre ls jntrinsic value in tha public intcrest, to gresorvc the p�n- oremic vlews from the Bast Viilagc neighborhood. Thus far we do not believe v��e have bten given an opportunity to do so. Again, I ask your timaiy rcvitw of our requeste p�ior to your flnal constder�tion of thc Christiania (Frivolaus 5�Is) ViBw Corridor. Bast wishes� + nbert 'W. Cl�lvin Presid�nt Bast Villggc Homeowners Aesociation ' ' RWC3:ch Attachmcnt cc: Larry Eskwith, Town Attorncy 4k F I � t f � ,, •} � �,��Ft� . • „�.; , ; . � �, : : Peter Harris Rudy Attorney and Cowrsellor at 1aw _ Suite 214, Vail National Bank 108 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 - (303) 476-8865 FAX (303) 47b-1645 March 11, 1991 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 � j RE: Request for Additional View Corridors, Amendment to � Ordinance 13, 1983 i IDear Planning and Envzronmental Commission Members: � ' I represent the East Village Homeowners Association, a newly formed association of homeowners in the Gore Creek Drive neigh- borhood. The East Village Homeowners Association requests that the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission iinclude the following additional view corridors in the amendment of Ordinance No. 13, 1983 now under consideration by the Town of � Vail. I l. The view to be protected extends to the South from the North right-of-way line of Gore Creek Drive. 2. The view to be protected extends to the West from � the North right-of-way line of Gore Creek Drive and the South right-of-way line of Hansen Ranch Road. Further, we request that the terms of the Amendment provide that this amendment to Ordinance No. 13, 1983 become effective upon signature by the Mayor or the soonest date as provided for in the Vaii Town Charter. Since y, er ris Rudy ccs East Village Homeowners Association . ' > _ `: . _ ... f'' �: , , Sertring Eagte COunty Tuesday through Sundoy � � '� ,� � ^�� ' �I. _ i � \ �s�.y�.S` __�9t-:= � -�� Counci! considers adding more view corridors in Vail By Scott TaylOr � tiys�+etwae A ncw vicw cortidor in thc Vail Village got ihe prefiminacy nod Tucsday, but Town Council � mem6crs asked for mae. 'ILe cwncil voted w add a view �of Ihe Gote Range fmm Frivolons Sal's ro the town's fisc of protectcd vicws m Lrst read- � iog. Council members said �hty war'^a eo sx more vicws o( �he mouma�re addcd to Ihe list, . howcver. PotenOai view cor- ridors includc dorcns atrcady idemil'icd in �he Vail Viilage and �oncs yct unidcn�cd in � Lioashcad. Thc town fi�st identified mo�e Ihan 40 pofCntiai vicw comdors . a� numbcr o( ycars ago. Out o( those, the council chose �n prqCCt (oor. � According to the bwn's view cortiJor ordinancc, builders and building owncrs are not allowcd �o build inln o� oC �he corridors withoul amcnding 1hc ordinancc. 'Il�c czisung cartidors arc: • Fmm ihc Vail Yllage Trancportation Ccntcr South w � thc ski slopc; � • From Ihe interseetion of Gorc Creck Drivc �d Bridgc Strcct muth towards thc ski slopc: • Fmm Hanson Ranch Road Eatt �wards the Gorc Rangc, Ovcr thc Villa Vaiulla: . • From Gorc Crcck Drivc towards lhe Gorc Range, over Gas�hof Grunshammcr and thc Gorsuch Buiiding. � � 'Ihe proposed cortidor firs1 camc up during �hc expans'an of �he Red Lion building last sum- mec People wve concuncd thaz ihc rillagc wwld be losing anoUier view of !he mountains oncc tl�a[ wak was canpleied. Thc new comdor will takc ihat ezpa1uion inln acwunf, u weil as �hc propoxd upansion of the Christiania L.odge, according w Town Plannu Andy KnudLSCn. Councilman Jim Gibson said he� would tike to sec the su(C br�ng m„re vicw cortidors in fron[ of ihe couxiL IC Ihe sta[i cwid bring the corridors Uwugh one at a time, the council wouN havc a bc¢a oP- porwnity �o considQ cach onc. Communiry Development Director Krisfan Ritz said she wants to protcct the .icw look- i�g down Mill Creck Circic and ihc vicw o( [hc Bcll Towcr (rom Ihe Gom Geck Promenadc shoulA also bc pracc�cd. �"1'd like �o scc you do whu you did wiih �his onc," Gibwn said '"fakc the two you jus[ Mought up, aM [ think you ougbt to gei going on iL" Councilman Merv Lapin said hc would raeher U�c town staCf begin working on ncw lisc of �icws. The councit would thcn havc a list to ciroosc fmm. � Pritz said Ihc Inwn dces nccd �o idcnu(y ncw cortidors in thc Villagc and in Lionshcad. None of Ihe vicws in Lionshead a,e curtcntlY protcctal. shc said. Volume XI, Number 110 May 9, 1997 � Vaifs most poq�lar view covido� boks east down Gore Creek Dme rowards the Gore Range- The Town Goundl is considering changes to existing ordinances. � � . e � To: Mavor Kent Rose and Town Counci'l Members From: Jim Lamont Date: October 29. ]_991 RE: East Village Homeowners Association Please find attached modifications to the East Village View Corridor as progosed. Modifications include points E-1 and H-1_ The East Village View Corridor includes a panoramic view o� the Gore Range, Golden Peak, Mill Creek Valley, Vail Mountain with the Vista Bahn, Bear Tree Ridge, Red Sandstone Mountain, and Vail Village_ cc: Bob Galvin Kristan Pritz i ; � � i i 'i `' fi ' � • A. Vieias of the Gore Range, Vail 19ountain and the mountain above Sandstone, with the viewpoint being east of the Mill Creek Court building and west of the Villa Valhalla in the center of Gore Creek Drive; VIEiI POINT #A Insfirument - View Point A Backsight - Traverse Point l�l-A Height of instrument above View Point A- 5.4 feet L ens used in photographs - 55 mm Horizontal Angle 151 16' 15i 16' 166 46' 166 46 ' Zenith Angle 82 50' 87 38' 87 38' 81 27 ' 170 04' 79 12' 182 03' 78 18' 207 44' 71 30' 214 13 ` 74 39' 222 03' 79 03' 223 45' 82 23' 237 49' 79 09' ; 251 16' 82 50, f 258 23' $2 50' f Z57 33' 80 31' 257 37' 77 09' 2b4 45' 74 24' 271 51' 77 40' 277 32' 78 32' 299 41' 78 55' Foresight Point on Photo A B : C D I E E-1 I F I G I I H I j H-I I I I J K L M N 0 P Q r I • � � - � . � � � � . f. - . - . .. , - .. . � . � . . . � 2 � Horizonta2 Angle Zenith Angle ' Foresight Point on Photo � 308 27' I 322 17' 322 17' 327 02' 335 14' 338 26' 350 OS' 354 25' 83 21' 83 21' 78 SO' 74 53' 73 35' 76 42 ' 76 25' 85 24' 359 24' 87 51' 4 10 ' 88 10 ' 4 17' 87 06' R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB 7 14 ' 87 08 ' CC i � � I i I f � ��. }#� i e�, € t t*� ;".�. 1?`� �i �� .: �bls r. �d A �'�'�% �ti'ail-� �� Vail Associates, Inc. Creators and Operators of Vail and B�aver Creek" Resorts May 16, 1991 , ; ` �_ _ _. _ _.._ ___ _ __. _ � Andy Knutson, Planner ` Community Development Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Colarado 81658 Re: View Corridor - Frivolas Sal's 1 Dear Andy: � As you may recall from our several conversations of the last few weeks, Vail Associates, Inc. ("VA") is currently studying the impact potential of the view corridor from Frivolas Sal's upon certain VAI owned property in Vail Village. Due to some confusion on our part, VA did not have a clear understanding of the implications of the view corridor on VA's `� property, and, therefore, we are requesting that the proposal be � tabled until such time that we reasonably complete our analysis. :� We wi11 remain in close contact with you on the progress of the � study. Thank you for your attention to this matter. a � Sincerely, � VAIL-ASSOCIATES, INC. �', " �--� -. r /� , ' '��`��✓ % ' ,� 1 v � !3 ;✓ � , � � �r��- -�-�_ ° Larry E. Lichsliter ; Executive Vice President i f Post Office Box 7• Vai1, Colorado 81658 • USA —(303) 476-5601 i __ � i �► s � The ordinance shown bclow includes all of the requested changes which Co�mcil made diuing fust ;eading, May 7, 799L The ordinance was passeJ on first reaziing wi[h a 7- 0 vote. The ordinance pceprued for second reading will have different lega( ( descriptions for each view corricior as ihe Town is updating the monumentadon For all of the view comdors. � I ' ORDINANCE NO. 13 � Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION G OF TFIE VAIL VILLAGE URHAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO TfiE PROTECTION OF VIEWS WITHIN THE TOiiN OF VAIL AND �� - CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MITNICIPAL CODE � OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVZDE FOR THE PROTECTION � OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN AND SETTZNG - . FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD TFIER8T0 �- WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the preservation of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of Vail as a mountain resort con¢nunity; and _ WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect� and enhance the Town'.s attraction to tourists and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS the amendment will more clearly identify existing view corridors and development procedures for the public's benefit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF TAE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1. Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modified to read as follows: ParaaraPh G Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are � orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important �' orientation references and visual focal points. i I The most significant and obvious view corridors have been adopted as part i of the Design Review standards in Chapter 18.73 of the vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating"a � development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of + � i the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major i pedestrian areas or public plazas, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, or the Clock Tower. The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock � � j Tower, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their � significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. ' Development in the Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view , .. . � � . .:.�:;j corridor. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 0� the Vail Municipal .� Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not,'the impact of proposed � development on views from pedestrian ways must be identified and mitigated where needed. I � � , i 2_ Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of V il is hereby amended i by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as fcllows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors � - 18.73.010 - Purpose A. The p:otection and perpetuation of certain panoramic mountain views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town is required in the interests of posterity, civic pride and the general welfare of the people of the Town of Vail; B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain : existing panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the citizens and visitors to the Town; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and - economic vitality and values of the Town; E. The preservation of such views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; F. The preservation of such views will promote good design and will provide for natural light in the buildings and public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors. 16,73.020 - Adontion of View Corridor Lecxal Descriptions and Photocfiraphs The photographs on record with the Community Development Department and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. - 2 ; 1 _ . _ I ( _. � � A. A view from the south side of the Vail Tzansport'lation Center from the main pedestrian stairway looking tcward the ski slepes; II View Point #1 Instrument - View Point #1 Backsight - Traverse Point #1 j Height of instrument above View Point #1 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizonal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight Point on Photo 358 47� 76 41' .. A 358 47' 85 49' B 12 06' 89 14' C 15 00' 89 17' D " 22 14' 86 54' E 35 18' 85 42' F 38 17' 76 21' G B. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski slopes between 226 Bridge street,the Golden Peak Suilding, and 311 Bridge Street, the Hill Building; Vien Point #2 _. _ : Instrument - View Point #2 "" Backsight - View Point #4 Height of Instrument Above View Point #2 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm " 3 � � Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Fq'resight Point ornl Photo 287 30' 74 35' A 289 90' 90 17' B 299 02' 92 47' C 301 51' 79 10' D C. The northeast corner of 244 Wall Street, the One Vail Place Building, looking over the roofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Lion, and 356 Hanson Ranch Road, the Christiania, toward the Gore Range. The legal description for this view coiridor will be based upon the proposed Christiania development as shown on Exhibit A. vievr Point #4 Instrument - View Point #4 - Backsight - To Be Determined , Height of Instrument Above View Point #4 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 50 mm D. View'of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Mill Creek Court Building; Viex Point #5 Instrument - View Point #5 Backsight - Focal Point #1 . ' � ' . Height of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm ' Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Foresiqht Pbint On Photo 201 31' 81 24' A 206 53' BS 03• B 210 24' 85 11' C - - 213 09' 84 03' D _ 213 09' 83 00' 4 ' .: i, . � ,: _ i _. L.- . � .. . . .��.:� .. �..�.`__ � .:-.' .. . .. _..�__'� . .. —_—_ _: • � E. Looicing east to the Gore Range from Gore CreekjDiive between retail shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at Vail, and 793 �ore Creek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza &uilding. I View Point �j6 j Znstrument - View Point #6 � Backsight - Traverse Point #2 ' Height of Instru.-nent Above View Point #6 - 5.4 feet I Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Angle 2enith Angle Foresight Point on Photo 356 55' 81 00' A - 357 32' 83 19' s 00 46' 83 13' C O1 59' 85 26' D 12 93' 85 26' E _ 12 51' 80 10' F 12 12' 78 58' G : 13 07' 73 06' H 18.73.030 - Limitations on Construction " No structure shall be peimitted to encroach above the view corridor boundary identified with the dashed tape set forth on each of the adopted photographs. The boundaries are determined by the legal descriptions listed in Section 18.73.020. Copies of the photographs and legal descriptions are on file _ with the Community Development Department. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term structure shall include, but not be limited to, new buildings, building expansions, decks, remodels, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, satellite . dishes, fences, stoplights, light poles, utility poles, skylights or any similar objects. 18.73.040 - Mass and Bulk Controls A. Proposed BuildincT Expansions in the Vicinitv of Existinq Encroachments _ When any proposed structure infringes upon a Town of Vail view corridor, but is located in front of or behind another structure 5 � � which already encioaches into the same view corridor, the n� structure shall not be permitted. &. Viea Ccrridor N.eiqht Control If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height limitation defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height regulation shall apply. C. Proposed Remodels of Suildincrs with Existirq Encroachments Pre-existing encroachments in view corridors shall not be expanded or enlarged to create further encroachment. Any existing encroachments will be encouraged to be removed as part of any major building remodel, except for identified focal points, such as the Clock Tower and Bell Towe=. 18.73.050 - Submittal Requirements The following information shall be submitted along with a Design Review Board application, exterior alteration application, any variance application, or any other application that may pertain to view corridors, so that the Town staff can properly evaluate whether a structure complies with this view corridor - chapter: A. Existing and proposed elevations of the development; B. Photographs taken from the adopted view point which indicate the present improvements which protrude into, or are in the vicinity of the view coiridor, and a graphic representation on the photographs of how the proposed improvements will appear with relation to existing improvements and view corridor boundaries. Photographs to be submitted must be taken from the same point nsed to define the corridor, with the same lens size, and with the camera set at a height o£ 5.4 feet above the pavement. C. If necessary, the Community Development Department may require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittal materials which show the potential impact the structure could have upon the protected view corridor if constructed. i _ i 6 _ i i ; . _ _ ,. I... . , . . _ . . . _ . .. . .� . _... .�, ,..� .�.-�.�,: . . . . . ..: . ... _ ; � . . . . .. - . . .� . . ,__ _ _. I. . .: . . . � . . . . . . . ... � ....--"--� . : � � :.:� , .:£ .. .:-..._. . . � � 19.73.060 - Amendments and Appeals i _. A. Amendr,ients No vaziance shall be permitted to any provision of this chapter 18.73. The provisions of this chapter, including the legal descriptio�s and photographs of the designated view coriidors, shall only be amended in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.170 of this code. B. Appeals � If a determination is made by staff that a proposed structure would enc=oach into an adopted view corridor, the applicant may appeal the determination to the Planning and Environmental Commission, according to Section 16.66.030. 18.73.070 - Exemptions A structure which is presently located in an adopted view corridor may remain and, if destroyed by natural causes, may be replaced to its cu=rent size and height, provided such reconstruction takes place within one year following destruction. However, no structures which are located within a designated view corridor on the effective date of this ordinance shall be permitted to expand or enlarge the area of the structure which is located within the view corridor. 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause o= phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 5. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting o£ the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. 7 I ( L __ _ ATTEST: � � Kent R. Rose, 1 vor Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk � READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READINv AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. -� . . � Kent R. Rose, Mayor �. . . � - -�-- . ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk i. . _ . . . .. . .. . . .. � . . � . . 8 _ I � � � ._ � .. "..�� _�.. .._ . �: ..- . � .'.I i I . :...-,:. : � ��,� ..�.I i . � . � � � � . . �� i — --_. r..- i i I � i � ORDINANCE N0. 13 Series of 1991 ---�'- � ,r �� (i�7'l� - - � ��.. ��rL Jl L`'{�,c,�, �.. ' r.-,-�- �� , ��,� i, ', � fC�h ` ��C= � U S -�-�/ ; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION G OE THE VATL VILLAGE i IIRHAN DESZGN CONSIDERATIONS RELATIN6 TO THE � PROTECTION OF VIEWS WITHIN TEiE TOWN OF �7AZL AND �" ��` `1 CRF.ATING A NEW CfiAPTER OF THE M[TNICIPAL CODE � � y OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION {�r,"E.-s`�U OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN AND SETTING �'�,r` ,,�, `1 Y.. FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO �1 � x.GJ/-.�7t_:�,�� `� WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town CounCil that the �� t�;�,� preservation of certain existing view corridors i� essential to the r� � �-�t'1 character of Vail as a mountain resort community� and ' r �. r WHEREAS the preservation of views will proteCt and enhance the . ' . . j t�� Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS the amendment will more clearly identify existing view corridors and development procedures for the public's benefit; - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE'TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1. Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modified to read as follows: Paraqraph G `f � _.. .::� Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its -� � identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks andlother natural features are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. :£ Certain building features also provide important orientation ; references and visual focal points. ;� The most significant and obvious view corridors have' been � adopted as part of the Design Review standards in Chapter 18;73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserv2d originate from � either major pedestrian areas or public plazas, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, or the C1ock Tower. The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower, which have been adopted � : _ � - : - . _, i ( �.. � - _. " � � _ �.. .... :_ . -.-.,.: . ..:�::.. .,...___ ..:: ... . . ....:.. _ ._.. .,..J - ------ ---- --- - . � � _ � ; by ordinance, were chosen due to their significarjce, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. Development in the Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways must be identified and mitigated where needed. 2. Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as follows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors 18.73.010 - Purpose A. The protection and perpetuation of certain panoramic mountain views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town is required in the interests of posterity, civic pride and the general welfare of the people of the Town of Vail; B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain existing panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment'and environmental enrichment of the citizens and visitors to the Town; C_ The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; E. The preservation of such views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; F. The preservation of such views will promote good design and will provide for natural light in the buildings and public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors_ 18.73.020 - Adoption of View Corridor Leqa1 Descriptions and Photoaraphs The photographs on record with the Community Development Department and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. _ 2 ' _ ` !;. i �. _.. � _ * A. A view from the south side of tne Va�1 Transportation Center from the main ped2strian stairway looking toward the ski slopes; _.__� , ,. -- -- _- . �.,,,, r„{ �' - , _ _ �: View Point-#1 ; _ _ - -----_ ._. __._ _ Instrument - View Point #1 Backsight - Traverse Point #1 Height of instrument above View Point #1 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm � Horizonal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight Point on Photo ._.____._____ _..... , 358 47� _._ __76..41� _ A -,�,� � �. • 358 47' 85 49' B '` 12 06' 89 14' C 15 0 0' 8 9 17' ,Ta�� ,t�r,��"j D 22 14' 86 54' G�`r�- E ��: � 35 I8' 85 42' '-�' �`�� F :�! 38 17, 76 21' G'" ,--- , ,.....r _ _ __...__----��'�� - '<- B. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski slopes between 228 Bridge street,the Golden Peak Building, and 331 Bridge Street, the Hill Building; � �,^.; („�ci _ .. __. �--�� View Point-#2 � . Instrument - View Point #2 Backsight - View Point #4 Height of Instrument Above View Point #2 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm _ _ _ , _ i - _ . 3 ,_ ` _._ _. ___ __ -- - - -- --- -_ ----- - -- . � � Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle F�resight Point o� Photo 287 30', 74 35' A _ '� 289 40' 90 17' B � 299 02' 92 47' �,�- J' �' C 301 S1' 74 10' D C. The northeast corner of 244 Wall Street, the One Vail Place Building, looking over the roofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Lion, and 356 Hanson Ranch Road, the Christiania, toward the - Gore Range. `TirE""reg�`%-d�se�-i-p�i-�--for—t3ris-vi�w corri �wi�-..�.e ---__�.... _bas.�d�ppz�.�,}a_ a�QSed-G�3s�-iania--d-euelo�me�t -as' sfio"wri on Exhibit 1 A. '_ __ — � //f _ ? � - . ... ..._'_ "__-,..._.. R / �' : _� - _�, .��-- � --'�-- ��—i�iew Point #4 �.___-- ._---- _ Instrument - View Point #4 I Backsight - To Be Determined Height of Instrument Above View Point #4 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 50 mm D. View of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Mi11 Creek Court Building; `�._-. _„ \ . � -� � %�7i-ew -Point-�-5-� __ __�.._ � . .__ ------ � � Instrument - View Point #5 --�--"-�� Backsight - Focal Point #1 Height of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.9 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle FOresight Point _._ ,.. , _ '�.,;On Photo _ ., -' ti 2�01 31' 81 24' �.-y A\� � �-�L�'� 206 53' 85 03' B � � 210 29' 85 11' C � 213 09' 84 03' D 213 09' 83 00' . _ �:, ,:. .. _. ; 4 ' i I -- -- - � . � _ r j� - � E. Loaking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between retail shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, t e Lodge at Vail, ' and 193 Gore Creek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza Bi�ilding. i � : K"------------- _- —. _. _. _ f __. VieFr Point #6 - � ._ _. - - Instrument - View Point #6 Backsight - Traverse Point #2 Height of Instrument Above View Point #6 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight Point `-. on Photo 356:55' 81 00' A ; \ � 357 32' 83 19' B ,`� � 00 46' 83 13' C; \ � ,� O1 59' 85 26' D --- � 12 43' 85 26' E L� � ; 12 51' 80 10' F � 1\� 12 12' 78 58' G \\ 13 07' 73 06' H - 28.73.030 - Limitations on Construction,: ° _ . No structure shall be permitted to encroach above the view corridor boundary identified with the dashed tape set forth on each of the adopted photographs. The boundaries are determined by the legal descriptions listed in Section 18.73.b20. Copies of the photographs and legal descriptions are on file with the Community Development Department. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term structure shall include, but not be limited to, new buildings, building expansions, decks, remodels, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, satellite dishes, fences, stoplights, light poles, utility � poles, skylights or any similar object�. 18.73.040 - Mass and Bulk Controls A. Proposed Buildin4 Expansions in the Vicinity of Existinq Encroachments When any proposed structure infringes upon a Town of Vail view corridor, but is located in front of or behind another structure i 5 . � f � : ,. �- �. -- - ---- - -----_ _ -- - -- � � which already encroaches into the same view c'lorridor, the new structure shall not be permitted. I B. View Corridor Heiqht Control I If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height limitation defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height regulation shall apply. . C. Proposed Remodels of Buildinqs with Existinq Encroachments Pre-existing encroachments in view corridors shall not be expanded or enlarged to create further encroachment. Any existing encroachments will be encouraged to be removed as part of any major building remodel, except for identified focal points, such as the Clock Tower and Bell Tower. 18.73.050 - Submittal Recruirements The following information shall be submitted along with a Design Review Board application, exterior alteration application, any variance application, or any other application that may pertain to view corridors, so that the Town staff can properly evaluate whether a structure complies with this view corridor chapter: A. Existing and proposed elevations of the development; B. Photographs taken from the adopted view point which - indicate the present improvements which protrude into, or are in the vicinity of the view corridor, and a graphic xepresentation on the photographs of how the proposed improvements will appear with relation to existing improvements and view corridor boundaries: Photographs to be submitted must be taken from the same point used to define the corridor, with the same lens si�e, and with the camera set at a height of 5.4 feet above the pavement. C. If necessary, the Community Development Department may require models, overlays, sketches, or other sulDmittal materials - which show the potential impact the structure could have upon the protected view corridor if constructed. 6 - :. , � ..,;. __�..�. .::i � i i'_ � � i � I I � � 18.73.060 - R.mendments and Apneals A. Amendments � No variance shall be permitted to any p ovision of this chapter 18.73. The provisions of this chapter, i cluding the legal descriptions and photographs of the designatec� view corridors, shall only be amended in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.170 of this code. B. Appeals If a determination is made by staff that a proposed structure would encroach into an adopted view corridor, the applicant may appeal the deY.ermination to the Planning and Environmental Commission, according to Section 18.66.030. 18.73.070 - Exemptions A structure which is presently located in an adopted view corridor may remain and, if destroyed by natural causes, may be replaced to its current size and height, provided such reconstruction takes place within one year following destruction. However, no structures which are located within a designated view corridor on the effective date of this ordinance shall be permitted to expand or enlarge the area of the structure which is located within the view corridor_ 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. ' 9. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. � _ _ i_ _-- ----------- -- ---- - _ — -- � � ; - � I 5. The repeal or the repeal and reenactmen of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this o dinar.ce shall noe affect any right which has accrued, any duty impo ed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof�l, any prosecution comr,ienced, nor any other action or proceeding as c�ommenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed ai�d reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded'unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED� READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town_ Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: - Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk . � : i::.., . �' ., _ , . _ . _ � _, _ � , > i I - - ':: I. . . .- .: � <. ; : i _ S � ' i _ _. ; L _, _ : ___� ----- __ _ i � � , � _ _ _____ � � . � `'�='- / I U, �tirC Y� ('�r x°'" 'rl,� �-{'`d`-i /f� ;. _ _ . . � _ : . , ....:. '. . ,.. ..::...- � _ - I .. . . i _ - � i _ � � : : _ __ _ _ , .,. I- � . . - .. _ _ i; ' _ ; _ _ i ' _ . � : _ _ I' - _- I �, " ; I _ _ _. , I _ -.. - _ _ i i_.. _,. ,: -. _.' I - i _ __ i� '.:. ':: _ . , . . . � I _ _ � _ .. . _ . - .. _ I : I , -,; � .....�. -�— � ,, �.'��- �..�..,��_. � �' �~ — � .,. �s- � �s' r_ � <' � < � � e w� � � � : �. = �� ► � �-� � , �� . -�.9 �.:;� �� ,� ��tR �. � . �. � � . �� u �� f �' : -� - � _ . :,. , � : . : � _ : :; : � � ��_ �4s , i • -. . _... _ _ . . . �.� �. � . ��-�•==a� � *v= �at'a'� �'� - F '� '-i .•i. �'_ . � '; i - ._ � 4' 1�, r ��\ ' � �� t�� * ��++�. �`� f �. ��/ / N �� :.�i � � . ~_~ , 1� . . . ` � � � � K�,� � . . � �q.f4 _ _'. f a ` i�� yyt . . 'S. � ;y -�� ._ l, �. �/�r' .,� ' 11 � ,� .� : .' ``'` ""' _ � ` , �ja. � ',.•. � � �ti K � ,r . • � �� • � , ti' � }, � •,"�T``' f,' t,. �'�•�� ,►r � • , + ..�: 6 . �' _ �" ' ` -. , , .,�, �' �; �. �. t=. � � . .. � . � _ •01 _ _ , � ~ .E ' ..�,,. .� �z�� _ :� . . �' ., ��IC�]"�� .t � f y V 1; 7 :t 5 � . . . . � � . /�.�v .� .t . .� . I . . L . �.. � .. � ` ��. ' . � S. �il � S S� r ��s � � � � � � � ? «�r'� — j: �� _ `1- r ��-,��# � � �3. ��' �. �,y��' s' n. w!` _ �� s�, b �r � � -� � c� t � :.,y, =3.- ', _.�i• . ?. •� -: -'. �. ...?.,�.. rn..�. �_s.��z -� -�v� .'''��?:".��_ .�_�� r.. •✓ �� .� rT . .�: .z ; �. r, . , ' " • ' _. �, . . . � � . � . � J /l� , - ' �r , .�.., .. . L - ! � ' �' �� s � � � . .� � � j :� � .�j�l_ � � �-r ...�•= ' �(�:t�L� � � ' ^ ' � . . {��I= ; r��` � _ � ( . ��` 4 r` � 4 r -�� - ♦� : - -+'Y� .:. {�� _ , < _� . wi•��E�rA'� T�" .. a.''_� ' _ �j�' �...►�.=,t = �. . � . ' " �_ . . i�'t.'t '�` 7 i... � n \\ � ` 1� � , I �' �� f .�'`�,� �1; iiM ' 1' . s�' � �, ; Y Kti'�• ��;\ � � � , � , '.;►� � � . � . Y ,��°;�� _ �'° L.� � . x�� -�� £ f � j' � �. A��,. ,.,�.� - � � � ;� � _ �,; { ` 5=� �� ;� Ii _ �i c �. I:.M -.-�� . i � �T� I z +��e3� �.� y�� I t �•'. }' . . ..._ Il.a ... . .�'�''!� __ ._• 3 ,.y, ..yb 1- , i i- btt ' .� � r.�;K r r- _ s3 G�� _ f +. }; "��r� n ,- �a � y r. 1t � _ ,. . � � , � -'• k �� _ i _ f k _ �_t ' _ i �. �j _ , ..��... �,�� i, .. • '. � ,:_:.,r- < .' '`I, , � - : �_ �_ '� I��iiaii� �.:...h-� . M . , - , , . - �- - �... =�..� E : � � � MEMORANDUM TO: Pianning and Environmental Commissivn FROM: Community Development Department DATE: Aprii 22, t 991 SUBJECT: A request to amend the �oning code, adding a section to identify ali approved view corridors and to set forth detaiis with regard thereta Applicant: Town of Vail �-.....i . . ,.: .;,._,. . ,..--. <�: . -:.� . .:..--. /5a -� ..:.:' -:/- 5Yb ,•i%/'•:j;'�,r.'!l::-:Y{.;:{. �. ' .::.;..�;�.>�.�:�'xii.�(/�;:"` -'.i.':�: ::: - � ':: -::: :''� , , - / � '; �: . : ::: ::: _.-: - ..: Ywn..::. . '"..,..�..:..-�:.,a ..�::: . ., :� " -' �-� �-d/..1.-..::iil`.'.:'l.ih:.}.'l.'.«:'v:'..J�::.:.::::::::.:.:'':......�.... .. . ......... . The staff proposal is to create a separate section of the zoning code, where the regutations for view corridors wilf be located. Staff believes that an appropriate location for these I standards is in the Design Review section. At this time, the view corridors are referenced only l in the Vaif Village Urban Design Guide P{an. Staff betieves that development outside Vai1 i Village can impact established view coRidors, and that there should be a section of the code applicable to all development areas. �taff also believes that locating the standard in the Design Review section in the zoning code will bring more attention to the fact that the Town does have established view corridors which all development must comply with. Staff is not proposing to modify any of the recently proposed view corridor ordinance changes. The proposed view corridor over the Red Lion and Christiania has not changed and is included in the recommendations to CounciL The new section is proposed to have subsections describing the views individually. Following those gene�a! descriptions, staff is planning to incorporate the legal descriptions for each view. Administrative responsibilities will be defined, describing who will regulate the view corridors, when new construction should be checked to ensure it does not encrvach into view corridors, and a general statement establishing the legal basis for protecting the corridors and prohibiting new construction from encroaching into the view corridors. As discussed in previous PEC hearings, the new standards will prohib+t encroachments, including mechanical equipment_ The new ordinance will also clarify that the more restrictive height applies when comparing zoning district standards to the of the view corridor standards. ` The ordinance that will go to Council establishing this new section will aEso modify "Section G of the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations" so that it is consistent with the new section of the zoning code. Because of the major changes in the organization of ths proposed view corridor ordinance, staff thought it was appropriate to bring it to the PEC for preliminary review. At this time, the PEC wilf be voting on the proposal, giving a recommendation to the Counci{ for their final approval. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to Town Council that the proposed changes be approved. Staff believes that the ctarity ofi the new ordinance, and the relocation of it in the zoning code, instead of the Urban Design Considerations, will increase the awareness of the regulations and clarify the standards for development. c:\pec\viewcorr�viewcorr.422 �' 1 _ , � �� .. -. _ . . � � : j : ORDZNANCE N0. 13 ' Series of 1991 AN ORDIPIANCE AMENDING SECTION G OF TSE VASL VILLAGE QRHAN DESIGN CONSZDERATIONS RELATING TO TAE PROTECTION OF VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE M[TNICIP2�I, CODE , OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION �' OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHZN TfiE TOWN AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS ZN REGARD THERETO �i WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the preservaticn of certain existing view corridors i5 essential to the character of Vail as a mountain resort community; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; and . WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enhance �� the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and \��(�{ � WHEREAS the amendment will more clearly identify existing view '�v corridors and development procedures for the public's benefit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN _ OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1. Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modified to read as follows: Paraqraph G Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant and obvious view corridors have been adopted as part of the Design Review standards in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public plazas, and include views � of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, or the C1ock Tower. The views i Iof the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower, which have been adopted L _ --._ . . . _.. : _�� _ �.. ':.; _ , :�.< -. -_ ; ;i ,I I � � by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians_ ' Development in the Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways must be identified and mitigated where needed. 2. Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as follows:' Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors I 18.73.010 - Purpose � " A. The protection and perpetuation of certain panoramic mountain views from various pedestrian/public wa�rs within the Town is required in the interests of posterity, civic pride and the general welfare of the people of the Town of Vail; B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain existing panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the'citizens and visitors to the Town; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; E. The preservation of such views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; F. The preservation of such views will promote good design. 1__8.73.020 - Adoption of View Corridor Lectal Descriptions and Photoqraphs The photographs on record with the Community Development Department and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the " Town. 2 , i_ � . � � A. A view from the south side of the Va'1 Transportation Center from the main pedestrian stairway lookir�g toward the ski slopes; I�I View Point #1 i Instrument — View Point #1 I Backsight — Traverse Point #1 � Height of instrument above View Point #1 — 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph — 35 mm Horizonal Angle 2enith Angle Foresight Point on Photo 358 47' 76 41' A 358 47' 85 49' B 12 06' 89 14' C 15 00' 89 17' D . 22 14' 86 54' E' 35 18' SS 92' F- 38 1'7' 76 21' G , B. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski slopes between the Golden Peak Building and the Hill Building; View Point #2 Instrument — View Point #2 Backsight — View Point #4 Height of Instrument Above View Point #2 — 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph — 35 mm 3 _ _ ,. i - _ , _ _ --- ---- -- ---_ ___ - -------- ------ � . � � I i " Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle F resight Point � o Photo 287 30' 74 35' A' 289 40' 90 17' B 299 02' 92 47' C 301 51' 74 10' D C. The north�+e�s't cr��er of 244 Wall Street looking over the Red Lion and Christiania roofs toward the Gore lZange. The legal 4 description for this view corridor will be written after a11 proposed developments have either been constructed or the approvals for such developments have expired. This provision applies to all � development projects which have received final Design Review Board approval as of the date of second reading of this ordinance; View Point #4 Instrument - View Point #4 Backsight - To Be Determined Height of Instrument Above View Point #9 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 50 mm _ D. View of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranl��h Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of the mill Creek Court Building; View Point #5 Instrument - View Point #5 Backsight - Focal Point #1 i Height of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet i _. . � Lens used in photograph - 35 mm � i Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Fbresight Point , ; On Photo i I 201 31' 81 24' A i 206 53' 85 03' B 210 29' 85 11� C - 213 09' 89 03' D � 213 09' 83 00' E I 4 , _--- ---------- ---- --- -- --- `: , � - � � � � i ;. E. Looking east to the Gore Range from ' ore Creek Drive between the Lodge at Vail retail shops and the �Gore Creex Plaza I Building. �', View Point �6 Instrument - View Point #6 Backsight - Traverse Point #2 ' Height of Instrument Above View Point #6 - 5.4 f�et Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle - For�sight Point on Photo 356 55' 81 00' A 357 32' 83 19' B' � 00 46' 83 13' C� _. � Ol 59' 85 26• D 12 43' 85 26' E' 12 51� 80 10' g 12 12' 78 58' G 13 07' 73 06' H 18.73.030 - Limitations on Construction No structure shall be permitted to encroaGh above the view corridor boundary identified with the dashed tape set forth on each of the adopted photographs. The boundaries are determined by the legal descriptions listed in Section 18.73.020. Copies of the photographs and legal descriptions are on file w�th the Community Development Department. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term structure shall include, but not be limited ta, new buildings, building expansions, remodels, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, _�„r�S satellite dishes, fences, stoplights, light pole�, utility poles, l�''' skylights or any similar objects. 18.73.040 - Mass and Bulk Controls A. Proposed Buildinq Expansions in the Vicinitv of Existinq Encroachments i When any proposed structure infringes upon a Town of Vail view i, corridor, but is located in front of or behind another structure 5 I _ ; �- . . i-: ' ' . ` j ; I � � _ which already encroaches into the same view cjerridor, the new structure shall not be permitted. B. View Corridor Heiqht Control If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height limitation defined by the view orridor, the more restrictive height regulation shall apply. 18.73.050 — Submittal Recruirements , The following information shall be submit�ed along with a Design Review Board application, exterior altera'tion application, any variance application, or any other applicatior� that may pertain to view corridors, so that the Town staff can properly evaluate whether a structure complies with this view corridor chapter: A. Existing and proposed elevations of th'�e development; , B. Photographs taken from the adopted view point which indicate the present improvements which protrud� into, or are in the vicinity of the view corridor, and a graphic representation on the photographs of how the proposed improvements will appear with '' relation to existing improvements and view corridor boundaries. Photographs to be submitted must be taken from tYje same point used to define the corridor, with the same lens siZe, and with the camera set at a height of 5.4 feet above the pavement. C. If necessary, the Community Developme�t Department may require models, overlays, sketches, or other su�mittal materials which show the potential impact the structure could have uporr the protected view corridor if constructed. 18.73.060 — Amendments and Appeals , A. Amendments _ Amendments to adopted view corridors, or the adoption of , additional view corridors shall be initially reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall give a ' recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Cpuncil shall hear ; , the proposal twice and shall approve it by twp readings of an � ordinance before the view corridor becomes officially adopted. No � j proposed structure may encroach into an adopted view corridor I without an amendment to the established view corridor boundary. �� , _ � 6 _ ,. " �` _ _ - _ _. : � _ . , _ , J: _. i , , ' ', ;. I • � -- -_:_ _ : . � ( � � � � � B. Appeals If a determination is made by staff that a p oposed structure wculd encroach into an adopted view corridoz, he applicant may appeal the determination to the Planning a%d Environmental Commission, according to Section 18.66.030. 18.73.070 - Exemptions A structure which is presently located in an adopted view corridor may remain and, if destroyed by natur�l causes, may be replaced to its current size and height,( provided such reconstruction takes place within one year following destruction. However, no existing structure located in a view'corridor shall be expanded or enlarged. 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or . phrases be declared invalid. - �:i , 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 5. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not - affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as Commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. �; ? ' , i _ �- ----------- _._::._:_ ,.. . � .• � � INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPR VED AND ORDERED PIIBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on th day of - , 1992, at the regular meeting of th Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Bui ding of the Town. � �; Kent R. Rose,, Mayor ATTEST: I Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. i�� . � � . � . . __ _." .:�7 Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 4 8 - : I .. - : � --.� ; �� . ^ i =Y`�YY� F' S � �� : ��III�� - -- `; =:,; .. ; ;: Ei ;'` k. � "�' Y � � , �• �. �'�� 3 . .3 71 ot,Y.• n� � �,�.�Illfi�� ,: ' . °- ,,r� -;� ;y,!' � � _ - �`'� ':� _ - � . ;rr-- _ -'.,,,'" -y �.'� � � �� "�._ . . . , � �,r�``�- ' a � ' '��' ,.. - .� .._� � �ti..ti''� _ •l . l. ��'.. . i! - _;�. ' � �. . � a� �i ' .�� .! - . .. .� �� .. . � � .��. .. � .�.� � '. ,-` . . J sY ,. , 'r ; . `j` . 7 � ' : . !� r�i,� � �: `� - ; ��. . .._' -.,, ;_� � ' : .a � ��, t _ . �. . I 1' �'� r..�- � ., �_. �.�.c : �� V _ - � � . . � . . _ — . �`•--�. ' `- � . . . . � - - i� �i ;: . _ . �� - - ... C � �� ''� „r, •� " _ .i '��-� �� .� � } >': � _ - ! J�� •= ! ... � � � �a 1 . . � ��:� � r...�r2=.u�.JF�t aia,� }�� , , ' � � . . � � .. �� z f� �j - - . :..; 3 I T � ' � c* s . � � • � � • f r: � _ ��-"� � ��:�;�i'�: n z � i ii!� � a� ; •= s4.y� • '� l�/�� ` _ % �:. , . - - - .,� ( �, , � -_ - - - ,.,� ' .,.�_ " �..:_ , ., - , . y ,�. ; , - ° ,. " • _- ^...f '.Y.+-- ` - RL�_ R jV 1',Z... . �. .tiM1. y t ' ` ' � . � �.�+�'�_ i+ _ _ " �. l - �'h 1.. �. �� '��e'�7�� _' � � ..� �� :�: +w�+ , � .i�.� ••yi -��aJ:+�_= .:,�, :;_,y� 'f`G'' .�'xl.'=s�.`�A:a �' + � ��1 �ij; w � �.�..r1 " _ ' . .� . , .f' „ ��F �r► .� �M; � �� -, 2. [ : r i � f �� -' . �� ✓ ,� , ; � �� i ��f �i 1. �,, ,��' ' � T f ��:� � 'I iM '!� �• _ . _ �..�. . , , . . , � w. � F � � �- � - , . . , ( � s *�• � <> • r. �- - t . .. .. . .. . 4� �' . . . . . . . . . ,. , . . _ _ i - ;;�y r ; f � `t - * } }� _ �l�tf'• '" . � ' �_ �'�: ' � i�R a- f�� : .. . _ �• 4 : ; ': x �r �' - ! .+� -'�i u�rc � � ` ii -_ '`� - ♦ . -. � yC'. �,, e -� i� Y�=,� � � �� " -.f_ - r`y: p'. } '� i. �i F _ �,C ' - �'.- _- :.,�,.. _ � „ .�r- �� -_.2.� _y � _ _ _ _� ��;:z.�. _ 1��ti�: TO -�� t iIAEMnRANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Gommunity Development Department DATE: Apri122, 1991 ❑ �' j. i {~ k/3 •} L J � �k .' 1`i'..�y �. kh �.., i LLj ; i �G ',`,"� �,� ,. � ��`1 s SUBJECT: A request to amend the zoning code, adding a section to identify all approved view corridors and to set forth detaiis with regard thereta Applicant: Town of Vail � ti� � �z=`�''�. :.,::ri.,.�:: :,. .,,.:.. ...._ .,:,. v . �...;:. � .... ... :.c;'�„%Y' ..✓......:rc:"f,r..:lY:.-rlv%!!.-::c:,I<S.. s.� . . :fu1c�5»E'i%r:b'H.' �.'r�f/!.ri'ill�rY%i;i;sG7;�:f•:;y-i,�f':,u.;:.<;':".`.;r..':";:: . K ...... :.:: ::. ...,.......::: :: �y: : n..:..�..�r.... . :. ,.,...::.,:....,.,.�:r;.: r. .,-,,,..... . ... . _.. ,,. . . ., ... . . .ti::<�':'i�='fS::F:%.:.:...y:;,,.;,::'i:_'�:;�:.-:.. . ::: � ........ ... .. .....:,:�:::.::::..u.:...!..;t:�:� i:;� ��:.. ;. ;..... .:...:: ,..,:: y..,:.. ::.:.. ,.:.:tt!:.::; ::: . i�. q. _.:::� �:.: ....:: r.�:: �:._::.::.::. : .:. ..... ,� ...........:. ..... ;.;. _. ... : .... �..�...:::..:.:::::::,:>::::.�: �. � ,F... .....�.:..:,. ... ...�......,<::.r.+:i..... ..:......y.J..-.;...:�.:f..: .:.;;..:.�:.... .._..... .... . ... . . ... . ....... .... . .. ._....... .... a .......... . ... . ..... ... .:.:.,':. .. ...... ..,�. . ......... . . .. .. . ... . . . �l'i ........: . . .. . . � ..... . .. . : .; :.: ..: .::.�: . . ......... . ... . . . . . . .. .. .o ... ......�.% ...� .i�......., J,. .. ,. . :.. .,•v.,.... . .,f.;;:.;::.. . n �, :.�........ .v,r..;...':'„ ............�. :.-:...:�.y::: .:: ..u:r: : �� . _.: � �.: �.I.�..:.. . .... x v:.!� .: ::::::: ...:..x...� n1 . i .Y.. +V... ...... ...1..�...rl�.::: i:.. f,.y:.,f,f.,..AGe . ....... ..... .........:.:::.. ..; . : ...�.x:..�i.rr r �.....: .. i.... .. h... ... �/i.�:.....v...r.:..:::':..; .:. ..:.:n:,-�• .. ..... ...�...... ......._.�:: .. r-:h::.;n:'.:•."::••i::::::.�.::::.:'�i?:i:::N.....4.:...y:..:e.�y.:;ii :.:..:.....:. .:n.:n. .. �.:::... ...�...: n..... rrJ }r.. _.�.e ni..... .ni.n . .vin ....... .�.�... ...... ... .... .w..::.::� .:...:::.:.::L:%.a6M/AY+�.wiY�_ii.:.�fi�:✓�%%J4iA[vFi�w.fb%J:.....::::N.iu:'i.'vi+.-v. � 'n.'..c�i-..i...�..v>11.< �iF/i1:lH.�if/.1/w.rM.�roi+..,-...:i iri'" �i:'f.J.v::iii::i:�iili: � . . The staff proposal is to create a separate section of the zoning code, where the regulations for view corridors wili be located. Staff believes fhat an appropriate location for these � standards is in the Design Review sect'r�on. At tnis time, the view corridors are referenced only in the Vail Viltage Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff believes that development outside Vail Vil{age can impact established view corridors, and that there should be a section of the code applicable to all development areas. Staff also believes that lacating the standard in the Design Review section in the zoning code will bring more attention to the fact that the Tawn � does have established view corridors which aH development must comply with. Staff is not proposing to modify any of the recently proposed view corridor ordinance changes. The proposed view corridor over the Red Lion and Christiania has not changed and is included in the recommendations to CounciL The new section is proposed to have subsections describing the views individually. Following those general descriptions, staff is planning t� incorporate the legal descriptions for each view. Administrative responsibilities wi11 be defined, describing who wilf reguiate the view corridors, wh�n nPw cQn�#ruction should be checked to ensure it does not encroach into view corridors, and a genera� statement estadiishing the legai b�sis �br ��aiect��g ihe e�r�id�rs a�d prohibiting new construction from encroaching into the view corridors. As discussed in previous PEC hearings, the new standards will prohibit encroachments, including mechanical equipment. The new ordinance wiil also clarify that the more restrictive height applies when comparing zoning district standards to the of the view corridor standards. The ordinance that will go to Council establishing this new section will also modify "Section G af #hs Vail V911ags Urban Design Considerations" so that it is consistent with the new section of the zoning code. Because of the major changes in the arganization of the proposed view corridor ordinance, staff thought it was appropriate to bring it to the PEC for preliminary review. At this time, the PEC will be voting on the proposal, giving a recommendation to the Council for their final approval. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recornmend to Town Counci! that the proposed changes be approved. Staff believes that the clarity of the new ordinance, and the relocation of it in the zoning code, instead of the Urban Design Considerations, will increase the awareness of the regulations and clarify the standards for development. c:lpedv iewcotrlviewcort.422 � 1 ; ��}1. j \ �" \ � 0\'�� 1 \� �� 4 � • � �� ,�,�` t �� 1�1 � �� ORDII3ANCE NO. 13 Series of 1991 � �� . � J C �'"'"' �� , � AN ORDIPIANCE AMENDZN6 SECTION G OF THE VASL VZLLAGE IIRHAN DESI6N CONSIDERATIONS RELAT2NG TO THE PROTECTION OF VIEWS WITHIN TfiE TOWN OF VAIL AND CRF.ATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO ��a✓��( �.( 1�� "�� t � L W�� WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the ,� \�'- preservation of certain existing view corridors i� essential to the f�� character of Vail as a mountain resort community; and -�� ,u ,� WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect and enhance the � ��` Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; and ,' � WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enhance �__.I j .� (`1 �J�1�• the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and �V �� WHEREAS the amendment will more clearly identify existing view � �� , corridors and development procedures for the public s benefit; � ;��(�� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN ��` OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: �� 1. Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby v modified to read as follows: ParaQraph G Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibili�y, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant and obvious view coxridors have been _ adopted as part of the Design Review standards in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public plazas, and include views ' i of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, or the Clock Tower. The views � -,:i of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower, which have been adopted . ; _._. ;: � - ? : � _ ; I' ��--------._ _ ; ' : ::__ ...:,_., ':, ._ _.. � . _ _. _.__. . I i `_ I � � by ordinance, were chosen due to tneir sigr.iiican�Ce, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientationllreierence points for pedestrians. Development in the Vail Village shall not �ncroach into any adopted view corridor. Adopted corridors are ],isted in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view _ corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways must be identified and mitigated where r.eeded. 2. Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is _ hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 tn read as follows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors 18.73.010 - Purpose A. The protection and perpetuation of certain panoramic mountain views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town is required in the interests of posterity, civic pride and the general welfare of the people of the Town of Vail; B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain existing panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the citizens and visitors to the Town; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; E. The preservation of such views will protec�=and enhanc�. i the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; �' a`� � F. The preservation of such views will pr�mote good design. �-::�i _�... _. _ . ' i i w,; � • �+.� - } /' _� � ; � � � �� `��'� ` ' ��, �v;rL�� \ ��- -� � . ' M a ��V-g.y� . . ��F�`�:�-. _.-.�.-.,..-_ 18.73.020 - Adoption of View Corridor Leqa,�. Descri�ilons and \t � ��, /; PhotoQraphs �,� ` / �� The photographs on record with the Community `H�velopmen�..- ' Department and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. J , '` �,��. : �r��-� �'�z,�-- � � ��Ci" �"'`�=-`l � f� �'': �� , 2 � i I � � A. A view from the soutn side of the Va' 1 Trar.spo�tation Center from the main pedestrian stairway iooki g towar: *_he ski slopes; View Point �1 Instrument - View Point �1 Backsight - Traverse Point #1 Height of instrument above View Point #1 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm , Horizonal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight Point on Photo 358 47' 76 41' A 358 97' 85 49' B 12 06' 89 19' C 15 00' 89 17' D 22 14' 86 54' E 35 18' 85 92' F 38 17, 76 21' G , B. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski slopes between the Golden Peak Building and the Hill Building; View Point #2 Instrument - View Point #2 Backsight - View Point #4 Height of Instrument Akiove View Point #2 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm I_ 3 i - . _ �. _ ; ' : ; , . .. � _ : , : , : - . :; 0 Horizontal Angle � zenith l�nqle � Fqresight Point o Photo 287 30' �4 35' Fi 289 40' 90 17' B 299 02' 92 47' C 301 51' ----�4 10' D . I; � �L� C. The ndsth� corner of �4 Wall Street looking over the \_�_,= ,'` Rs Lion and Christiania roofs toward the Gore Range. The legal _ __ _._ _ _ _. _.._ _ ___ _ -- - � -- __.., � �� f � , . �,� _ a�--�_.; � pr..l 1 �"" �' � GM �X �i,�=i f h} - �,j � desc a tion for thi� `�r co�id �-�`ill ---ia��wr s�?M ls ' �',h'j, P � U � � r �, ,, � �-_ __--- --- - __ __ --- —.._..__ __._ ..__ _. __ _.__�. ,_._.__. _ -- � __.:__.�_. ; fo r ' V— ' ies 1 / � , �;� dei �* '� � p � w Board r� �� , a , / e a e o second rea -i�g�o -Qrcrrnazra.�, '� f,;� �f �f.cc View Point #4 ,�,( Instrument - View Point #4 b��- Backsight - To Be Determined �� Height of Instrument Above View Point #4 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 50 mm G��G�� `� � �� D. View of the Gore Range from'Ha' nson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of the Mill Creek Court Building: View Point #5 Instrument - View Point #5 � Backsight - Focal Point #1 - - Height of Instrument Above View Point #15 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Fbresight Point On Photo 201 31� 81 24' A 206 53' 85 03' B i 210 24' 85 11' C 213 09' 84 03' D - � 213 09' 83 00' E � _ . ,. .-- _. � , q ' . ., I ,. 1 i: i I I` ' � �' E. Looking east to the Gore Range from !,Gore Creek Drive between the Lodge at Vail retail shops and the Gore Creek Plaza , ' i Building. f:. _,', ��,L� , �,, C� Vier+ Point #6 '� r� �� S�f�� / '�� Instrument - View Point #6 r v �� l;� Backsight - Traverse Point #2 �t {�'� CF�� 1 Height of Instrument Above View Point #6 - 5_4 feet C�� t(.l ✓- Lens used in photograph - 35 mm � �y'�� Y,s �•s Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight Point��iL on Photo � �,i ' 356 55' 81 00' A ��;�� °� 357 32' 83 19' B U�'` ��+ � 0 0 4 6' 8 3 13' C �v,�"� O 1 5 9' 8 5 2 6' D' `'�� 12 43' 85 26' E 12 51' 80 10' F 12 12' 78 58' G 13 07' 73 06' H 18.73.030 - Limitations on Construction No structure shall be permitted to encroach above the view corridor boundary identified with the dashed tape set forth on each - cf the adopted photographs. The boundaries are determined by the legal descriptions listed in Section 18.73.020. Copies of the photographs and legal descriptions are on file with the Community Development Depart��tlt: ��'o�„the purposes of this Chapter, the term ` ,�' � structure shal�` include but�`�ot be limited to, new buildings, � �(c rEs. 'r, building expan�sions,�remodels,,�ttechanical equipment, vents, ducts, satellite dishe�.�;,fenceS,---�toplights, light poles, utility poles, �-': skylights or any similar objects. �`-'- - 18.73.040 - Mass and Bulk Controls A. Proposed Buildinq Expansions in the ViCinity of Existinq S� �}� Encroachments 1 When any proposed structure infringes upon a Town of Vail view corridor, but is located in front of or behind another structure - 5 , � s which'already encroaches into the same view cllorridor, the new structure shall not be permitted. B. View Corridor Heiqht Control If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height limitation defined by the view orridor, the more restric(jtive�height regulation sha�l a ply. �.// ' //� � ` I�'Ua"' 1 '1��.( �Z� � L i^'`' C.{✓'.-L L�� / �{ ��,.N.j, F ��.C,(. � t. - . /• `� � � l � � � . . 18.73.050 - Submitt�l ReQUirements � � % �\. The following information shall be submitted along �iti�--a Design Review Board application, exterior alteration application, any variance application, or any other application that may pertain - to view corridors, so that the Town staff can properly evaluate whether a structure complies with this view corridor chapter:, A. Existing and proposed elevations of the development; B. Photographs taken from the adopted view point which indicate the present improvements which protrude into, or are in the vicinity of the view corridor, and a graphic representation on the photographs of how the proposed improvements wi11 appear with relation to existing improvements and view corridor boundaries. Photographs to be submitted must be taken from tY}e same point used to define the corridor, with the same lens size, and with the camera set at a height of 5.9 feet above the pavement. C. If necessary, the Community Developme�t Department may - require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittal materials which show the potential impact the structure could have upon the __ protected view corridor if constructed. 18.73.060 - Amendments ar�d Appeals ' j ; A. Amendments +� ��- � \ / -... . , o adopted vievi.._corriddrs or I the adop�,�on.�"�f \ �• addi ' al view��orridors shall be initially reviewed��by the �, ,.. � Planning an Environina.ntal Commission;•' whickhi" shall give a . \ . �ecommendation to t Town Co'Za�-ii�. f'The T�Wn Council shall hear , t;he proposal twice and approV+�,it by two readings of an j o�dinance before e view corF-sdor'' comes offi�ially adopted. No � osed without`-�a 1-------- ---- _ ructure ma�1 encroach into a adopted view_ corrido� -- _,..�;_- ../ ° rL_�__mefldment _,to_ the_ established view co ' dor--b�undary . _ 6 i . � � B. A�peals ' If a determination is made by staff that a p oposed struc*_ure would encroach into an adopted view corridor, he applicant may appeal the determination to the Planning a d Environmental � ii� � Commission, according to Section 18.66.030. !� 18.73.070 - E�emptions ��ti�� ,, � ° .i � A structure which is presently located in' an adopted view �� V corridor may remain and, if destroyed by natural causes, may be replaced to its current size and height, provided such reconstruction takes.._place_within_one_year follo ing destruction: H.� . �\\ Qypa� e�;�a . � � , n,- .�-, . �`�` . . . . . _ -- - �; �` . ... _._ ' ? --.._" ..��.v....:. ._-._..___.._ � -�` �\ . 3. If any part, section, subsection, ser�tence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held td be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declarres it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, sect�on, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. � 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determ nes and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for t e health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabita ts thereof. 5. The repeal or the repeal and reenactmen of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this or inance shall not � affect any right which has accrued, any duty impo�ed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof� any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as dommenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed ald reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive� any provision or , zny ordinance previously repealed or supersededl�unless expressly ' stated herein. 7 _ __ �\ V f�. . _ _ _---- _ _ _----- _ _---- __, . • � i j. . i • INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST ItEADING, F�PPROV�D AND ORDERED I PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of I , 19�1. F� public hearing shall be held hereon on th� _ day ci , 1991, at the regular meeting of th!e Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. � Rent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk ` READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk : � _ ;'. ' � 8 � ,. - - ;;-. : _. I L _ ' � : ` � ` �` ' , ��. (F,�;�'� � � �x� �`'� ��: z � _----- ---- -- . __ � . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1991 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 p.m. 1. Ten Year Employment Anniversary Award to Kurt Gordon. 7:35 p.m. 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 7:40 p.m. 3. Approval of Minutes of Apri1 2 and April 16, -- 1991. 7:45 p.m. 4. Consent Agenda - Shelly Mello , A. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, also known as the Dauphanais- - Mosely Subdivision to provide changes to - Special Development District No. 22, that certain lot size and corresponding - GRFA, employee dwelling units and architectural guidelines, and setting _ forth details in regard thereto. Action Requested of Council: Approve/Deny request. ' Backqround Rationale: The applicant is requesting a number of changes to the approved SDD. These requests include changes to GRFA and site coverage in addition to changes to the architectural quidelines (see memos for details.) Staff Recommendation: Please see � attached for staPf and PEC recommendations. Staff recommends approval of the requested amendments to the ordinance. PEC voted 5-1 to approve � the request with conditions. Kristan Pritz B. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1991, second reading an ordinance rezoning three -_ i tracts from hillside residential zoning, Section 18.09 to greenbelt and natural open space zoning, Section 18.38 within a parcel, commonly referred to as �.:; Spraddle Creek, an approximately 40 _- square parcel located north and east of -; the main Vail interchange and east of - the Spraddle Creek Livery. I Action Requested of Council: � Approve/deny ordinance. Background Rationale: �'his rezoning is � an implementation of the final PEC subdivision approval. The PEC Voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning to the Council. Staff Recommendation: `To approve _ , rezoning. ' . . - . _ � . . ' . . ' - ' . � . . . � . . y4 ��,� . .. - " i- - - __ _ --- ---- -- - ----� - -- � ' . � � Andy Knudtsen C. Ordinance No. 12, Series 1991, second reading. Modifications to deed restrictions on Manor Vail property located between Vail Valley Drive and Ford Park, immediately north of the main Manor Vail building. (Applicants: Town of Vail and Manor vail). Action Reauest of Council: Approve/Deny/Modify ordinance No. 12, series 1991 on second reading. Backaround Rationale: The Town conveyed a strip of right-of-way to Manor Vail in 1977. On the deed, the Town listed 6 restrictians, and stated these restrictions would expire in 1997. This Ordinance, if approved, will direct the Town Manager to sign an agreement modifying those restrictions to: 1. Allow Manor Vail to construct a portion of their building on the former right-of-way, and 2, Make the other restrictions - permanent, including the public pedestrian access easement to Ford Park. The proposed agreement, the 1977 deed, the 1977 resolution and the proposed _ _ ordinance are attached and provide more - detailed information on this request. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 12, Series 1991. '�; 8:00 p.m. 5. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, first �' Andy Knudtsen reading, adopting a fifth view corridor and revising the current language regulating view � corridors. (Applicant: Town of Vail), IAction Reciuested of Council: � 4 Approve/Deny/Modify Ordinance No. 13, Series 1 ; of 1991 o_ri_..�£i-�s�-�ea-��ag _...___ _______ �y J" Y" �'� Backqround Rationale: The Planning and r'V�� I Environmental Commission voted 6-0 on March � �` 11, 1991, recommending approval of a fifth ' view corridor. The view corridor, as j ;J � proposed, would extend from Frivolous Sals // I \,`\�Z�ok_ing east to the Gore Range over the Red .;! - Lion an��s.tyania roofs. D' � � adopting this corridor was reinitiated i recently when the Red Lion redevelopment was I reviewed. Since that time, staff has been working with the property owners in the area ; to define this corridor. "� I jAt a previous Town Council worksession regarding this proposal, the Council asked for a clear indication of the proposed + Christiania expansion in relation to the view � � corridor. The attached photographs show the corridor as it exists today, and as it will be after the Christiania expansion is built. The Ordinance is worded so that all 1 development proposals with Design Review Board final approval, as of the date of second reading of this Ordinance, will be able to be built. However, if an existing � $ _ . : � . i,,•� a , .. . � i � � �' DRB approval expires, the de�}elop�ent iproposal will not be able to'be built. ' In addition to proposing an dditional view � corridor, staff has reorgani�ed the language regulating view corridors, a�,d has created a � new chapter in the Zoning Code for this i regulation. Staff is planning to have the legal description for View #1 revised, since . � the staircase to the transportation center has been rebuilt. The attached PEC memo and ordinance explain the changes in more detail. Staff Recommendation• Approve Ordinance No. �I 13, Series 199L ! 8:20 p.m. 6. Adjournment i_ _- -. . _,:.. _ ... � ' _ I , - : � _ ; - i ,. _ _- .. . i; ., :. _ . . i:. _ _. _ i _ _ " , .:. i- _ : _ ,. _ , � . .. _. �. � . _. _.. i _ . A:\TCexpand ''i . ., � ' i� � . ',. - . . . . ..- .... : i � i� . . . .. ...._ ..: .: ..'- - ,_.'- �-.��. I:�. . . � .- .�-. � � .. �. � � ..� . . .� � � .. , �� . I. " � . - . . .. . .. . . , . . . � . . �_. � � -- .. .' ..;�: , ._� � - . I j: I _ _ , I _ � : l_. -_ _ _. —.._ —: < ��A. : ! � r PLANNING AND EN�IRQNMENTAL COMMISSION - April 22, 1991 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Connie Knight Jill Kammerer Ludwig Kuiz Andy Knudtsen Kathy Langenwalter ' Shelly Mello Jim`Shearer Amber Blecker Gena Whitten The worksession was called to order at 2:17PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. L A request for a worksession to consider an application to rezone propertv �enerally � located west of the Town of Vail Public Works shops from Ag�-icultural and Open Space to Public Use District. The specific description of the property is as follows: That part of the North 1/2 of Section 8 Township 5 South, Ran�e 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian Ea�le CountY Colorado lyin� north of Interstate Hi�hway No. 70 and bein� more particularly described as follows: Beginnin� at the NE corner of said Section 8• thence along the northerly line of said Section 8 S89 46'27"W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section 8 S(}0 23'03"W a distance of 529.8b ft to a point on the northerly � RQW line of I-70� thence alon� the northerly ROW line of I-70 following two courses: l� S75 28'18"E a distance of 180.$2 ft to a point of curvature; ;j � 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, havin� a radius of 5580.00 ft, a ` � centrai an�le of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89 36'34"E 1324J0 ft `:; distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8; Thence departin� said ROW line of I-70 N00 23'03"E alon� the easterly line of said Section 8 a disunce of 572.10 ft to the point of be�innin�� containin� 20.480 acres more or less. � 1 � ` � , The above �iescription is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the property described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearin� for the above � parcel is the northerlv line of Section 8 being �89 46'27"W as shown on said annexation plais_ Applicant: Town of Vail Andy Knudtsen stated the purpose of this worksession was to discuss the rezoning of the parcel from Agricultural/Open Space to Public L'se District. The proposed zone has three permitted uses, consisting of public parks, playground and open space; pedestrian and bicycle paths; and seasonal structures ar uses to accommodate educational, recreational or cultural activities. Any other uses of the zone district are canditional uses, in which case the Planning and Environmental Commission sets the standards. Greg Hall explained the location of the stakes for a proposed snow dump which were seen on the site inspection and where the berm would be located. He also clarified what cuts would need to be made and what the elevatians of the proposed snow dump would be. Chuck Crist asked what the typical snow volume for the Town is, and Pete Burnett answered that it is averages 60,0�0 cubic yards. 7im Shearer asked why the height of the berm wasn't raised to increase the capacity of the dump, to which Greg answered that the project was still in the planning stages with the landscape architect, and the final berm slope had not yet been determined. A major constraint in this regard, however, was that the slope along the highway portion of the proposed dump could not exceed 2: l, with a 1 1 J2:1 slope on the Town Shop side. Chuck inquired how much snow typieally accumulates. Pete indicated that the high end was 120,OQ0 cubic yards, which was plowed by the Town during the 1982 season. Chuck asked if the proposed dump would eliminate the other dumps around the Town. Greg replied that the �4 intent was to do just that, and to remove the snow stprage from the parks. Pete further 4 explained that this dump would be for Town of Vail snow only. Connie Knight clarified that � the proposed dump wouid eliminate dumping into Gore Creek. � Kathy Langenwalter asked where the drainage from the pxoposed snow dump would be. Greg Hall said there is an existing culvert under I-70 which wouid be utilized. There would be a water quality pond, with a 40 hour retention period, constructed to fiiter suspended solids from the water. Jim asked if a sand filter would also be used, and Greg replied the baffels in the fiItration system would filter out any oil contained in the water. He continued to say that the pond would not eliminate salts, though the Town does not use much salt in their sanding mixture. Greg stated that Aspen utilized the same type of pond_ � 2 i - i ' � � ' � �, f _ � � i I i C � I Chuck asked if the snow in the dump would be gone by June. Pete replied that the current snow dumps srill show signs of snow and ice in August due to the use of cinders in sanding. Greg conrinued to say that every 2-3 years, the cinders would be cleaned out of the dump to increase storage space. Kristan Pritz asked if the detention ponds would be underground. Greg answered they would be along the berm, with a pipe regulating the out flow rate. The Town was examining the soil permeability to determine what the specific site conditions were. Diana said that when the Transportation Task Force had examined the possibility of pIacing a highway off-ramp at `_ i this Iocation, they had been told there was extremely unstable soil at this locarion and the hill ! sfiould not be cut. ' Greg clarified for the Commissioners that the slope of a 1 1/2:1 berm would be less steep than the current berm in front of the Public Works shops, and aspen and pines wouId be placed on the berm. Diana asked if the road would have ta be placed at the upper edge of the berm. Greg indicated the cost and the fact that the snow could only be worked on at certain times dictated rhP pta�Pment of the road. Mike Mollica wondered why the road could not be widened to accommodate two way traffic, but Pete stated there would be too great a volume loss in the dump itself. Greg explained to the Commission that after a load of snow was dumped, a night crew would then come in and move the snow around to an ayprapriate location. A one- way looped road would be more efficient, as that would allow the end loader drivers would be able to dump the snow on the edge and drive forward, out of the dump. Providing a turnaround area for the large trucks instead of a looped road would reduce the capacity of the dump. Diana stated there was a great need far a new snow dump, as the current arrangements were a disgrace. 1fie proposed dump would be a balancing act, as it was a hage project. She was concerned about the upper road being visible for some residents on the golf course. Mike asked if that road would be paved, and Greg clarified it would be gravel. Diana questioned if the dump and road would be lit, to which Greg answered the lighting would be similar to the current Town shop lights. Diana said that this was a very important eoncern. ;I Pete explained the lights would not be on all the time, but that the shops are very busy, nearly on a 24 haur basis, and that lighring was unportant. Greg reiterated the lights would not be on continually. Andy asked if the lights on the loaders would be sufficient. Pete replied if all they were doing was pushing snow, they would be, but not if they were hauling the snow in. He thought it would be unusual for the lights to be on very often, as the night shift would only be working if there was a large quanrity of snow, as in 1982. 3 _... ... i i� , Greg said that one of the conditions for the conditional use could be the lights would only go on when the dump was in use. Pete continued that a system similar to the bus tunnel could be used where, when a bus entered the tunnel, a beam would be broken, turning on the lights. The Iights would go off when the truck left. Diana said she had no problem with the location, but was concerned with the rezoning and subsequent conditi�nal use that no building would be visible from the mountain. Greg stated the only building being considered would be a storage area built into the berm, and would not be noticeable. Diana was also concerned that the shop area not extend to Spraddle Creek She also indicated the police use of an adjacent area for target practice was prohlematic. Pete told Diana the target range had recently been moved from that location permanently. Connie Knight wondered if the provision of a snow dump could be accommodated on this � location without rezoning. Kristan answered that, unless the PEC wished to change the zoning code itself, it would not be possible. I�ristan further recommended against proceeding in that direction. Diana asked what the lease term on the property was with VA. Greg ans��ered the current term was 3 years. Diana questioned if the PEC could make the rezoning contingent on a longer lease term. She also indicated she believed VA should be the applicant, as they were the owners of the land. Staff clarified that the Town was the enrity requesting the rezoning, and as such, was the applicant, but that VA had signed the applicarion as the owner. Further, _ Diana was concerned that VA would perhaps build seasonal structures on the site if it were '. rezoned and subsequently returned to VA. Connie stated her hesitance to rezone the property without a longer lease from VA. She said it would be nice to move the dump from the current creek location, but that she didn't want ' all the work to be returned ta VA after only 3 years. � Chuck Crist didn't think the rezoning would resuit in' VA gaining a benefit, as the use on the � site would be restricted. He thought of this land as "junk land" which could not be built upon without a further application to the Commission. Greg thought the only thing VA would ' want to build was, perhaps, employee housing. Diana wondered if there was legal access to this site. Greg answered there was a 50 foot right-of-way thraugh the bus barn access. Chuck strongly encouraged a longer lease be negotiated. Greg responded by explaining the negatiation process. The Town had originally requested a 20 year lease term, or outright purchase. Due to VA's legal status, they were unable and/or unwilling to either remove proper[y from their assets, or place property on a lease of that duration. However, VA had requested as a part of the lease that if the snow dump were removed from the land in the 4 i � , f future, the property would revert back to an Agricultural/Open Space zoning. Unfortunately, that could not legally be placed in the iease agreemenc. Kathy Langenwalter ab eed with Diana and Chuck, and was concerned with the visibility of the high road. She preferred a 2-way road along the top. She requested the roadline be staked for the next site visit, and to determine if the road would be visible from the golf course homes. She was very concerned with any proposed lighting of the dump, but would accept a condition that it would only be lit when work was being perfarmed. She also stated her concern that the hillside be revegetated with sage. As a taYpayer, she was apprehensive about a 3 year lease. Pete indicated this was about the only suitable site for a snaw dump which had adequate drainage. With the current concerns aver air and water quatity, he felt the move to this locarion was essentiaL Greg said the dnmp would not be cheap to develog, and he did not feel the Council would allow a$500,000 investment to be wasted. Ludwig Kurz commented he believed the rear road would be visible, and he asked that the impacts of this be mitigated in some way. Pete told the Commissioners the road had originally been designed at a higher eIevatio�, and had been brought down to help the view impacts. Greg said they would further examine the view corridors to the proposed site and determine the visibility of the road. Jir� Shearer stated the sit� was a defnite r.ee�, and tha? the proposal, �verall, appeared to be good. However, he was also concerned about the views and the revegetation of the hillside. He asked if juniper, which the Post Office had used, would be an appropriate landscape material. Pete replied it would have to be re-planted every year, but they were planning on revegetating for erosion control. Jim continued that, even with the site difficulties, he was in favor of moving the snow dump from its present locations. 3im questioned the $SOO,Q00 for site dev�lopment, and G*eg explained most of the cost was for hauling the dirt, design and � tandscaping of the site. However, if it turned out there was good quality topsoil on the site, it would offset the cost. Jim said he would like to see an automatic extension in the lease term with a designated interest escalation (perhaps not more than 10%). He asked staff to invesrigate if the rezoning could be made conditianal on the reverting of the site if the snow dump were moved. Kristan agreed to check that provision with Larry Eskwith upon h�s return. She felt the rezonmg should he considered on its own merits. Jim concluded he would like as little light as possible on the site without endangering the drivers. Greg noted they would be returning to the Commission on May 13 with a request for rezoning, but stated they would not have a final design for the snow dump at that rime. He asked if the Commission would like to see anything eise at the May 13 meeting. Diana replied she would like to see the road impacts determined more clearly, as well as investigating a longer lease term. She stated requiring a longer lease term as a condition of S � 1 � � rezoning may not be the prerogative of the Commission, but that a rezoning for three years may not be appropriate. Gena Whitten joined the meeting at this time, but had no eomments as she had missed the site visit. Kristan reminded the Commissioners they needed to base their decisian on the rezoning on whether a Public Use District zoning was appropriate on this site in gener�dl. The public hearing was called to order at 3:20PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. L A request for a setback variance Forbes Residence Texas Townhouses 4B and SB, Lot 4B/SB Vail Villa�e Fourth Filin�/ 483 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Walter Forbes Chuck Crist moved to table this item to the May 13, 1991 meeting. Connie Knight seconded that motion. The Commissioners voted unanimously, 7-0, in favor of the table. 2. A rec�uest for a setback variance MacCormick Residence Texas Townhouses 6B, Lot bB Vail Villa�e Fourth Filing_/483 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Alexander MacCormick Mike Mollica explained that this request was a straight forward variance request. The lot was zoned High Density Multi-Family, which meant there was a 20 foot side setback requirement. h T T h ' all bdi 'd d th 1 t wer established as 25 feet When t e exas own ouses were ongin y su vi e, e o s e wide, with a 0 side setback. Therefore, any changes to the buildings required a setback �� variance. There was no GRFA or site coverage increase with this request. The request consisted of raising the roof on the north side by 3-4' in order to gain head room. r -existin non- a the ro ert was a e Staff recommended a roval of this re uest, s p y p g _ PP 9 P . . . . _ conform�ng lot. There would be no impact on the neighbors from this request. � Diana Donovan clarified that these were townhauses, not condos, and there was no property in common. Cannie Knight moved that the request for a setback variance for the MacCormick Residence, Texas Townhouses 6B, Lot 6B, Vail Village Fourth Filing/483 Gore Creek Drive be approved per the staff inemo,' with the finding that the variance was warranted by the fact that Lhe strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. Chuck Crist secanded the above motion. The motion passed, 7-0. 6 i � � � '� , � ; , ;: � i.. � � �. In the interests of time, item 3 was postgoned to a la�er rime in the meeting. 4. Apneal of calcuiation af GRFA for Primary/Secondary units under 1991 re�ulations. Appeliant: Ned Gwathmey ' Kristan Pritz expiained the staff would agree to calcutate GRFA as requested by Mr. Gwathmey, and that this item was not actuaily an appeal, but more a clarificarion request from staff ta the Commission on the direction to take with regard to requests such as this. She explained the reason the bonuses were calculated on a bQ/40 basis was that this was how the original language in the code had divided up credits. The code ailowed for credits to be allocated per unit or paoled into one unit. Ned had brought to the attention of staff that if th 850 sq. ft. was added to the total GRFA and then the 60/40 split was calculated, tI�e second unit would not get the full benefit of the credits. An equal allotment of 425 sq. ft. seemed to be more fair to Ned. Staff was willing to calculate the GRFA by using the formula based on lot size and then add 425 sq. ft. per unit. However, staff did not want to be responsible for dividing the 850 sq. ft. of GRFA between two owners. The secondary unit would sripulate the GRFA cap of 40% + 425 sq. ft. The bottom line was that total GRFA + 850 sq. ft. shalt not be exceeded under any circumstances, and Primary/Secondary lots will not be allowed to have a secondary vnit that exceeds 40% of GRFA + 425 sq. ft. Staff wanted to ensure the PEC was clear on this decision. Chuck Crist asked if the primary unit would be eligible for aII 850 sq. ft. if a secondary unit was not built. Kristan replied it would. After discussions with Jay Peterson, Diana Donovan indicated she was agreement with the staff direction on this issue. Chuck Crist moved the Commission support the staff position outlined in their memo. Connie Knight seconded. The vote was a favorable 7-0. e ' `i , 5. Appeal of calcutation of GRFA as it relates to substantiallv enclosed snace, Mindlin Residence Lot 7 Vail Potato Patch/800 Potato Patch Drive. Appellant: Peter Looms Ji11 Kammerer clarified the bottom line on this appeal was there was a differing code interpretation between staff and appellant. The existing structure had a covered entrance with three flaor-to-ceiling openings which were non-contiguous. The Iineal openings of these areas totalled 26% of the space, and cod.e only required a 25% lineal opening. However, the code speci�ed the openings must be contiguous. Peter Looms, architect for the Mindlins, agreed that the openings did not meet the code requirement for contiguous openings, but that no one connected with the house had ever _ __ _ 7 � � a.' 'd d th a enclQSed s ace If it were counted in that manner appro�cimately 350 ,• consi ere e area s p . � sq. ft. of GRFA would be lost and the expansion potenriai for the residence would be severely impacted. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with the staff interpreta�on of the code, stating this was a massing issue. The Zoning Code Task Force had specifically addressed this issue, with a great deal of time spent thinking and examining what the provisions should be. The Task Force had carefully loo4ced at whether posts could be allowed, but had determined they could not. Chuck Crist agreed with Kathy's assessment. Cannie Knight indicated this proposal was exactly what was to be eliminated. She asked Mr. Loc�ms if the posts were structural supports. He indicated they were, but also stated they were solely architect�'al elements. _ Ludwig Kurz felt the question was a mass and bulk issue and agreed with the staff position. Gena V�'hitten also agreed. Jim Shearer agreed with staff's position, but quesrioned the interpretation if the space had turned a corner with a corner post. Kathy Langenwalter indicated the Task Force had speciiically talked about that, and decided the space needed to be conriguous. Otherwise, support beams could become 4' posts. Chuck Crist moved to uphold staff's decision regarding the GRFA question far the Mindlin residence. Jim Shearer seconded the motion, and a unanimous, 7-0, Commission upholding the decision. 6. Presentation of staff policy decision on calculatin� GRFA as it relates to residences in primary/secondary zone district. Kristan Pritz indicated to the Commissioners staff had been making interpretations of the new � GRFA policy, and was making this `presentation to ensure they were acting in accordance ' with the intent of the policy, and the direcrion the PEC wished staff to take. The i Commissioners upheld all of the staff decisions presented. At this time, the Commission returned to Item 3. 8 I I_ l , 1 ( k � `3�! A reauest to amend ihe 7,anin� Ccxle addin� a section to identifv ail approve� �!iew ��` corri�ors and to set forth de�ils �rith reaard tt7ereta. Applicant: Tawn af Vail Andy Knudtsen explained this as a refUrmatting of the previously given information. The information was better organized, and wauld be placed in the Design Review section of the zoning code. Kathy Langenwalter asked why the decision had been made to place the view comdor information in the Design Review secrion. Andy ans�vered that the original thought had been to create a new chapter, but that staff decided it would be rr�ore useful in Design Review. If an applicant came in and asked for building requirements, they would be automatically given ' the Design Review criteria in their packet. The goal was to make the provisions as clear as possible and acceptable to ihe public. Kathy wondered if this actuaIly would clarify the guidelines. She thought that perhaps placing the provisions in the Commercial Core I zone district would be more beneficial. Andy replied there were some view corridors which :' I extended beyond CCI, and that future view corridors may be adopted which affect areas outside CCL Kathy Lan�enwalter svg�ested the language under the amendment section of the proposed ordinance could be elarified. She proposed it read: "No proposed structure may encroach into an adopted comdor without an amendment to the established view comdor boundary." In addition, she said that Paragraph 8, dealing with rebuilding non-conforming structures, would be improved if the standard would allow destroyed structures to be rebuilt to the previous height, as well as size. A third revision she proposed wauld re-word Paragraph 6(C) so that it emphasized that the eneroachments into the view corridor would be the proposed expansions, not existing buildings. � Andy clarified that if a proposed building would encroach in a view corridor, a fu1l view comdar amendment would be required, including PEC and Town Council reviews. Kristan stated that staff wanted a specific process set forth in the future so that if a project such as the Red Lion was proposed, there would be a clear procedure for amendments. She indicated Larry Eskwith would review the specifics of the ordinance before it was presented to Town Council. Kathy was also concerned that the Ianguage "no existing structure located in a view corridor shall be expanded or enlarged" would prohibit any Ciock Tower expansion or remodel. Kristan said that the language applied more directly to buildings other than the Clock Tower, like the Golden Peak House. Diana wanted to clarify that the part in the view corridor could not be expanded, bnt a pomon of the building whieh was not in the view corridor would nat be limited. Chuck Crist asked for a clarification from page 5 regazding an existing structure within the view corridor. If it were torn down intentionally, would the Town allow it to be rebuiit . , 9 , � ` � exactly as it was. Mike explained the purpase of this language was to phase out non- conforming structures when they came in for redevelopment However, natural causes for a .. .. ... .::.... demolition (fire, etc.} would be exempted. Chuck asked about demolition because of an unsafe building due to deterioration over time. Mike indicated that the nonconforming clause � would only pertain to destruction by natural causes. Jim Shearer wondered if the Clock Tower should be specifically excluded. Diana believed the Clock Tower, as an indicated focal point, was protected in both the ol� version of the ordinance and the proposed ordinance. Andy clarified it was a goal of the Town to preserve designated focal points, and that the Clock Tower was referenced as a focal point in the first part of the propased ordinance. � ��c� � c� Chuck Crist as� if a"structure," as indicated in Paragraph 3, would include street lights or trees. Kristan ans��ered thar street lights and public uti:itzes would not be included in that definitio�:. Chuck responded that, Cventua�� could bloi;k the intendeci view. �heily� � ..._ �ated that other communities around the t�a��n had tried to deal with this issue, and it was �. , . ,�jmm�n c�uestion. Chuck cla..nfied he w�'� con+�erned with artitieial structures, suc� '. �reet lights, �ut not �egetatitt�. �'�'he sti`ggestiori m� by D'zana was to add Iauguage to this �"�araa aph which would indicate man-made objects, s ch as street lights, top lights ar,d utiIity ;� .. ; � ' �, would not be allowe�d � � ` Chuck also wondered if the Design Review Board would be the body to review the applications for a change to the view corridors. Kristan answered that the request would go to the PEC and Town Council on an ordinance amendment. Jim Shearer asked if staltes cauld be placed where the photos were taken. Diana replied there were survey points. Kristan clarified that staff would like to place brass caps in the pavement to designate the paint of origin for the view corridors. Jim requested the legal description of the view corridor include not only the height at which the picture was taken, but also the type � of lens used. Mike Mollica stated that would be indicated in the future. Kristan explained that there was no indication on the previous corridors adopted. Diana was positive Dan � Corcoran had that information, and Kristan agreed to look into it. If Dan did not have the information, the comdors would be re-photographed for documentation. � Kathy Langenwalter suggested displaying the corridors in a prominent locarion. Kristan , proposed the planning office. Connie Knight wondered why there was no view corridor including the 4-way stop. Kristan answered that, when the previous view corridor study was done, that particular view comdor was not approved. It was the intent, however, of the planning staff to do another study in the ' Village and Lionshead during the next budget year. � 10 3 i � � Kathy Langeawalter moved to recommend the Town Council amend the Z,oning Code, adding a section to identify all approved view corridors and to set forth details with regard thereto as per the proposed ordinance with the following changes and additions: L Designate the lens type and size for all view corridors. 2. Include objects, such as street lights, stop signs and urility poles as siructures which shonld not be allowed to encroach into a view corridor. 3.' Change the title of Paragraph 4. 4: Modify the last sentence in Paragraph 6(C) so that the encroachments into the view ;� corridor which are discussed clearly called out "proposed encroachments." ;i • :?. 'I 5. Modify the last section of Paragraph 7 so that it reads: "No proposed structure may I encroach into an adopted view comdor without an amendment to the established view corridor boundary." 6. Modify the section of the proposed ordinance dealing with nonconforming buildings so that a reconstruction of a building destroyed by natural causes would not be able to exceed the previous height or size. 7. Inclvde a section in the proposed ordinance so that appeals would be brought to ihe PEC. Jim Shearer seconded the above motion. The unanirrions 7-0 vote was in favor of the recommendation. Before proceeding to the worksession, the Commissioners dispatched the following items: 8. Approval of Lifthouse Lod�e portion of minuCes from March 25, 1991 meering. Chuck Crist moved, and Connie Knight seconded, that the minutes be approved as written. The vote was 7-0 in favor. � 9. Approval of minutes from April 8, 1991 meeting. .'I Jim Shearer moved that the April 8, 1991 minutes be approved as presented with the deletion ; of the last sentence of the next to last paragraph, page 14. Gena Whitten seconded. The � ' minutes were approved as changed 7-0. I 11 I � � 7. Worksession on Master Transportation Plan. Ap�licant: Town af Vail : Greg Hall, Town Engineer, indicated this worksession was to learn what the concems of the FEC were in a more reiaxed atmosphere than the joint PEC/Council session. Kathy Langemvalter expressed her desire to see the changes since the previous worksession. Consultant Arnie Ullevig said the ptan gresented in March had been marked up with the changes requested. He was about to go for a final revision to incorporate those changes, but wanted to be clear on the PEC's direction. ' The first aspect of the plan reviewed was the portion relating to transit. Arnie stated the most significant alteration from the current system was the proposed o�posing bus loops in West VaiL A concern which had been indicated w�s the difficulty in going from Vi'est Vail South to VJest Vail Norch. The opposing loops would help eliminate that problem. The difficulties still to be worked out for tnis proposal were the equipment and scheduling implications. The greatest user impact would be the rider would have to ' b d b d Th S d t te would continue as a determine if the bus was in oun or out oun . e an s one rou separate route. Concerning the in-town shuttle, the people mover possibility was retained as a long term concept, but the more immediate proposal was to go to more of a shuttle vehicle than a bus. The difference was that the passengers wauld be standing for the most part, and there would be a lower step access to the vehicle. The fleet would be modified over time. Arnie showe that the carrying capacity would be significantly increased. In addition, passengers would carrv their skis on the shuttle, and the shuttles would operate on tY�e same route. Jim Shearer expressed concern over people carrying skis in such a confined space. Arnie sa it was up to the Town, but racks could be placed outside the shuttles. Having passengers carry their own skis would lessen the entry and exit time for riders. Greg Hall stated they had gone to Copper Mountain to examine that issue and found it not to be a problem. Copper currently uses a similar vehicle to the one proposed. Arnie said they could talk with the manufactwers to devise a method of carrying the skis, but the ridership is so high, the vehicles needed to be ma�cimized. The use of the shuttle bus option would give adequate service for approximately 10-15 years before another method would need to be investigated. The wording in the Master Plan regarding people movers was the technology would have to be significandy improved. d a 1 � Regarding the routing of the in-town shuttle, Arnie strongly recommended not extending the route to the Frontage Road and mixing it with other vehicles. He said this was particularly important if a standing shuttle were utilized. He did not think the shuttle should be extended past the Lionshead parking structure. Chuck Crist asiced if the shuttle could tum around at 12 � � i � i�� . �' that poirt, and riders going further cou?d use the current bnsses for beyond that point. Arnie E believed that to be a safer option. For the other end of the route, the turnaround at Gold Peak, Arnie's recommendation was to change the location of the turnaround to better ke�p the shuttle from mixing with traffic and delaying the sysiem. Kathy Langenwalter was concerned about the impacts the move would have on children as well as adults, since the relocated turnaround would be further from the day care facility, noi to mention being an uphill hike fmm the stop. Diana thought the existing location was more convenient for people, but worse for traffc impacts. Arnie said the transportation recommendation is to untangle the bus from traff'ic as much as possible. Expressing her difficulty with the p1an, Gena Whitten stated she was eoncerned with the connection to the golf course bus. Arnie said the connection stop would most likely also be moved to match the new location. Kathy wondered about the possibility of taking the shutTle through the Lionshead Mall. Arnie replied the structures in Lionshead would have to be modiiied, as there was currently no clea Iine for a route. Kathy said that, since this was at the master plan level, the Town should place the emphasis on gainir.g right-of-ways when buildings came up for remodel. Jim suggested polling Lionshead merchants, telling them there was a possibility of the in-town shuttle eliminating the Marriort ]oop, and determine their reacrion. He believed ti�at would help the process. n ',� ! ii i Diana was in favor af taking the shuttle off the Frontage Road to Marriott, but stated those passengers would need to be accommodated in anott�er fashion. Greg indicated the West Vail South bus currently stops near the Mamott. Diana expressed her opinion the Marriott loap should be eliminated. Arnie directed the attention of the Commission to the east end of the route, and suggested changing Vail �'a11ey ur:ve t� u: ne-:vay sLree+, and nper�ting a one-way shuttle along it, with the construction of a bridge back to the Frontage Road. He said there would be disadvantages, but felt more problems would be iixed than created. Greg explained the route could be landscaped, and cauld give exclusive bus, pedestrian and vehicle routes. Connie Knight objected to that portion of the plan from a personal standpoint, stating people at the east end of Hanson Ranch Road or Gore Creek Drive would have a much longer drive to Safeway. The next portion of the Master Plan to be reviewed was core area loading and delivery. Arnie said it was clear where the trucks should not ga, but the problem was finding where they should park. Following an explanation of the proposal, Kathy asked if the street parking would be eliminated if a truck parking facility was constructed across from the Christiania. .ShP wac tnlr3 ir wnt�l�l he_ 13 • � Diana declared the loading and delivery time should be restricted ro state the zime when trucks would have to leave the area, not come in. The current procedure only gave the latest rime they could enter the core. Jim was not in favor of covering any portion of the creek to provide parking. "lfie rest of the Commissioners echoed this sentiment. Diana said nothing in the plan would work without the provision af a cencral dock facility. The proposed Cushmans for delivery, the delivery times, etc., were all dependent on that construction. Greg Hall asked if the parking along Gore Creek Drive could be eliminated. The consensus among the Commissianers was it could. Greg said one optian for the proposed parking area was to have car parking on the lower deck, trucks on the Hanson Ranch Road level, and then iandscape a park or green area on top. The Commissioners expressed their approval of such a plan. 3im Shearer wanted a strong recommendation to go to the Town Council that Vail Village is a pedestrian village, and the dollars should be spent to retain that character. Diana further emphasized that the truck docking facility was the most imponant thing the Town could spend money on in the next few years. Turning back to the shuttle system, Kristan asked a statement be given that a people mover system should not be located along Meadow Drive. She did not think the system would accompiish the goals of a pedestrian village, given present technology. She would like a check to be placed in the master plan ta ensure future considerations of building such a system would examine those aspects. The Commission asked her to write verbiage expressing those concems. Gena Whitten left the meeting at S:SOPM, and Connie Knight departed at 6:00. Tfie final partion of the proposed Master Plan to be discussed was the medians. Arnie and Greg went over the recommendations with the Commissioners, with the PEC members giving input on individual aspects of the plan. The strangest recommendations from the Commissioners was to consolidate access points along the Frontage'Road to decrease the amount of left turn lanes necessary. The PEC also - recQmmended adding landscaping where ever possible, but not through the use of a center median when the sides of the road could be nicely landscaped. They were in favor of changing the access points at the West Vail interchange with I-70, but Kathy Langenwalter was troubled by the re-routing of the Frontage Road on the north side. Ch ck Crist left the meetin at 6•35PM u g . . � � When discussing the 4-way stop, the Commissioners wanted the ideal access closures � identified, and clearly stated their opinion no infonnation booth should be placed on the Frontage Raad. There was discussion around the road Ieading ta Crossroads Mall, with Arnie and Greg noting the final recommendations. There was no consensus over relocating the main Vail exits from I-70. Many options were discussed, including resigning the highway to indicate the East Vail exit was for Vail Village, and the current main Vail exit was for Lionshead. Addirional recommendations involved closing the main Vail exit from I-70Vi; and the entrance to I-70E for a season to determine - the impacts to the East Vail interchange, but some Commissioners expressed hesitance over this plan, stating they did not feel the Frontage Road should handle that volume of traffic. There was no final cansensus to the direction the Master Plan should take with regard to this interchange. The meeting was adjourned at 6:58PM. � .. ; ; �. `� ` ;� 'I ;� I � :� I i 'i � f 15 TO: FRONf: DATE: SUB.lECT: � MEMORANDUM __ _ _ _ -� a ��v � °`� �� ' f, �� _._ � , Planning and Enviranmental Commission ;�� ,, , � t � �: �� _C�l � ��-�"`1 Community Development Department : �-t �� L�'� April 22, 1991 - 9� � ��, -� L A request to amend the zoning code, adding a section to iden6fy all approved ' v�ew comdors and to set forth detafis w�th regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail . ia,r�,..^y,"^'r".ox'. .- . : rm �-;:-,,..,.... .. "^.�^.'�' . ^::^.",.;."�.'a:7�" /.Y': ,1..^,.".;7Y1.,'fl%/,S. �. ..�nm.,..,r rw»rr,?�`�';!,m.�!ry,7".qyr,5q,�'7.�7..^�'.M,.,,',.'�,�^';?.^.`;,:; . ...:�!.:. f-.::..`,::::> " ... �"X<"l�'r'.; / "7 :..:... „5?;:7'.f^`:'°{yF?'?;' .9i : „"' ................... .... . . .: :. ... .. ......�. .-.::. . . . ........ ..... � . . ....:. . . ., ., , . ..... .:..: .::...::::. ,:::. _, -..�.�:::<..:�:r:�.� ..w.C"YI�' �I .... .w.v/i. N h/x'll.J'w!'.i� .fl.'.'v....GiJie/A.'Jri3'FlnF<4"�•xm..f:',:'�J l��::.�.:'�ih:'�:;�- '`)U.'vi.+.:i'.JlW0.:KG:4v.K"�wvw:w:4'r.v w. �i4✓✓'�:a6>'.C4%�'.W+i.3:� m....l:w`-S.'':`.•'i'.51L•:'�i:w.v. .W .+K .:.MY .w+ .v.vF✓`.C�NN :.;��.� The staff proposal is to create a separate section of the Zoning code, where the regulations for visw corridors will be locafed. Staff believes that an appropriate location for these standards is in #he Design Review section. At this time, the view corridors are referenced onfy in the Vail Viilage Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff beEieves that deve{opment outside Vail Village can impact estabtished view corridors, and that there should be a section of the code applicabie to all development areas. Staff also believes that locating the standard in the � Design Aeview section in the zoning code wilt bring more attention to the fact that the Town i does have established view corridors which all development must comply with. , Staf# is not proposing to modify any of the recently proposed view corridor ordinance changes. The proposed view corridor over the Red Lion and Christiania has not changed and is included in the recammendations to CounciL The new section is proposed to have subsections describing the views individually. Following those genera! descriptions, staff is planning to incorporate the legal descriptions for each visw. Administrative responsibilit+es will be defined, describing who will reguiate the view corridors, when new construction should be checked to ensure it does not encroach into view corridors, and a generat stafement establishing the legal basis far protecting the corridars and �i'011i�lti�i� !1 canstruction from encroaching into the view corridors. As discussed in previous P arings, the new standards wi11 prohibit encroachments, ineluding mechanical equipment. The new ordinance wit! also clarify that the more restrictive height applies when comparing zoning district standards to the of the view corridor standards. The ordinance tha# will go to Council establishing this new section wi!( also modify "Section G of tt�s Vail Viliage Ut�ban Design Considerations" so that it is consistent with the new section of the zoning code. Secause of the major changes in the organization of the proposed view corridor ordinance, staff thought it was appropriate to bring it to the PEC for preiiminary reuiew.' At this time, #he PEC will be voting on the proposal, giving a recommendation to ihe Council for their final approvaL Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to Town Council that the proposed chang�s be approved. Staff be{ieves that ihe clarity of ihe new ordinance, and the re[ocation of it in the zoning code, instead of the Urban Design Considerations, will increase #he awareness o# the regulations and clarify the standards for development. __ _ c-lpeclviewcorrl�riewcfl�r.a22 1 � � ORDINANCE N0. � Series of 1991 ' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTSON G OF THE VAIL VILLAGE IIRBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS REiATZNG TO THE PROTECTION OF VIEWS WITHIN TFIE TOWN OF VAIL AND CREATING A NEW SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAI, CODE OE THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CERTAIN VIEWS WZTHSN THE TOWN AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERE�'O WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the preservation of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of Vail as a mountain resort community; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town pf Vail; and WHEREAS the amendment will more clearly identify existing view corridors and development procedures for the public's benefit; NOW� THEREFORE� BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN CdUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1. Section G of the Urban Design Conside�ations is hereby modified to read as follows: �I Paraqraph G Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental gart of its identity. Views of the mountains; ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant and obvious view corridors have been adopted as part of the Design Review standards in 5ection 18.54.050 � of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of_ the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public plazas, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, or the�-Clock_�To�e��_ The views of the ski slopes and of the C1ock Tower, which have been adopted 1 , _. ' : _ ;I , . .. , . � _ _ .a � . , ;.:_ _ _ j �- - — -- - __--f-- I � f ( i L_ � �I by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation'�reference points for pedestrians. Development in the Vail Village shall not �ncroach into any adopted view corridor. Adopted corririors are ]',isted in Section 18.54.050(J) of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adapted view corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways must be identified and mitigated where needed. 2. Section 18.59.010 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Paragraph F, to read as follows: - F. To protect, perpetuate and preserve certain panoramic mountain views from various public places and rights-of-way within the Town. 3. Section 18.54.050 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of Paragraph J to read as follows: J. Restrictions on structures within areas necessary to preserve mountain views. 1 - Purpose a. The protection and perpetuation of Certain panoramic inountain views from various public ways within th� Town is required in the interests of posterity, civic pride and the general welfare of the people of the Town of Vail; b. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain existing panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the citizens and visitors to the Town; c. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; d. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; e. The preservation of such views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; f. The preservation of such views will prbmote good design. 2 � Photo�raphs The photographs on record with the � il escri�tions and ommu ity Development Department and the following legal descriptions ar�e hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. a. A view from the south side of the Vail Transportation Center from the main pedestrian stairway looking toward the ski slopes; View Point #1 - Instrument — View Point #1 _ _ � ,, Backsight — Traverse Point #1 Height of instrument above View Point #1 — 5.4 f�et l �-� � ''` %'1 �ti` 3 S w- Horizonal Angle .�� Zenith Angle Foresight Point on Photo 358 97' �6 41' A - 358 47' 85 49' g 12 06' 89 14' C 15 00' 89 17' D 22 -14' 86 54' E 35 18' 85 92' F 38 17' '76 21' G b. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski slopes between the Golden Peak Buildinq and Hill Building; View Point #2 Instrument — View Point #2 Backsight — View Point #4 Height of Instrument Above View Point #2 — 5.4 feet � � un-.�-.i � n � �"` h�� 3�.,-..t Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight Point on Photo 287 30' 74 35' AI 289 40' 90 17' B' 299 02' 92 97' C 301 51' 74 10' D 3 : ` � __ , _ , _ , : :. � i I. _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ ____ . � ;; , �,,� ,�,.�� 9 0 ' � � J.P. �`� `' ✓ � �� 'd" ',v-� �� -� (l� �� , .�i lr S � i4 �U�"�'' �(�� G' ��;��,t �� . .. . 5.4 � � � c. (E#�er--�) The northwest corner of 244 Wa11 Street �,..r�.� v-�d i� �G�,�,a,�-� _ s� ,�.,,.,I looking over the Red Lion and Christiania roofs toward the Gore � Range. Legal description will be written af er all proposed development has either been constructed or the a provals for such � development has expired. This provision applies to all development projects which have received Design Review Board �pproval as of the : date of second reading of this ordinance; d. View of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of the Mill Creek Court Building; View Point #5 Instrument - View Point #5 Backsight - Focal Point #1 Height of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet Lc.�s r,�.-r� :.� � ��v'^�.`�. - 3 S ... ,, Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight Point Ori Photo 201 31' 81 24' A 206 53' 85 03' B. 210 29' 85 11' C 213 09' 84 03' D _. 213 09' 83 00' E : �. � e. Looking east to the Gore Range from !Gore Creek Drive between the Lodge at Vail retail shops and the Gore Creek Plaza Building. View Point #6 Instrument - View Point #6 Backsight - Traverse Point #2 Height of Instrument Above View Point #6 - 5.4 feet � 5 � �k �-'�ts I�' � �-}&�n - �S S w�,.. U � a � � Horizontal Angle 356 55' 357 32' 00 46' O1 59' 12 93' 12 51' Zenith Angle 81 00' 81 19' 83 13' 85 26' 85 26' 80 10' � , � ... �,.� .. . �� y� �� F zesight Point `y�� L v� � o Photo .�� '+ �ct 9' r �`.,• 1 �}. � `� � �,. �, �^r _ +' � ,�y s , �' �� y � � C ' � �;� � � u� � � � " �.,� �' � � � r D � � yT � �y, � ,��' E , 9 .ti. •`' � u� y� �„`�' \ � � �'' `s" po `q \ F � � � �� 12 12' 78 58' G �A W� � �P 1�, ��b 13 07' 73 06' H `�1N-� �' S��` �� o� �� ti\�' 3 - Limitations on Cons �� ti� \ No structure s all be permitted to encroach above the blac � and white line set forth on each oi the adopted photographs. The black and white lines are determined by the legal descriptions listed in Section 2. Copies of the photogiraphs and legal descriptions are on file with the Community Develo�ment Department. � - �(�w:t,Lwa�. ,y�cp � s:•ws si,d�au� t�? <�usff ¢�a�. - - = _ "�- When any proposed structure infringes upon a Town of Vail view ?�wast{., - corridor, but is located in front of or behind another structure �"'"`h� which already encroaches into the same view corridor, the new structure shall not be permitted. 5- View Corridor Heiqht Control If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view corridor, the more restricted height as defined by the view corridor shall apply. 6 - Submittal Requirements The following information shall be submitted along with a � Design��v'iew Board application, exterior alteration application, or �� appropriate application, so that the Town staff and - appropriate Board can properly evaluate whether a structure complies with this view corridor section: a. Proposed elevations of the development; b. Photographs taken from the adopted poiint which show the present improvements which protrude into, or ar.e'in the vicinity, � � 5 S�.u�L �� r,�' � � �c�' �° _ _ ... __ _ — - --- --__.-----r , i i �' ; � i i' I 1 I; e �� of the view corridor, and a graphic repres�ntation on the photographs of how the proposed improvements Will appear with relation to existing improvements and view cor�idor boundaries. Photographs to be submitted must be taken from th�e same point used u,;r� fir� s,w..., r-�.,-3, , to define the corridor �with the camera set 5.4 feet above the pavement. c. If necessary, the Community Development Department may �� require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittals which show � r ��?-u,4��f �,�.l�k I�.w' �� the impact c� the structure upon the protected view corridorr•r ! / c�:--7 jt LutS�kr.fcA. �� - Amendments Amendments to adopted view corridors or the adoption of additional view corridors shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall give a recommendation to Town Council. The Town Council shall hear the proposal twice and shall approve it by ordinance before the view corridor becomes officially ddopted. ' #e�ui-erov--ee�zt3o r,� �n_�..� s (e�� ✓ � S �'r-w �- `J ,.shall.....he proposed expa , r � ci�1.�f��c��m�ent wk��Il�dy� encroach into an adopted corridor �� ,trv t� A y� �an.,.�..��nv�... 1" � 1�C �ta-i � L- ; W L.:'y`r. C�-�c,.( �� . R11 11 !i i Tl_�.p `Y'L� l�9—mc'c"Ixm"t�'31 . . =�'3�'P'gj � � g'�"'-�-'- --'--.,-rr-P--rr-- --' ^_'' - g' • . . . . � 8 - Exemptions ��tructure� which � presently located in an adopted view �� corridor may remain and '�e troyed by natural causes, may be � �y��e replaced to its curren ' t. However, no existing structure / located in,a view corridor shall be expanded or enlarged. 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause'or � phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such i decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of i � � this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have ;, ( passed this crdinance, and each part, section, subsection, i ' � � sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any �� one or more parts, sections, subsections, sent4nces, clauses or ' � �� phrases be declared invalid. i i � � ' ; �� . ��.� _ -� a ��:�..�� d�`�"` � ; � � ' P �� s �-�-ru or (�'.�' 1 d-' J -�.��A-'� i� .�,,��+-c-�..:.�..�.� � Q,�; .�.,.> c,�; d,� s d�.:eF ��,.,�,,,E� �: fa,� i P=---� � .� �.,____ � _ ____ _ --- . � - i � 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determ�nes and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabita�nts thereof. 6. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment� of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty impos'ed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed arjd reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Builjding of the Town. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk . _ ' ; , (_ . 7 i.. , � , � . � _ _... ': , �: � , ,,._ �, . � �r ` �, � • 1/1,!'� �.-� � � �' ��.��zr _ . � ;�" ,r- i � � ; w�- �'' � �� - G _ _ - , � � �f� <<,� �/� � � ,� � l.� . cv %ft � �fi � ' � � �-� -� ; � � -�*� � � � :� , �;�: �� .f �'� 5,�:,-� � �II,,z � <�� { � l - � � � � l � � � �<r�`t� � , � �� l-.� :- �� t� I�/-�. �� % � � � �� i � G��? �"�-a � �.:� � J � � .�.��,-,� � � - li�r"�L'1'� c,:_..�..��f , � � .�L� �� t J -� � ��..-.._.� ��. �� s ��. � i' �c.,,� -�—,,,.,,� � � C � �'� � � ��= � �� 1 , � _ � � _ - - � .. _� ! � � View Point #Z E � Instrument - View Point #1 F Backsight - Traverse Point #1 ! Height of instrument above View Point.#1 - 5.4 feet � � Horizonal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight Point � on Photo � 358 47' 76 41' A � . ,. ; ,. ; _ , 358 47' 85 49' B 12 06' 89 14' C j _ ...... .. , , , 15 00' 89 17' D ;� 22 14' 86 54' E 35 18' 85 42' F 38 17' 76 21' ':G View Point #2 Instrument - View Point #2 Backsight - View Point #4 Height of Instrument Above View Point #2 - 5.4 feet Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Foresignt Point on Photo 287 30' 74 35' A 2$9 40' 299 02' 301 51' 90 17' 92 47' 74 l0' B C D � View Point #�5 � I � Instrument - View Point #5 f Backsight - Facal Point #1 � Height of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet { , Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle ; Foresight Point ' On Photo E 201 3I' 81 24' A 4 y. ' 2Q6 53' 85 03' B 210 24' 85 11' C � 213 09' S4 03' D :i ;. ,. : , ;. , 213 09' 83 00' E I View Point #6 Instrument - View Point #6 �` Backsight - Traverse Point #2 Height of Instrument Above View Point #6 - 5.4 feet Horizontal Angle Zenith Ang1e roresight Point on Photo 356 55' 81 00' A 357 32' 81 19' B 00 46' 83 13` C ;a 01 59' 85 26' D 12 43' 12 51' 12 12' 13 07' 85 26' 80 10' 78 58' 73 06' E 1? F G H i - - i � . , , I f I` � i •� � . - VIEW POI�JT ll6 . i Ins[rument - View Point {/6 ' - Racksight - Traverse point lt2 � Height of instrument above View Point /!b - 5.4 feet Horizontal angle ! . Zenith angle Foresi ht g poi�t on 356°55' 81000� photo A 357°32' 83°19' B 00°46' 83°13' C O1°54' � 85°26' D 12°43' 85°26' E 12°5I` 80°10' • � F 12°12' 78°58' G 4 13°07' 73°06' H c, _ i - , ,� . � � �� ,�, :� _�� , , I., _. ,. . . ,:. I VIEU POINT 95 Instrumen[ - View Point �5 , Backsight - Focal Point ;il ' Height of instrument above Viev Poiat UI5 - 5.4 feet � Horizontal angle Zenith angle Foresight point on photo � 201°31' 81°24' A � 206°53' 85°03' B , � 210°24' 85°11' C 213°09' 84°03' D 213°09' 83°00' E I :I � �Y, � i � • l _ i � � � � � � � k ' � : ;# ` �� 7� ` , -�:-`-� .-� �� . . . .. �z '• � , � ,� }F t.9 1.� � p : �� }� � � �� .�� i '. 1 ±� a jc �t ,� s � � ��. � �'.; � :> K:. t ai.+ " ` � ,� � #. = . .�; �. T �R. � ' � r `�?k.s;'�.. N � r ` j�' �'z-s5: f £, i � , r T �t'�� , t }'L}"t , �`°�' ': L� �.;: _.. � � . �. I 6 ' �j .��` Y � � �' 3 r �F� � � � r� ' � A '�.� ._ � ` . h< �.y ;-�)? �'�s-� � � i��,"F r'�zi� . _ �-T' �' ' _ � y' �. `3' -act.y '4. _ � "r ii'ai '..� T"�yd� / _ "r �n �- Na, ', �.; ,,,s�" :�,,.`� 1 � "'� < � � -�� _ �,�. � ,�._�� _ � � - �'s � - � — - - - _� _ '�'`� ; . " _t� *=" — - _ - - - • I . , , - _ . __ -I ' - _ - - - i.'_ . - _ - -i _ - . f - � - � � � .. . _ VIEW POINT 112 - Instrument - Vieur Point U2 �li Backsight - View Point 4i4 Height of instrumenC above View Point !l� - 5.4 feet Horizontal angle Zenith angle II Foresight point on photo � 287°30' 74°35' ' A i :' : � 289°40' 90°17` B `'I .i 294°02' 92°47' C � 301°51' 74°1D' D i I I � � 1 � f I ; . � F f � . .. �. � , 1 � �' �.-. - - i, � - r _. � , VIEW POINT !Il Instrument - View Point �11 Backsight - Traverse point IF1 Height of instrument above View Point l�l - 5.4 feet Horizontal angle Zenith angle Foresight point on pho[o �� 358°47' 76°41' A 358°47' 85°49' B 12°06' 89°14' C 15°00' 89°11' D 22°14' 86°54` E 35°18' 85°42' F I 38°17' 76°21' G � � f � - - _ _ ------ - --- - _ � �i , � i� VAIL TOWN COUNCII WORK SESSION ,".: TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1991 - 1:00 P.M. EXPANDED AGENDA 1:00 1. Planning and Environmental Commissionl/Design Review Mike Moliica 8oard/Town Council Joint Meeting to review and discuss final draft of Vail Streetscape Improvement Project Action Requested of Council: This is a joint work session with the PEC and DRB, to review and comment on the Streetscape Plan. Jeff Winston and Paul Kuhn, of Winston Associates, will prssent the draft plan. Staff is requesting comment 'so that the project may be revised if -, necessary and then proceed to final design. Background Rationale: The Streetscape Plan is nearing the - final phase of design. Numerous public meetings have been - held during the span of the project and many of the public's comments have been incorporated into the proposed design. In order to address as many site planning issues as possible, coordination with all utility companies, as well as with the Town's drainage plan consultants (Muller • Engineering), has also occurred. 3:00 2. Discussion regarding approval request to proceed to Design Betsy Rosolack Review Board to allow for the renovation of the playground at Red Sandstone School -" Action Requested of Council: Deny/grant permission for ' project to proceed to DRB. Background Rationale: The property belongs to the Town. The plan includes relocating the slides so that they are closer to the existing jungle gym, constructing steps (at grade) between the upper and lower parking lots, and refurbishing the exterior of the school. ' - Staff Recommendation: Grant approval to allow the project to proceed to DRB. 3:05 3. Discussion regarding 1991 Town of Vail Resident Survey Caroline Fisher Pam Brandmeyer Action Requested of Council: Input dnd feedback from the Council regarding this year's resident survey - including - sample size, specific survey questions, etc. Council members were given copies of last year's survey in your Council packets for this week. We requested that you review the survey and be prepared to give suggestions for changes, deletions, etc. Background Rationale: Last year the TOV resident survey was sent to approximately 8,300 residents, business owners, and second home owners. This was the first year that such a large survey sampling was conducted. For public outreach purposes, as well as a more complete view on public opinion, the large sampling was effective. Last year at this time, i the possibility of conducting a reduced sampling every other year was discussed. General opinion was that Town service levels and areas of interest do not change that drastically from year to year, and perhaps an extensive survey is needed '' on an every-other-year basis. Staff Recommendation: We might want to consider doing a random sampling of 1,000 residents, business owners, and ? second home owners for this year's survey population. ;; ` � . :� i ` • , _ . { � :_ . _ ..: . _ _" `. .. . . , � :j J � _ ____------------._ - - - , � � , 3:25 4. Discussion of Special Events Money All�llocation Rob Robirscn Sylvia Blount Action Requested of Council_: Council' will receive specific oroposals for the next two community-wide special events, Memortal Day and Vail America Days (Jluly 4th), at the work session. VRA and VRD are in concert'on these monetary requests and "taking the lead" on each event. Following a joint meeting of these two groups, the Foundation, and the Town of Vail, URA and URD have held 2-3 subsequent meetings, have agreed upon the orchestration of these two specific events, and will be bringing forth additional requests for the remainder of this year. In the future, a bid process for special events will be implemented. - Background Rationale: Council requested Ron to meet with the VUF, VRA, and VRD regarding monetary allocations for f�jf` town-wide special events, and who is designated to take the lead on orchestrating events, and therefore should be '%.i receiving the Town's financial support. The future process �,,!��,��, � �v�� ` was discussed, comments from each group noted, and these �� ;J'' requests are the outcome of that meeting. 3:3� ~ 5. Information Update Ron Phillips 3:40 6. Other _.. 3:45 7. Discussion and Site Visit of a Proposed Uiew Corridor, Andy Knudtsen extending from Frivolous Sal's to the east, over the Red Lion roof to the Gore Range (Applicant: Town of Vail) /� ( Action Requested of Council: Discuss the proposed view (.��' "� C y`i`-� ��r corridor, commenting specifically on the boundaries proposed U by staff, the assump�tions -itrtrade 6y &ff to define the Gu-,�,�+<, �'s•'� �'; corridor, and tlye °grace period" prop sed, which would � } provide time for �ro.jects currently a design development to c' be approved. The proposed-ordinanc adopting the corridor C} �""`��S would also clarify wording in the ex�sting view corridor ordinance. ,�-e� `� '4 �'`'�-�fY Background Rationale: The PEC voted b-0 on March 11, 1991, J� � � recommending approval of the corridor. The enclosed staff �"v`'GO`"`-vz� �` memo provides an analysis of the issues the PEC discussed. 4:15 �'-� ��r-�`�--- 8. Adjournment � �Y_l,j�,,,�t,r� ? f ` -` l� _ ��r t�y� `' �� f,s.u-.� I A 5..�-t.__ �J �.} j'�,-rt,..,�� f�F„l .�.�� .. 1 � �� / � :: �. . � � J.. _ r�.f . . . `� Lv <C..�-% . 1 ✓t,4+it-E�L� s:-� --e-J�'�—e <. ' , � �J � z.. (/ , 1� Z'-� ° .�, S , � � `' 1 \ . � � ./� .."� . . . . . ZG J /C. �'�r-G::...� �r'1 � .. . - . . . . - ( � .. . .� . � ..- :. .- . � . .. . .. . ., . . ... .. ! � . � . . - .. . �: � � ' . '. .�" . �.... ' . _ . .. ,_�.. i ' - . .. - . . . . ...� .. � � . _ . � ,'. ' ..:.. .,;, �., . - '. �-_ . I i '2_ _ 1 � , . ._ `. . . �`�f �° �°,�'' `{� ��.' � �� r° • .� � I i I f. � I �_: { x�- �� L�.*-` i ;�- � �. �'� � � � � � � � PLANNZNG AND ENVIRON�'IENTAL COMMISSION March 11, 3991 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Ludwzg Kurz Jill Kammerer Kathy Langenwalter Andy Knudtsen Jim Shearer 5helly Mello Gena Whitten Amber Blecker Absent ` , Connie Knight The meeting was called to order at 2:30PM by Diana Donovan. fihe Commission welcomed Gena Whitten as the new member of the Commission. 1. Air QualitV - PEC update on road sandinq practices in the Town of Vail. This item was postponed, due to Pete Burnett being called in for �ury duty. 2.' Notification of PEC of staff approval of Minor Amendment to SDD #6 - Vail Villaae Inn to allow for the installation of a satellite dish in a setback. Applicant: Satellite Receivinq Svstems Shelly Mella briefly explained the process of a minor amendment to a SDD. The approval was per the previous PEC meeting, where the Commissioners expressed their desire that the dish be placed at ground level. Shelly elaborated that there would be a brown, wood fence to match the building trim and 3 spruce trees placed to screen the dish. Additionally, shrubs will be placed on the south of the dish. Shelly concluded her presentation by stating that the Design Review Board has not yet reviewed or approved this placement, and their approval would be necessary before the dish could be installed. She then called for comment by the Commissioners. Chuck Crist began by asking if the adjacent condominium owners had been notified. Shelly verified that all adjacent property owners which would be impacted had been notified of this project over a week before. 1 I � Andy Knudtsen summarized the changes which had been made since the previous submission of this item to the Commission. He indicated that staff had rephotographed the proposed view corridor without clouds surrounding the Gore Range, per the PEC's request, and at a height of 5'-2" to better reflect the angle at which an average person would be looking at the view. Staff further taped the photo at bath the staff's recommendation for the boundaries of the corridor and the PEC's request for the boundaries to better illustrate the specific lines. In addition, on one of the photographs, the proposed post-Christiania expansion had been taped as a reference point for discussion. � � Procedurally, Diana Donovan requested clarificatinn from staff whether the Commission could discuss this without formally caliing it up, Shelly indicated that if the Commission informaliy agreed with the staff's approval, no action would be necessary. If, on the other hand, it was apparent that the PEC was in disagreement, the issue should'be discussed by the PEC. of When the public was asked for cor.iment, Irene Westby, manager of the Talisman Condominiums, asked for clarification of the location of the dish. Shelly Mello indicated the location on a site plan and explained the request. Ms. Westby indicated she had no problem with the landscaping, and she didn't believe the owners would have any difficulty with the entire placement. Since there was no further public cominent, Diana Danovan opened Commission comment by stating she had no concerns over the location, but she did not like the�idea of moving the trees in order to install a fence for screening. Further, Diana commented that the efforts to screen structures often result in making them mare obvious. She suggested that the fencing be integrated with the existing landscaping. Jim Shearer stated that he liked the plan. Ludwig Kurz stipulated that he had the same comments as Diana, and that he would like to see the trees remain where they were, as it would be healthier for the trees. In concluding the discussion, Diana Donovan stated that the Commission was in favor of upholding the staff approval, with a stron recommendation to DRB regarding the integration of the existing landscaping and the proposed fence. � A rectuest to amend Ordinance No. l3 1983 to establish an additional view carridor and to clarify wordinq in the crdinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sal's to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Ran e Applicant: Town of Vail 2 Staff's recommendation included the provision that the Red Lion's chimney be included in the view corridor s� that, if at some future date, the Red Lion proposed a remodel, the chimney cauld be removed. Staff believed that building walls provided better boundaries of a view corridor than architecturai projectians such as chimneys or balconies, and the staff recommended photographs reflected this philosophy. Andy also explained that staff believed a grace period provision for this ordinance, similar to the one used for the fireplace ordinance amendment, was appropriate. Under that grace period, an owner would have six weeks from the second reading and adaption of tha ordinance by the Town,Council to submit a complete DRB application without being affected by the new view corridor limitations. '; Regarding the proposed text changes, staff's goals �aere 1. enumerated as being to clarify the entire view corridor � ordinance, prevent any building above the line of the view :! corridor, and prevent the cluttering of view areas with new :� development. As an example, Andy cited View #6, which included the Clock Tower. If a developer were to build above the view .I corridor line, that construction would compete with the prominence af the Clock Tower. The same philosophy applied to View #1• �en if the addition could not be seen from the point the corridor was basec3 on as a result of being "behind" the Clock Tower, it would still compete with the prominence of the Tower in general views of the Village. Andy also elaborated on the fact that, when a view corridor is created, these are focal points which are intended to remain and are set forth in the description of the corridor. As the discussion opened up for public comment, Jay Peterson started the discussion by mentioning that the Christiania project already had DRB approval. Paul Johnston of the Christiania remarked to the Cominission that when he had attempted to re-photograph the corridor himself without clouds surrounding the Gore Range, he was thwarted because there were clouds over at least part of the Range between 3-4:OOPM on 14 consecutive days. In addition, he commented that he had found staff's observation that people were stopping to look at the Range to be valid, but clarified that it was more due to curiosity at what was being photographed. Jay elaboraied that the additional photographs were being submitted to illustrate what happens to the view corridor during differing conditions, In the summer, Jay hypothesized that trees block most of the corridor, while in winter, the clouds were blocking the Range itself. Paul stated that, thraugh his observations, more people stopped to look at the tree stump in a window than at the Gare Range. Jay Peterson continued with his 3 , � � camments, stating that the past view �orridors were created with sensitivity to what an owner could do with a building in the future. He reflected that the Town Council had amended some of the original PEC recom.�endations to al�!ow more flexibility for development. Mr. Peterson reco�er.dP� that the C�:nmission le�k a* th� original 39 view corridor photographs to determine if this particular corridor was any more significant than the others. He asked that the Coinmission be sensitive to the owners affected by this ordinance, but reiterated that the Christiania had received DRB approval for their project. To conclude his statements, he submitted additional photographs to the Commission for their scrutiny. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the Christiania, if built as approved, would encroach into the view corridor, and would then be encouraged to be removed at a future redevelopment. Kristan Pritz responded by indicating that when staff formulated the view corridor proposal, they were trying to define the best possible view, without looking at the Christiania project specifically. Kathy Langenwalter indicated that she understood the reason why staff recommended the corridor follow the rooi lines, and believed that the Christiania's propased roof line should determine the view line when built. Kristan expressed her concern that, �f the Christiania redevelopment were used as the �-----T - - - __ - __ boundary of the corridor,--ifie result could be that the carridor _ r- ------ --__--- - — - - t�rdinance approval_ would�-be unnecessariry d�Iaye�.----- ---�-'�---- _--- --- - ---- ------- ---- ---- -- � Jay Peterson said he thought it could be included now, but Kathy Langenwalter replied she believed staff would want an exact survey. Kathy continued by saying she was comfortable with the i staff's recommendation, with the provision that the corridor be � rephotographed after the Christiania expansion was completed, so as not to precipitate problems in the future. /� ��is�an Pritz suggested that th�_._�ommission approve the corridor _ __ _ with the provision that �staff wouid amend ��-�f�er_-tii�---------- --- -- ___ cox�structiszn of _any�buirding= or=_a3dition,__submitted to the DRB --_ durin_� the__ gra�e._period,_ was__�ompleted�., .__This would allow for the _- -- establishment-o-�-t�i�- ��-ew co��or--sai�ho__ut_ delay. �-----� Kathy Langenwalter indicated she felt this would be appropriate, as the staff's recommendation conformed best to the previously- defined view corridors. Jim Shearer agreed with Kathy, but expressed his opinion that straight lines were easier to deal with, but that conforming to the roof line allows for a greater area of corridor. He supported the proposal that the corridor would be amended once all approved projects were completed. 4 I:,`: 1 � ..: . ., . .,. .,, . ,.:. .: . ,�::, -_,: � ,,;.,;; I ` � ! �:. . . . . . . � � .. � . . . .. . . ' � Discussion ensued among the Commissior� merc�ers, staff and � concerned public about the specific points of the corridor. At , the conclusion, Chuck Crist indicated he supported Kathy ; Langenwaiter's opinion regarding the proposed view corridor. t Ludwig Kurz and Gena Whitten were also in agreement that this was � a reasonable solution. � � Diana Donovan requested direction from the staff as to how the ; motion could be written. Kristan repiied that, once Town Council f had proceeded through second reading of the ordinance, applicants i would have 6 weeks from that time to submit complete DRB � applications. If an application is approved, and construction is � started before approval lapses, staff'would revise the view i � corridor line, basing the boundary of the Corridor on the completed construction. Diana stated that,�with this provision, she believed the ordinance could be voted on today, but clarified to Jay Peterson and Paul Johnston that the DRB approval could not lapse. If it did, the current Christiania proposal would not be able to be ! approved at a later date. Jay responded that he felt comfortable -i with that provision, but asked that the Commission look at additional pictures to gain a better understandinq of view , corridors as a whole, and this particular view corridor in specific. He asked that the Commission be sure that this was a "significant" corridor, with more impact than those which had been rejected in the past. Kathy Langenwalter moved that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the request to Amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983, to establish an additional view corridor, and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sal's to the east over the Red Lion �uilding toward the Gore Range per the staff inemorandum and the staff recommended photograph taken at,a height of 5'-2" on February 25, 1991 with a 50mm lens; and further, that after the 6-week grace period from the adoption of the ordinance by the Vail Town Council, any project submitted during the grace period, receiving DRB approval, and such approval being valid until completion, will be allowed to be built, with the boundaries oi the corridor being defined after the construction is completed. i '� The motion was seconded by Jim Shearer. Chuck Crist clarified that the grace period would be in the'final ordinance. Jay Peterson asked that a few more pictures be considered by the Commission. The vote was taken, with a unanimous 6-O approval of the motion. � After the vote, Chuck Crist e�anded upon his opinion regarding view corridors, stating that this was an important, environmental issue. He stated that these view corridors add critical visual interest to the Town, and that he felt the PEC should try to 5 ( I ! - - - , ; , . ,. h t' t t Diana Donovan continued that she would maintain t a in eres . like to adopt more of these view corri�ars, and asked that staff bring more to the PEC, perhaps in 5 weeks or 2 months. Kristan Pritz stated that staff was intending to do a view analysis, but had not anticipated bringing more to the Corsmission that quickly. . However, staff would investigate returning some of the views previously discussed to the Commissiori for their review, if possible, given their responsibilities to other projects. 4. A request for a conditional use permit to expand the Vail Mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Block 2 Vail Villaqe 12th Filinq, Applicant• Vail Mountain School The short overview by Andy Knudtsen of the application began with reference to the site plan. Andy indicated the Iocatian of the Phase II expansion, and stated that the application would not result in an increase in height. He reiterated that this was somewhat of a housekeeping issue, since a conditional use permit had been granted in 1989, but had lapsed. The application would only apply to the Phase II expansion, and not Phase III. The issues Andy discussed were the effect of the request on the character of the neighborhood. Staff review indicated the need for a landscaping buffer between the school and the adjacent residential properties. 5taff requests that the permit be conditional upon landscaping between the school and adjacent hausing being installed or funds for landscaping escrowed before a building permit is released for future construction. The same condition would apply to the landscaping between the schoal and North Frontage Road. Public Works had raised an issue of a drainage problem on the site. This problem appears to have been created during construction, and should be corrected before completing the work af Phase II. Staff findings recommend approval of the conditional use permit � with the conditions Iisted in their memorandum. Pam Hopkins, representing Vail Mountain School, stated that the sehool was troubled by the condition that a building permit for Phase II would be contingent upon landscaping being installed. Ms, Hopkins reviewed the difficulties the school had in maintaining the landscaping which had been installed, and declared that the school had hired a landscape maintenance firn. She indicated that the school wanted to do the landscaping, and do it right, but that the timing of the conditions would create difficulties. She also indicated that since the schoal is a non- profit organization, a letter of credit would be costly. Kristan Pritz clarified that if the Iandscaping was not planted, the C:l �: _ . .�,� � school could provide a financial guarantee to cover the costs. � Kristan explained further that many developers escrow a portion ; of their building loan to ensure the landscaping would be ! performed. This method would not cost the school additional � points or intsrest. Pam indicated this would be acceptable. I, ; ....... A neighbor of the schoal, Joe Tonahili, indicated that he did no have concerns with any obstruction of views by the Phase II expansion. Pam stated that since Joe had taken it upon himself to plant screening evergreens, the school definitely wanted tc� ; work with him to devise a satisfactory solution. Joe said he � would like to see trees of a higher quality than aspens, or something which would accomplish the screening more satisfactorily, placed by summer, not fall. Joe aiso indicated he was representing another owner who'had concerns with the fencing near a berm on the northeast corner of the school. That owner, Robert Lawrence, believed that the fence was an eyesore, and it touched his lot. It was discussed that this fencing was required by code, but that at some future date, it might be removed. Diana Donovan declared that it appeared the school was trying to be a good neighbor, and she did not have any problem with the request. Joe Tonahill reiterated that he would like to see the pl3nting in the summer, but otherwise he felt the plan was good. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit in order to expand the existing Vail Mountain School facility, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Roadf Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing per the staff recommendation. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was further moved by Ludwig tha staff and applicant would work out a satisfactory financial guarantee for the landscaping work. Jim accepted that motion with his second. The motion passed with a unanimous 6-0. After a brief recess, the Commission reconvened at 3:40. 5. `. i t i A re�uest for a worksession on setback and site coveraqe variancas and an exterior alteration to.the Lifthouse Lodqe at 555 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3 Block l, Vail Lionshead lst Filinct. ApAlicant• Robert T. and Diana Lazier Jill Rammerer briefly reviewed the outstanding issues from the February 11, 1991 PEC discussion of this item. At that time, the planning staff and PEC's main concerns were the roof connection, landscaping, whether the roof would be sloped or flat, the tyrolean flavor of the architecture, transparency of the facade, and the impact of the addition on the Pedal Power/Vail Ski Tech commercial space and the Lifthouse Condominium entrance. 7 , � With regard to the landscaping, staff will continue to work toward resolving the proposed landscaping to the satisfaction of the Public Works, Fire and Community Development Departments, the Town landscape architect, the project architect and the Lionshead merchants. In addressing the landscaping, the staff's goal is to accomplish more plaza shading to soften the starkness of the plaza area and to create a sense of enclosure for the northern plaza area. Reqarding the connection of the addition's roof to the existing structure, staff felt the connection point was an important design element, and that a connection point at the floor level of the second story balcony would better respect the strong architectural line of the existing building and eliminate the cantilevered appearance of these decks. Regarding the visibility of the Pedal Power/Vail Ski Tech area, staff felt the changes made by the applicant increased the visibility and were more acceptable. However, these changes would result in a need for a site coverage variance to allow the approximately 850 sq. feet of additional site coverage to be constructed. Jill Kammerer explained the allowable site coverage is 70% and the additional 850 sq. ft. would increase the coverage ta 74%, resulting in the need for a site coverage variance for the 4% of site coverage over the allowable. Galen Aasland, project architect, made the presentation for the applicant, explaining the changes made in the design since the February ilth presentation. At the conclusion of his presentation, the Commission began discussing the project design. Gena Whitten began by stating she was concerned with the exposure of the northwest corner commercial space and that felt the color af the roof should better relate to the color of the existing structure. Galen responded that they had examined using a washed white or grey stone color. In response to Chuck Crist questionzng whether the roof was going to be gravel, Kathy Langenwaiter told the applicant if the roof was to be a flat, � gravel roof, it should be capable of supporting ballast. Further discussing the roof, Kathy stated she felt that whether the roof is flat or pitched, it was important that it go above the line of the bottom of the balcony. She further indicated as long as there were no roof penetratians (such as vents), she would not mind a flat roof, but preferred a slight pitch with a metal roof so that debris would not collect from the wind. Kathy then examined the projection of the of the Pedal Power space. She thought the ` pedestrian area too tight. She would also line change, perhaps with a jog in. 8 commercial space south projection made the like to see the roof � i � i i� I � � I( f k ' � � In Kathy's opZnion, the Banner Sports azea was much better, but next time she would like to see proposed planters staked. in examining the Lifthouse Condominium entrance, Kathy said she believed the entrance was too narrow. Gena Whitten echoed this opinion, stating that the entrance needed to be better identified. Kathy summarized her stat�ments by clarifying she was concerned with both the Lifthouse Lodge Condominium entrance and the visibility of the Pedal Power commercial space, the point where the roof interfaced with the existing building. She elaborated by saying she would like to see a 2-12 pitched roof, and the Iin moved back so the entire pedestrian area would be more open. If a flat roof was being proposed to control drainage, she recommended the installation of a concealed gutter to enhance drainage control. e Jim Shearer commented that he would definitely like to see a sloped roof for the project. Galen asked for clarification on `,'i whether the Commission would like to see the slape continuing .i beyond the point where the roof intersected with the floor level ; of the second floar balcony. Kathy answered she would like to � see the slope continue up untii it intersected with the facade of � the existing structure, and the applicant should not worry about the relationship of the roof slope above the condominium entrance to the west facade roof slope. Ludwig Kurz concurred with Kathy that he would like to see the roof be a pitched metal roof. He also agreed that the building projection near the Peda1 Power space should be eliminated. However, he was not as concerned with the plaza area. Ludwig thought there would be enough space for pedestrians. He expressed a desire to see the staff work with Public Works to ensure snow dump and fire access issues didn't dictate the design of the building. Jim Shearer examined the project, elaborating on his comments in favor of a sloped roof. He felt a flat, graveled roof was tacky. He agreed with Kathy and would also like to see something happening on the roof line near the condominium entrance He further agreed with Kathy that the planters on the west facade may create an obstruction because they project out so far from the building. He e�ressed concern as well that trash would collect in the corner, which he would not want to see happen. Jim felt that the Lodge entrance was not identified well enough. Galen Aasland suggested that the roof line near the condominium entrance come across straight, then be hipped at the end. i�athy Langenwalter recommended instead a small dormer be added at the plane of the door. Jim Shearer commented he liked Kathy's suggestion that the door be enunciated in this manner. 9 �' When Galen indicated the facia would go straight across and then step back 2 feet, Jill Kammerer asked if, beyond the plane of the facade of th� balcor.y, whether or nat the roof would continue to be sloped or whether it would flatten out until it intersected with the facade of the existing structure on top. Kathy indicated a strong preference to have the roof continue to slope at the same pitch until its intersection with the existing structure. Attention turned to the issue of the wood pillars in front. Jim asked if they were rough, and Galen answered that they would be smoothed out. Jim was concerned with the compatibility of the style with the existing structure. Zf the pillar detail were continued along the entire facade, Jim felt it would be too much. Jim did not like the way the pillars married themselves to the existing building. Kathy elaborated the pillars were a detail specific to Banner Sports, and should remain as such. Jim and Kathy both thought the pillars should be simply a Banner Sports entry detail. Chuck Crist and Diana Donovan were opposed to a flat roo� for the project. Chuck thought perhaps a light gray roof color would be mare appropriate. Kathy disagreed, stating she liked the darker roof color, because there was sa much reflection in the area now. Both Chuck and Diana were concerned with the possibility trash would collect on top of the roof and then be visible to people accessing the plaza from the stairway. Diana thought the point where the roof of the addition connected to the Lifthousa was critical. She thought the current design buried visibility of the Pedal Power space, and that the projection should be eliminated. Regarding the wood pillars, sht believed that fewer were better. She was also concerned with th types of trees to be installed in the grates in the plaza. Because of the extreme summer and winter temperatures, she ; suggested tall, hardy trees be installed. She preferred to see sloped roof and the installation of the maximum of landscaping � possible. Regarding the impact snow dump concerns and fire ! department vehicular access concerns had on the landscaping, � Kathy suggested staff work with the Fire Department and Public � Works to devise a compramise design. Kathy would like to "see thE exterior of the entire Lifthouse Lodge renovated in conjunction with this proposal. Jay Peterson responded he would talk with Packy to see what the Lodge's time table was for making improvements to the exterior. l0 I e a � � .. ._ . .; 6. A rectuest for a front setback variance for the Perot residence located at 64 Beaver Dam Roadl Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village First Filinq. ' Applicant: Ross Perot Staff presentation was given by Mike Mollica. The request was to encroach a maximum of 6 feet into the front setback of the lot in order to expand a ground Ievel entrance. Mike indicated that the existing three-car garage under construction in the front setback was acceptable since the lot slope average was over 30%. After giving a brief history of the lot's development, Mike elaborated on the analysis of the zoning. He stated that the site coverage and GRFA was at the maximum allowed for the site. Regarding the Consideration of Factors, Mike conveyed that the staff had a difficult time with this request. Although there would be a negligible impact on the surrounding neighborhood, staff could not determine what site hardship existed to warrant the granting of a variance. Staff believed that since the house had gone through extensive plan review and design, the entrance could have been designed without the need for a variance. As an example, the entry could have been designed in conjunction with the qarage. Mike reminded the Commission that in order to grant the variance, they must find the granting of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege, that the granting would not be detrimental to the general public, that the strict or literal interpretation of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or physical hardship, that there were exceptions or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this site which were not generally found in the same area, or that the strict interpretation of the ' reguiation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by others in the same zone district. Staff believed that the current variance application did not meet any of these criteria. In conclusion, staff recommended denial of the variance requsst, as there was no finding of hardship or unique circumstances. Jim Morter, architect for the applicant was queried by Diana Donovan of what wauld be accomplished with the addition of an open gate to the entry vestibule. Mr. Morter responded that the gate was open air with a wrought iron door, but not openable for security reasons. When Kathy Langenwalter asked why the entrance was being moved, Mr. Morter reviewed the changes on the site plan, and said that there saere special circumstances surrounding Mr. Perot with life and death cansequences. "The security concerns had arisen from a change in world events subsequent to the design of the house." This expanded entry was a change requested by Mr. Perot's security team, and was believed to be a problem in the sight area surrounding the entrance. 11 ,,'j Kathy Langenwalter quizzed the staff about whetner a variance would be necessary if the walkway were designed with decorative metal, but no roof. Mike clarified that ther� would need to be a wali or fence height variance under that circumstance. Mr. Morter elaborated that walls without a roof would not solve the security concerns. Chuck Crist requested information on what material would be used on the outside wall. Jim Morter said it would be stone. Jim Shearer asked if the walkway walls could be sloped or lowered ta be more architecturally pleasing. Jim Morter thought that perhaps the grades next to them might be able to be .raised. Turning the Commission`s attention to the requirements necessary for granting a variance, Diana Donovan stated she believed that there was a unique hardship to the owner. She supported the request. However, she felt that if ownership of the house changed, that the addition should be removed. G�na Whitten said she did not believe there were enough impacts to warrant a condition of later removal. Diana believed that to not require the later removal would be setting a precedent. Kathy Langenwaiter reiterated that �he owner could not create the hardship. Jim Shearer elaborated that he felt granting this variance might be a grant of special privilege. Chuck Crist explained his opinion that if the ownership changed, there would no Ionger be a hardship, and that the entry walk should be removed. Gena thought that the removai should be at Mr. Perot's expense. Diana asked the Commission how they would like a condition of approval phrased. Mike Mollica requested clarification that the Commission was looking for language that would require the addition to be removed if Mr. Perot sold the property. Diana answered affirmatively, that the expansion should be removed upon I a change of title. Jim Morter requested that the provision be k expanded to state that removal of the entry would be required if � the ownership of the property left the family. Mr. Perot might ': want to visit his children if they were the subsequent owners. The same security concerns would exist as long as the ownership remained in the Perot family. Kristan Pritz offered guidance to the Commission that if they wanted to approve the variance, it would be difficult to require an approved structure to be removed, but that if the Commission felt the variance was for safety concerns, it would be appropriate to approve the request, and there were unusual circumstances on the site, such as the topography and the location of the garage already encroaching into the setback. 12 � , i � f' • ;, � i. � � � I f i �-� Jim Shearer confided his hesitance to set precedent to base a variance on security concerns, as there could be many in the Tcwn who believed they had similar concerns. Kathy Langenwalter expressed her belief that this particular variance was based on extraordinary circumstances. She wanted to be sensitive to the owner as well as to the site, and compared the request to one for an owner with a particular disability: She beiieved the variance was for a unique combination of site constraints and owner hardship, and that if the ownership of the property changed, the addition should be removed. Gena Whitten said she did not think that a removal condition would be necessary. Ludwig Kurz agreed with that opinion. Neither Chuck Crist or Jim Shearer had an opinion on the condition. '' i :,, -,: � Kathy Langenwalter moved that the Commission approve the request ;� for a front setback variance for the Perot residence, located at ,� 64 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 3I, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, I as submitted, and with the finding that extraordinary circum- stances are applicable to this site which does not apply generally to the other sites in the zone district,,in that the garage was located in the front setback of the property due to the overall slope of the lot exceeding 30%. Additionally, an expanded entry/security gate was necessary for this owner. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. Kristan Pritz indicated this would not be counted as GRFA for the house. The vote was a unanimous 6-0. Subsequent to the voting, Diana Donovan indicated she appreciated the staff's assistance in formuZating the wording for the variance, even though they had originally recommended denial. 7. 8. 9. A re�uest to amend Chapter 18 04 of the Municipal Code - Definitions; to add a new definition for affordable housina unit. Applicant• Town of Vail A request to amend Chapters 18 10 - Sinqle-Familv District, 18 12 - Two-Family Residential District and 18.13 - Primarv/ Secondarv Residential District to allow affordable housinq units as a Conditional Use. Appllcant: Town of Vail A request to amend Chapters 18.14 - Residential Cluster District 18 16 - Low Density Multiple Family District, 18 18 - I�edium Densit� Multiple Family District 18.22 - �.. ; �.. �� a- -� _.. n .. ;� l � v c l ��iic Accv�u'n��ia�l�� s��ic�, 18.�4 �c.«m�r..��.� r� .� District 18 26 - Commercial Core 2 District, 18.27 - Commercial Core 3 District, 18.28 - Commercial Service Center District 18 29 - Arterial Business District,_18.36 - 13 Public Use Districtt and 18.39 -'Ski Base/Recreation • District; to allow affordable housin� units as a Conditional Use. Ap�licant: Tawn of Vail 10. A request to amend Chapter 18.58 of the Municibal Code - Supplemental Regulations to provide sbecific development! zoninq standards for affordable housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail ' These faur items were presented together by Mike Mollica. He described the changes requested, namely explaining that the changes were recommended from the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study as Phase I changes. He summari'zed these as being proposed as conditional uses for differing zoning districts, as well as defining Affordable Housing Unit (AFU). The staff recommendation was that all suggested changes be approved. Type I units would be allowed as a conditional use in SF, 2-F, and P/S zone districts. Types II and III would be a conditional use for Residential Cluster, Low Density Multi- Family, Medium Density Multiple Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Care I, Commercial Core II, Commercial Core III, Commercial Service Center, Arterial Business District, Public Use and Ski Base/Recreation Zone Districts. Staff also recommended adaption of the definition of Affordable Housing Unit as being "a dwelling unit, with a restricted flaor area, that shall be used for long-term rentals, or ownership, by local emplayees in the E 1 V 11 G Valle Minturn Red Cliff Gilman Upper ag e a ey ( ore y, , , , Eagle-Vaii, and Avon and their surrounding areas) for the specific purpase of housing." Staff also encouraged the adoption of the development standards for AFIIs, Types I, II and III. These development standards would be in the Zoning Code under Section 18.58.330 and cross- referenced. Chuck Crist asked for clarification on the parking requirements, � specificaily if an AFU were placed on a P/S lot, would.the ' enclosed parking be 5 spaces? Kristan responded that yes, there could be up to 5 spaces, but one enclosed space would be required to be on the lot. She also clarified that there would be no GRFA credit for the garage. Mike Mollica further explained that the AF'U would have to come from existing or available GRFA, but that the "250 Ordinance," after possible revision and reenactment for this specific purpose, could be used for a portian of the GRFA. Jim Shearer requested information on what specifically would be included in a full kitchen. Mike stated that it would include a refrigerator, sink, range and/or microwave. Mike continued his e�lanation of the three types of AFUs. Type I would consist of 300-700 sq. ft., including a bath and full kitchen. Type II is _ __ _ 14 f � larger, ranging from 450-900 sq. ft, and would also include a bath and full kitchen. Two people per bedroom would be allowed, and the unit must be on a bus line or a private shuttle would be reguired. Further, both Type i and Type II units would be permanently deed restricted. Type IIS units would consist of 200-300 sq. ft., and would have a bath and kitchenette consisting of a small refrigerator, sink and microwave oven. A centrai kitchen and lounge area would be required for every 5 Type III AFUs in each building. Storage lockers and laundry facilities would also be required. Jim requested that the language "in each building" be added to the storage lockers and laundry facilities sentence of the description. Ludwig Kurz asked for a definition of what "accessible" to the � Town of Vail bus line would mean. Mike replied that it should be � more clearly defined. Kristan-Pritz suggested using the term ; "walking distance." Mike recommended perhaps using "reasonable 'j walking distance." Jim reiterated his desire to see a clear definition. Diana Donovan thought that a"reasonable" walking distance would be appropriate, as the Commission could review each request as it came up through the Conditional Use permit process. She also believed that the precluding of the use of cars should be stated as the objective for this requirement. Mike Mollica turned the attention of the Commission to the issue of density. He stated that Type III units would equal 0.333 dwelling units, or three units would equal 1 dwelling unit for the purpases of density. He further explained that these units would not be allowed to exceed the allowable GRFA for the district. Chuck Crist asked if the density could be exceeded. Mike indicated that it could not. Kathy Langenwalter asserted that the propased density language was not clearly stated. Mike ' ' agreed to change the density language to delete the "if the 0.333 • _` density standard is utilized" to clarify the section. Mike asked the Commission for their opinions regarding the Type III units, and questioned whether these units were necessary, as : they seemed to receive a cool reception during the previous public hearing process. The Commission stated very clearly that they believed this type of housing was necessary for seasonal workers. Kathy Langenwalter asked if a Type I unit would be allowed in a garage if the garage was placed in the front setback of a property. Kristan explained that there was,already language in the code regarding this, but she would make the changes in the definition of Type I AFU to read °if a garage is located in the fr�n� ��ti�a�k o� a property; a Type I AFU shall not be allowed." Kathy also inquired how the 250 Ordinance would be used. She did not like the use of the 250 in a P/S district by both owners to provide 500 square feet. She believed that 250 square feet per lot should be the maximum allowable. She felt that if two 250s i5 4' � ,_ . �.:: ..,..:. -...::.. . .�:: ..:�.:� . � :: :..-.�:I were used, the buildings would be too large. Jim Shearer . asserted that verbiage was needed so that the property o*aners could decide between them who would use the 250. KaLhy expanded on ta say that there would oniy be 1 AFU allowed per lot, and both owners would have to agree on it. Diana Donovan asked if this had been a big discussion item during the Zoning Code Task Force meetings. Kristan explained that the existing 250 Ordinance was proposed to be eliminated, and then perhaps it could be re-established specifically for the AFUs. She agreed to the change in language that there would be 250 per lot, rather than per dwelling unit. She suggested that the 250 language be taken out of the current definition, but with a footnote as to intention to reinstate, once the current 250 Ordinance is repealed. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the Housing Authority wouid set the rentai rates for the units. Kristan replied that they probably would. Diana stated she believed it was part of their job. Kristan said that Jill Kammerer would investigate that with the Authority. Jill explained that the Authority was still trying to decide how, or if, to set the rates. Diana asked that guidelines be established, to which Ludwig Kurz suggested the rates be set an local wages. Jim Shearer declared he believed a range was necessary, and that the Housing Authority should be the ones to ; set it. Diana agreed with setting guidelines, not specific renzs. Diana Donovan reiterated her opinion that Type III units were necessary for seasonal employees. Jim thought that comriercial buildings could provide these units on the top fioor. Kathy believed SDDs would also be a good source to provide the units. Diana viewed a definite need for these units, and expressed her opinion that the workers who would occupy Type IIIs would not necessarily be the ones to turn out to public hearings. i ; Mike Mollica asked Kathy what she would like to see for parking. ; Kathy replied that she did not believe 1 parking space was adequate, but was not sure requiring more would be practical. Kathy asked staff to add wording that all required parking be built as a part of the conditional use. Diana also wanted to explore Aspen's plan that a second car would have to be parked at a location other than the AFU. She also stated that if parking became a prablem, the cars could always be ticketed and towed. Mike Mollica agreed to amend the parking changes in the AFU language. Diana explained to those members of the Commission who were not on the Affordable Housing Task Force that the rationale behind the density requirements was to protect the neighbarhood. Chuck 16 �-.�,-,�- - - ! i � • 1 � I a wondered if these units would ever be built. Diana answered that she thought many second home owners would be happy to have a caretaker unit to watch their house. The Commission's attention turned to rental rates. Jill Kammerer expressed that it would be difficult to set specific rates, as construction costs would have to be taken into consideration. Diana Donovan objected to that logic, and suggested that long- term rates be set as a range. Jim Shearer asked that a cap be placed on the range, so that the units would be rentable, and not just used as guest rooms. Jill suqgested that Vall.ey-wide costs per square foot could be monitored to determine acceptable costs. Ludwig indicated that these rates were readily available, and postulated that a responsible developer and builder could build a unit for approximately $50 per square foot. He suggested the rental rates not be tied to construction costs, but serve as guidelines to income and rental level. Kathy Langenwalter stated that there could be higher-income employee units, but Jim Shearer rebutted by saying that the units should be reasonably rentable. Kristan said that a tie-in to median income levels is cominon among housing projects. Jim Shearer agreed, saying that it would farce employers to pay a reasonable wage. He did, however, still want a maximum rental cap on the units. Kristan said that the levels could be re-examined each year, and that since construction costs were often tied to the economy, a balance should be reachable. In concluding the discussion, Diana Donovan asked that the GRFA language be re-worded. Staff agreed. 11. Approval of minutes from February ll 1991 meeting. Jim Shearer moved the minutes from the February 11, 1991 meeting be approved as written. Diana Donovan seconded the motion. The motion passed, 4-0-1, with Chuck Crist abstaining. I2. Approval of minutes from February 25 1991 meeting. Jim Shearer moved the February 25, 1991 minutes be accepted as written. Kathy Langenwalter seconded. The vote was 3-0-1 in favor, with Diana Donovan abstaining. A date for the PEC workshop/dinner was established as April l, 1991 at 5:30PM, to take place at the Vail Golf Course clubhouse. Upcoming joint meetings between the PEC and Town Council were , discussed. Specifically, the March 12 Master Transportation Plan and March 19, 1991 Streetscape Plan were discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 6:05PM by Diana Donovan. 17 i Planning and Environme . m..r..�. .�C [7-.: l ` y , �� ,� � �f�.�`� � �- ,, Peter Harris Rudy �^° � , ��" {:�� . � r� Attorney and Cottrsellor ��t Law �� t� F ?`� Suite 214, Vail Nationa� Bank t+^� �' �� i �' ��• I'v ��q-. 108 South Frontage koad � '� �� .Pi Vail, Colorado 81657 ` �" � �' � �,'ti � (303 j 476-8865 � � �� !�` � FAX (303) 476-16#5 � � , �' � � March 11, I991 ,J , �tx ,: tal Commission _ � /;.7 oVUl,ii rtvlt�.ayc .c�vuu rrco� . . � � � . , � � � - Vail, CO 81657 RE: Request for Additional View Corridors, Amendment to Ordinance 13, 1983 Dear Planning and Environmental Commission Members: I represent the East Village Homeowners Association, a newly formed association of homeowners in the Gore Creek Drive neigh- borhood. The East Village Homeowners Association requests that the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission include the following additional view corridors in the amendment of Ordinance No. 13, 1983 now under consideration by the Town of Vail. 1. The view to be protected extends to the 5outh from the North right-of-way line of Gore Creek Drive. 2. The view to be protected extends to the West from the North right-of-way line of Gore Creek Drive and the � South right-of-way line of Hansen Ranch Road. Further, we request that the terms of the Amendment provide that this amendment to Ordinance No. I3, 1983 become effective I upon signature by the Mayor or the soonest date as provided for in the Vail Town Charter, ./ � � �'" f f i Sin rely� fF � r %� , t � , ` t ` �� ,. � �_�� .� c�.� � �� /� Peter Harris Rudy cc: East Village Homeowners Association _ _ _ _ �4-� �MORANDIIM TO: Pianning and Environmentai Commission FRCiM: Community Develapment Department DATE: March 11, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983, to establish an additional view corridor, and to clarify wording in the ordinance. 'She view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sals �o the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Range. Applicant: Tawn of Vail ;I .::::. :::::::. :::.....::.:::.�::._:::.: ,.;:_:.;. .. _ ' ..:.. ., ..:.:..:.:::.::..:.::::.::::.......::.. .....::::::�:..:;.:::.:;..:..:.:< :........::.::.::.:.:;:::.:;<•::.;..;�.;:.::....'.......::;:::<.:::::..............::::::::.:;::.:;:.: `' 1 ... ...... ..... . ...... .. .. ... .................... .. _...... .... .... . ....... .. ...... ..... ......... ...... ........ . ..... . . . ..... � .»::�_.�:::;:::::=::::::;>::<:;:»::>::>:::>::�;:::::::::>:::�»::=:>:» :::: ;:::::::;:::>::.�:;::;�::»;:::;:>:<�::»:>:>;;:>:::;>;>:>:;:;::::>:>:;::;:=>:;:::::::::»»>:�:::<::::>::>>:>:::�:::.>:::<::=>::::::::;::>:.::_>:�.;.:<:::> ��-� ........... ........ .......: ::.::: :.....................:...................... ................. ......... ....... � . .. ... .. ...........:: :.:..........:...:............:::,::......:.... . Since the PEC work session on Februar� 11, 1991, staff has rephotographed the Gore Range and identified the view corridor mare clearly. Attached to this memo are two photoqraphs taken from a 5°-2" height that show alternative ways to set the boundary of �the corridor. The first'is staif's recommendation, which runs the i�aundary along the roofs of the existing Red Lion ar.d Christiania buildings. The second reflects PEC's discussion durang the work session, �hich runs th� boundary directly betweer two balcony railings on either side of the corridor. The vertical boundaries which frame the two sides of the corridor ar� the same on both alternatives since there =�as general agreement on that issue. The 5'-2" height is consistent with the height sta�ff used to photograph other vie�a corridors in the past. Staf� believes this is a typical eye lsvel height for pedestrians. Two other.photographs are attached to this memo which were at the work session, which were taken from a 3'-10" height. potential Christiania expansion has been identified on one photographs by Paul Johnston's architect. used A of the Regarding the te�rt of the proposed ordinance, staff has changed it so that it is clearly understood that existing encroachments which are focal points (like the Clock Tower) are intended to rQmain. During the PEC work session, it was mentioned by Jay Peterson that �he Council, when discussing the proposed changes to the Red Li�n, had said that view corridor number one was to exclude the Rec1 Lion chimney: Staff has_ineluded �he chimney as part of view corridor number 4. Staff could find no portion of Town CounciZ minutes_:stating that the Red Lion chimney should be excluded from the view corridor. Staff understands from individuals involved with the original definition of this view corridor that the � � I '- ' I �- boundary was placed around the chimney, excluding it. Staff f would like to enable pedestrians to see as mucn oi the Gore Range E as possible,,and as a result, staff recommends ir.ciudirq it srtithin the bounciary. By including it, staff saculd encourage the Red Lion to remove a portion of �he chimney if and when the Red L:ion applies for a major remodel, Even though the original discussions may have excluded it, staff beli�ves that cQrridors in general shouid be defined with building roofs and wal?s, �aot archi�ectural projections like chimneys. �efore this view corridor is established, it must be considered by Town Council twice and adopted as an ordinance. Staff believes that this addition to the code should be treated similarly'to .other code changes. There should be some kind of "grace period" for developers to pull building permits for projects designed under the current regulations. Staff proposes to use the same process �hat was used for the recent cods cnange limiting the number of woodburnin� fireplaces. Once adopted by ; the Town Cour�cil, staff proposes that there be a six wesk period `; for andividuals to submit a complete DRB application for projects that would otherwise encraach into View Corridor #4• Approval af the praject by DRB, or any other board, is not naeded. A ( comp�ete application submittal is alZ that would be necessazy. � The staff inemo from the February 11, 1991 PEC work session is � attached to this cover �nemo. It has been modified to reflect the concerns the PEC expressed, including the discussion of the chimney and clarifying the language regarding focal points like the Clock Tow2r. ; ��- ��- � , , �:y �� I � � t�� f; � � � ` ; I �� ;� � � , _ ,�-a'' V� a �� ¢`� �-� ,� r j X T" � � � �""—� � �* °� � f ., � � �r.. �.,. :i ,.�� i � � - �� . X ' ��- � �. °i� - y � �. } •. � u� , �`�.•—'� e - k 1. . »y , i`� �t � �.,� �;�.i ` - t: r.' F � ? i � `� v' � � 1. �� . � ��:� r , . ��-�'�• � ' � � � � �V � � `�`~� � t�r` �.�,- ' , _�;,' ;`�' �,�j.� { s� i �� .� �`� � � ,4 . u� � �� t .- � � � y�� y : i �� `/ s r� J' '; . i~ . �� '* .., �+t . . . �F.�' A F t . -t�4 , � �E � ' � . �.-�„ � ' "� — . : i lr° 5 3 l: ; � fr `. .��i�, �� w �} yz � � 5;" J. �' � �'�_� '� � Ek. . . ... . . ...: , ...:. .. ., . _ . .,. . .:. �...-. 1 I - MEM0�2ANDII�S TO: Planning and Environmental,Commission FROM: L�epartment of Community Development DATE: March 11, I991 SUBJECT: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish an additional view corridor and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building - toward the Gore Range. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND The primary purpose of this request is to add another view � corridor to the four existing vi�ew corridors the Town Council has adopted. These four views are numbered 1, 2, 5 and 5. These numbers are based on a large list that was put together in an effort to comprehensively identify as many view corridors as possible. The view that is under consideration with this proposal is number four from that list. In addition to adding a view corridar, the proposed ordinance would clarify some of the language in the current view corridor ordinance. II. PROPOSED VIEW CORRIDOR � , ; The proposed view corridor will read as follows: ; ' ':� "View No. 4- The point of origin for this view is ,� 8'-2" east of the southern side of the door frame of Frivolous Sals, located.at 244 Wall Street. The view i was established by setting a camera five €eet two ' inches above this point, using a 50 millimeter lens. The Hill Building and the Plaza Lodge buildings flank j the corridor on either side. It then extends above the � Red Lion roof, then above the Christiania roof over Hansen Ranch Road, to the Gore Range." . � III. PROPOSED LANGUAGE 4 The current ordinance is attached to this memo for �reference. The portions which are proposed to be changed � are marked with an asterisk in the margin. I � I � _. r � - A. I� � I ! i � �� ( � S' 1 � � �� J �� .rv" B- .,,� � r�� • �� ,� � �y`-� � ��' , C. `� ^� -�.'� _�� ,, �`��, � �,� Y�� -� � The first change is to delete the following sentence: "Minflr modifications to the roofs or structures (i.e. new flue) located above the line may be permitted if appropriate approvals from 'the Community Development Department are obtained." "any modifications to the roofs or structures which are proposed to be located above the line of the vi�w corridor may be permitted if approved by the PEC aad Town Council." The second change is to modify the following paragraph: Staff proposes that this sentence be replaced with: a "As'circumstances affecting views change, such as rezonings, variances and he'ight or new buildings, view corridors will be reviewed and if necessary revised. If a conflict exists between the maximum height allowed and the view corridors, the more restrictive regulation will apply." i :i the ,� Instead of the above, staff'proposes the following language be added: � i "If the maximum height allowed by the zoning co�e exceeds the resultinq height as defined by the visw corridor, the more restrictive height as defined by the view corridor shall apply." A third isstie which staff would like to add to the ordinance reads as follows: ��A.ny e$pansion propose8 abovs the view carridor line, ` evsn if it is pra�osed ta be buii'� bela�r, behi�d or in fr��t of an Qxisting atruc�u�� that 3� in a vi�� c�xri�o� (a �himney or oth�r architectural featur� for ex�p1�) s�all not ba alio��d.�� There are three reasons why staff would like to add this section. First, it c]:arifies the existing wording of the ordinance which is presently interpreted in this manr�er. Secondly, it will prevent new buildings from com�ieting taith existing focal points like the Clock �'��aer. Third, it will help keep corridors open so that,, �ventually, when existing encroachments are removed, corridors will be completely c3ear. Hypothetically, new construction could impact existing view corridors in the following ways: View 1: (From the parking structure looking aut to the ski mountain.} View 6: View 4: Potential applicants may want to construct additions above the view corridor line, which would not exceed the height of the Gold Peak House. This is the situation that occurred with the Red Lion. A thorough review of the encroachment shall be required, which staff believes is appropriate. (From Gore Creek Drive looking east over Gorsuch to the Gore Range.) (Proposed new view from Frivolous Sals looking east to the Gore Range.) Expansions to the Red Lion or Mill Creek Court Building could be located behind the Red Lion chimney. This should not be allowed as the existing chimney blocks part of the Gore Range from view which, ideally, should be removed. Additions to buildings could be done in such a way that the mountain views are preserved. However, staff believes the prominence of the C1ock Tower should not be reduced with any other construction that would exceed the height defined by the view corridor. The reason staff would like to add this to the ordinance is to clearly communicate to developers the view corridor boundaries are not exclusively determined by existing buildings but instead are determined by the view corridor line. This clarification is needed to make the point that no construction above the view corridor line is allo Lastly, a fou the ordinance +�some view corridors include portions of existinq structures that currently encronch into the corridor. Pre�existinq encroachments in view corridors shall not be �spanded or enlarged to create further encroachment. For example, dacks which extend out into a aorridor will not be allowed to be enclosed or expanded. Appli- cants requestinq changes to buildinqs within view corridors should be aware that �ny �xa.sting encroach- msnts will be enaouraged to be remov�d from the view - - - . � __ . ,- -- -- �- r- --�= -- � � _ IV. CONCLUSION � i Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental ; Commission recommend that Town Council adopt these revisions � to the view corridor ordinance. Staff believes that the � clarifications will make the development review process simpler for both applicants and the Town in the future. � Staff believes that adding view corridor number four, to those already adopted by the Tow�n Council, is important as it is a beautiful view of the Gare Range from a high use pedestrian area of Vail Village. '. ' i I , � �� - , �i ' � � � � � _ � 1 - _ i t � � � 1 � 9 , _ a � �; �� ' �� . _ , � r .�� '`„'�"•"-- _ � � ��,; ��' � � � �` , � ..:� � , , � ��x rt . n � , ,,; _ _ . _ , r „ , , � ' =�� + x' t '4 � '� , � � ,/ � � � �. ;� � } �. ;,, .� _ f �� _ � - ; � A x � :i�� [) _ ` : - -^�{� :`�t K� ' � i'i - �'' � _ C." _ � 1 � �i� �• i `�� '% 1� - .2' � �, : .. . . . l •' ) .. �' . ' .x� :�.. .".:?�r,, � � � � t � � � ��. �s .! � , ;d . _� 3 � ' �- -� � _ _L _ ��:-: - ��. ,� �` ' �+ _ �y r,�µ� '� -r�::�.: �=r3?' , - . `��- � i t i 0 s �� _ .�� -,.-.�--�,' i�t; ��'�" � f� '' �� .� � � � ��'` � �. � ��'� � ' � {p. ; k � �� ,� : �''.� ��- �}'''ti °-- '- ,� , _ �.� r � _ �Y -. "� .._ _ �, r ��: _ . +-=Y � �t- � .�� , '��` a.l� �! �. t . .. 1 �� r� � s '� �� , �, � w �,:,�.��':. sc. . �'�` � � �k : �'�'� �^;� "x. _`r'`,�. �9� 3 _-, .,,� 4. � �:4�� . . �.� �� C'� � ��' -.'��a� `:��E r _ � £ � ' �_ ____._. ..��a �-.�`d! �( �� . . �'�' 1"F} ��'�'' _ f :' � Staff Reco�mendation 2-25-91 . S'2" height 50 mm lens , '�# � , ; � s . �; �.. .e �� i ; , ` --� \ . \ 3 � ' � j ' _- � � _ � ; �� . , - i �;: - � :� � � .h�� i \ ! ��i;�:._r, � ; � ' : ` � � \\ � , � � � , �� p��` � I_ `�'�F� _ _ _ " C � � j � � � �r i ''<� V E � a, z,. 1� _ � � �� , a ��_`'`.� � �i.�� .- ' � � -' . '.. �q� -.....r �� l a��,.. =� t't �=- I � � Y� ..�.�..," , � x l�. _ ii�� . _ � �� , ��. , � ._ L , : ` i a : ` � �..��...��,� �'_ '�� c.- � �� ; -: � _ _ _ =� ,� �, -�� f i - ' _ :-��,.- = ��;':� j� p-r l-'� � � - � '��.�:.-� � � 4'Q^ x�� - �� . . . . `..�+F N:.-��a-f'° � _ _ _ �,:-�° -_: s� 'x°;�„�.-�. . - �- ., - ��. i � � � _ .�� ' _ .; y �; � _.. � � � �.� i j I � � t ;' I ( ��i ' �*'� �iy T -xs- �: , ; E � � .� �p� � , � � - ; � � � .y� ; � ;, . � , . �� .. � { : i '• � � �' �"--' + , t :. f � �( , . i i �- ` '7"s= � '�� -:�` ;, �E)1 � �� -'��$''�?�,� � , F1�s ,, �. �� f - i : �_ J -a.� 1r �. J� �- '�` �,,.� , �, i �,,_ ��, ,� � , � 1} .; _ _ � ; - : , _ - `... 1 _� r ' i ;�, '`' -� > � - } � _: E' S � 1y! � k ,� T � .:! :a . 1 4 T ; - ��- °�..'� - �.-'�^ _ '� { �� ' I �, ; �� AV �� •� �g � - -,,. . _ ` .. ._ �. `� .r`�-,c�`.,�-?. ,.4 - f.� 1'°_'- . ; ' �ri ��' .. ��, .n.�+�".�`.,. � �`.zz � a'�,:"'� � � ��>:�- �,y '��' i � '.�,�y . � / "' '� �'! '-� A T _ �" ° �'.. �r� +z�' _ ;. . „€, ��xa:a _ -�£s.�._ Y � � �. y�.. �? 4 �:_. € 't`F.,- - _ t � � . y�� _ �t �.. ,f �:S _ ' - � � .� � ' _� �`.s�--- .74 . .P ...: ' � � � " a�.�?i � `�r'� - ...Cs.�.._e. ;� .. ':'� '�„% : �- A..% " .� � 9 � _o. + _ } � y £�`�� ; °�i>'� Y . .S _ _ � 8 � �� r ;�� ` ��=�� +}�1 _ .�.. � ` 5 ��5•�� }� � { 2'W � �' � :e6. � �. "�`: ' rv°4 e a }�'t�� _ � - :i � : ,� . ` 2� -,'' $ _ �`Y` _ I � ; �E �� r: �_A ,� � �� _:-.3.� _ � � _ _ � _ .} � e3--� �r_ {. ;, �� . . ` d � ' � � - - � .� ,.z.- �: : '� � �- �.� ��-�t x"-'_ � �' �� - - - -�s ��1�-�.i. :�ry r -� � � .�°�, # `� `R "`_,��;;.�� r�l . - . _ � _ .t �� - � _ -�.3 ; �� '� �'�.�. �,,,,''��,� -'�y: °:*' �roa-�°" � �'k�� -• �; �.. � 2 � �'3 t � �t, .d � ,�� "�' c '+'q� ''�'k`� `_-�� " �. • � ..- �� z _ f-c�- , ,,;� �y r ;.. `� . ,�•. . . �� ,'�`.-"�"' . - � �` �": � _� .f � , v. k-� � �.4��.�� - ""� . i - IA �i. : _ �y.�_ ' ` . .. ' , v+�` ,.50. -V..?��- �....r,r �s.. .. l.R''� �?' �,�' ; . ' iG'�- .: h ' -. t - -�'. r�__ <.�f�4�V ` . . ' ��,i�' �� ;��„ .�'_ � S' �"�"�r�±-.� ��'°#,i'� "' -�"-�` ` �`_ •,��,�_, j�s � „� �,��` '�. t� '1�'' �� - _ ' =� _ ,�".. : p �. � ;'��„4�t. �-�` _ �-.. �� _ i `� ��+ _ �_'�' r � `�^"'_` -�� _ �"� � �'.t _,' "' s� � �+'� sp�� : - . . . y '�� ,� t�,, - Conclusion of PEC discussion �� - „�- - -��. F ;��. �^`� �rom worksession on 2-12-91 , r �•' ° �'"` �" '�' - 5' 2" height .. � p � �.�"" _� *>, � . - ,� __ ,�� - ��,,�.s-� . ; .�� t- , 50 mm lens �-� Y ,t�` .:.,. , .�� ' � � ��. r,:f-«.�. , „�� .P '`'°�� =�' *� _ - - - "` + _ > -t E , _s_ ' _ '� . _,�� . �, :�. , . _ . . - _ ,.. i � i �' - —_!� ; `.,�—�.. i ; F'. � , �w � �� .- � �.� �-° .,,, ,; ; � ` `1 ,, s� ;� � i i�( , ,I �rx , �� ,.,,�:, �. � �-.��'+ ; i - ' �,�,r.�� s� �� Y.--- - .: tw� �: .., ,: __ _�_,.�� _ _.,: _.._.._. _,_, _ . .s�. i':l =:iJ ., ; i _. ___ - - - ---- ------ --- _ _ _ -- - - --- - -- -- U f'�LUi,� '� � 3, � �q�3 � AN ORDINANCE AL:ENDING THE VAIL VILL�IGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLr�`�' - DESIG;T CONSIDER TIONS : VIE�4 �ECTIO'� ;1';D �'IEIV C�RrII)�'P. �1:1P �PO RLI?t'C� THE :vli.`,;i3i'.R �H� :,1��JUlt VI±'�ti C��1:LtillUli� ND 'IV ELIh1IPiATE MINOR VIEW CORRIDORS; AND�SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO. � {4HEREAS, the revision to the view section of the Urban Design Guide Plan - Design Considerations and the View Carridor 11ap has been under study by staff, Planning and �nvironmental (�ommission and Town Council for a considerable time.perioa; 2nd i WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that preservation of certain existing view corridors is essential tp the character of Vail as a mountain resort; and WHEREAS, the preservation oi such views will protect the municipalities attraction to tourists and visitors and, therefore, enhance and protect its economic vitality. WHEREAS, it is the opinion of Council that the several most important view corridors be entirely preserved as they exist; and jVHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recom- mended adoption af the nine view corridors, one focal point and ainendments to the language in the view section to the Council, NOZV, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY�THE T059N COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL: � Section 1 Section G. Views of the Vail Village Design Considerations is hereby amended to read as iollows: G. VIEK`S AND FOCAL POINTS Vail!s mountain/valley setting is -a fundamental part of its �-�;;•� -. identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, '"°'" etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by •�'��'�"'. orientation re?erence points. Certain building .repeated visibility, �{�;�� r�:�.features are also important character features, orientation refer- '��,•'`� ences and visual focal points. � � `'.k r�':�: : . �� a�� x`"The most significant and obvious view corridors have been designated ��?��' on the View Corridor Map (an element of the Vail Village Urban Desigr � f �� ,,;:,�� ,>.Framework Plan) and photographically docHowever,(thetviewncorridors. �=!i�.��-�•-?�°'=:.the Community Development Department) . �"='y`- 3�'�'�'�'�'^ depicted on the maps and in the photographs should not be considered i :: �.:??J..�'.cw.f_;.> -�`•-; `x-�`"�'exhaustive. There are obviously many other important views too �`�,y'�y��"�' numerous to map. When evaluating a development proposal, first . F��_J�;�--,;~�priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the �,, ,�s:project on views from pedestrian areas, whether designated or not. �._ . _ � �-:�-r`+��'�`�".'.-`''` reserved ori inate irom either major �'��+"^-^' The views designated to be p g '��V"��f � �� • or the Clock Tower. �,,��r-�:,�:. pedestrian areas or public plazas. They are views of the ski y.�, . � .- �.; _>',.�:�•=' mountain, the Gore Range The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower which were ` selected to be preserved were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points to help the guests determine their location. �� ,And, of course, looking east from the Vail Village azea one S�'�""�'� �"y views tne dramatic Gore Range provlding some of the most beautiful � . � SceniC Views a�iywhere. 1� ��.�. . � 4 • ..---. _ t - i � , • - , � i � � _�_ 0 �� The official photograghs and iield surveys of�the view corridors and focal point contain the area to be protec ed. No encroachment will be allowed above the top o3 the black an white line on the photographs or in the protected area as depict'ed by the Yield surveys. The iield surveys are on file with the Department ot :. '.r;';;;;'t,;; Conununity Development and will be used to aid staff and applicants?=•��'� in determining the specii'ic dimensional restrictions produced by� '`��" the view corridors. Minor modifications to the roofs or structure.s� �• (i.e. a new flue) located above the line may bie permitted if appro-,,,.•� priate approvals from the Community Developmenit Department are. ��' obtained. . , �,; - '.;:, � ,;: � �.r�,:• :�,r To demonstrate the impact on other views, all submittals should ``�":;� include a visual impact analysis. This analyais could be in the•;'..c.:".' form of sketches, photographic overlays, photographic touch-ups, - models, or other simulation techniques. A means of demonstrating `_�,' in the field (on site) the impact on views will also be required by the zoning administrator. As circumstances affecting views change, such as rezonings, variances in height or new buildings, the view corridors will be reviewed and, ii necessary, revised. If a conflict e�cists between the maximum height allowed and the view corridors, the more restrictive regulation The following is e, listing and verbal description oP the adopted W111 view corridors and iocal point: • appiy` N0. DESCRIPTION 1 This view occurs from two flights of steps above the photographic point on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center. The view is significant in that it contains the Clock Tower and the Rucksack Tower as focal points, but also is one's first view of the ski slopes as one comes out of the Transportation Center. 2 This is a signiiicant view because.3t allows one to see the ski slopes from upper Bridge Street as well �.s directing one to the ticket and lift facilities in the Villae�. 5 This is a view of the Gore Range�from Ha�hson Ranch Road just east of the D4i11 Creek Bridge and west o� the Dlill Creek Court B1 6 This is probably the best known and most spectacular view in the Village area. It is looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between The Lodge at Vail retail shops and the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The Clock Tower is a iocal point in this view. : `..f _ ..� i \ / I . :/ . . _ . � , �\ y . r I ., ,; ,.. �s � __. - - -- ---- --- -- _i- -- _ _ ---- � , M � . - , , �, ) � ii � � , _ 3' Section 2 ' If an art section, subsection, sentence, cl�use or phrase Y P � of this ordinance is for any reason held to be inva�.id, such decision shall not eifect the validity of the remaining port�ons of this . ordinance; and the Town Counci2 hereby declares it �ould have passed t�is ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,'sentence, clause � or phrase thereof, regardless of the iact that any Qne or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrase� be declared ir,valid. I -: ;�� i Section 3 .,'�`: ' :..r-' The Town Council hereby iinds, determines and declares that , - this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation - that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed or reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE II3 FULL, this ��•G day of , 1983. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the o?/.a� day of , 1983, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of th .Town of Vail, Colorado, in ! The Municipal Building oi the Town. Rodney E. lif r, M or ATTEST:, , �nulrV A ��,�r� r�t,ca��u✓ Pamela A. Brandmeye�, Town Clerx READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED � � this aT/..a� day of , 1983. Rodney E. S ifer, Ma or ATTL�ST : ' ' '�4�f'�i.l�.� �l/�(�Q,��1LLL�s,(.�,% Pamela A. Branameyer, Town Clerk , � - i i � -. �- i �. .. .. . � . . � � � 1 . . . � .. ,. r `�.x. : . �I . .. I - j � � I � � I � � � � �. i r: � �� i �% z'_ -`3 _ � � :� _ _.. . .� ��G�jr -. , _ � . � . � --' � ` . - - _ � ' _ � . � i i I �-, � � � ! ; � , �� _ i - . I �.. - --- .. . . . . - -- - -1 � MEMORANDIIM "' TO: Planning and Environmental �ommission FROM: Community Development Depar�ment ; �/ , %: �-,, '� �,` �,--`� "t � i� , �1 � j , DATE: February 25, 1991 , �� , ti �, �;'��;" �t �� , 1 s } � �� ,.; 1�' ?� � �;. SUSJECT: A request to amPnd Ordinanc No. 13, 3983, to establish an additional view corridor, and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from ' Frivolous Sals to the east aver the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Range. Applicant: Town of Vail i ; � � Since the PEC work session on February 11, 1991, staff has � rephotographed the Gore Range and identified the view corridor more clearly. Attached to this memo are two alternative ways to set the boundary of the corridor. The first is staff's recommen- dation, which runs the boundary along the roofs of the existing Red Lion and Christiania buildings. The second reflects PEC's discussion during the work session, which runs the boundary directly between two balcony railings on either side of the corridor. The vertical boundaries which frame the two sides of the corridor are the same on both alternatives since there was general agreament on that issue. The attached photographs were taken using a 3'-10" high tripod. After reviewing them, however, j�,,,, staff decided the corridor should be based on the "eye level" of -�� ; �? : I the average pedestrian in the Village. Additional photographs� ,�,�� ,�,�r„�.� taken from a height of 5'-2" will be provided at the hearing. ,,�� Staff has modified the text of the proposed ordinance regarding � �� t "� existing encroachments, so that it is clear that some ;; encroachments (like the clock tower) which are focal points, are (?�., intended to remain. �� During the PEC work session, it was mentioned by Jay Peterson �,y�,�k� that the Council, when discussing the proposed changes to the Red Lion had said that view corridor number one was to exclude the 1� i! , � ft C ��. c'�--. Red Lion chimney. Staff has included it as part of view corridor :; number 4. Staff could find no Town Council ninutes that � f'�-v� discussed the issue of whether the Red Lion chimney should be �� l exc�uded from the view corridor. �ecaus� th� Council discussionr focused on resoa �idgss and did not mentian the chimney, staff believes tha� it is consis�ent to anclude it in �this view corridor. The significanc:� ot this issue is �ha� tne chimney 4riII become an encroachment. In the future, staff will encourage the Red Lion to remove it if and when the Red Lion comes back for another remodel. r� --- - - � � � � The staff inemo from the February 11, 1991 PEC work session is attached to this cover memo. It has been modified to reflect'the concerns the PEC e�cpressed, including the dis�ussion of the chimney and clarifying the language regarding focal points like the Clock Tower. 3, '.�� ':'.:: ' . . -..' . : ... . .. .. .._.' �. . . � . .. . '. '.'. '.'..�. . " .'.'. . .:.:.. ' �'.'. ...'. ... . . . : :. ..: . . . _ .. . . . -.: . - .. .- . . : . .. . . �.-�. f-_�. �� To: Planning � and Environment Commission � � ; FROM: Department of Community Development ,: t DATE: February 11, 1991 (Revised February 25, 1991} '��' i RE: A request to amend Ordinance No. 23, 1983 to establish an additional view corridor and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to b� protected extends from ! Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore Range. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND The primary purpose of this request is to add another view corridor to the,four existing view corridors the Town _ Council has adopted. These four views are numbered l, 2, 5 and 6. These numbers are based on a large list that was put together in an effort to comprehensively identify as many `; view corridors as possible. The view that is under ';i consideration with this proposal is number four from that 'i list. In addition to adding a view corridor, the proposed ordinance would clarify some of the language in the current view corridor ordinance. II. PROPOSED VIEW CORRIDOR The proposed view corridor will read as follows: "View No. 4- The point of origin for this view is 8'-2" east of the southern side of the door frame of : Frivolous Sals, located at 244 Wall Street.. The view,%. �, ��r� was established by setting a camera �hree feet ten --� inches above this point, using a 50 millimete-r lens: -� �✓ � The Hill Building and the Plaza Lodge buildings flank the corridor on either side. It then extends above the Red Lion roof, then above the Christiania roof over Hansen Ranch Road, to the Gore Range." III. PROPOSED LANGUAGE The current ordinance is attached reference. The portions which are are marked with an asterisk in the to this memo for proposed to be changed margin. A. The � � � _ '"� first change is ta delete the fallowing sentence: "Minor modifications to the roofs or structures (i.e. a new flue) located above the line may be permitted if appropriate approvals from the Community Development Departznent are obtained." Staff proposes that this sentence be replaced with: "�Ay modifications to the raofs �r structures w�ich are � proposed to be loaated, or �re currently iocated above i the line (in the view corridnr) may be permitted if � approved.by the PEC and �o�� auncii." ; B. The second change is to modify the following paragraph: I i"As circums.tances affecting views change, such as �rezonings, variances and height or new buildings, the � view corridors will be reviewed and if necessary E revised. If a conflict exists between the maximum i height allowed and the view corridors, the mare restrictive regulation will apply." Instead of the above, staff proposes the following language be added: "If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting h�ight �s defined by ths view corridor, the more restrictiva height as defined by the „ view corridor shall apply." C. A third issue which staff would like to add to the � ordinance reads as follows: I ' �`( ��Any expansion proposed above the view corridor Zine, r�, i` even if it is proposed to be built below, behind or in ��' �:�.�i front of an existinq structure that is in a view �-�``� , J�, corridor (a chimne y or other architectural feature for J� �,. , v1 example) shall not be allowed.�� ;' �" f� ` �, _ _ _ _ _.. , `�. :� .._ - ___ _ - - _ _ _ __ ,. , � '1( ` The reason staff would like to add this to the �" � �ordinance is to`clearly communicate to developers thatK ��: � ��1� the view corridor boundaries are not exclusively �'��, ,J , ° determined by exist.i�ag_ buildings. This clarification �` : ,��` �_ ;,� ,is needed to make the point that no new construction !'�' .� � ^Y��- � above the view, corridor Iine _is-,allowed.-' Hypothetic- ; t, ;�,� i �.� ally, new construction could impact existing view � � ,: ��;� �,��. � 4,S�'� corridors in the following ways: � 1 �'�t' , �.. !}� � �� __ .� ;�� > - _ � �.- � �.i % " z" � t ` � . s�1 �� , ..r, $f�� f a �, �f � �, � `t 'vi 3 if�t y "� ° "i - � '�, .`� � Z�.f�� - 4-'^s-, a...-�„^r'} %, � e �`%<"' �� --L ,�'' � � . � �• �� - fs1 t�� r�i .:. � ' � _:_,��, t 2 ;� �,c, � � �'� c r -.�% .i� � �'. ! �a r � C.. : i# f ilur�,-C,n,t t•s�c .,•� � �,f, �r79 i <t z f �; t 'Y �,,�� i as ii ; i� t'-�� l��r� r�),r f:�-� hs��. � i° ,F-'� ;? r: f"di f;,-#' n0 e-rk„� {,��. ' �._ � _, � � F __ � �° � ° ? ; � �? ,t � ! t,. � `� � , � j � "~ � � ry f � j L �' ��'c r: . „} ., � � . t � 6'1.L. ,�.: f C�'� ' �..�J L-cl"s°,-'J "'Y"-� �: � t � - r;� �;, ,��t�� - ! i f `r"' .�.�s„t��.. i CLd v', s �1 ��j � �-�c,.; ,t; ; -�S' ',�F.�.}... . ,� a , �:, _ `i � . ;:`., . . '.. ,,. . :�- . __ . _: _,-:.�.,.�, s_..,=.A:.;, .. . .,.. . � .: � . . , a ;,- ., _ ... i , �; ' View 1: f � f ! I � View 6: � ; View 4: Potential applicants may want to construct {� additions above the view corridor line, but �<_ �� "" not exceed the height of the Gold Peak House. However, this should not be allowed as it would compete with the prominence of the Clock Tower. Additions to buildings could be done in such a way that the mountain views are preserved. However, staff believes the prominence of the Clock Tower should not be reduced with any other construction that would exceed the height defined by the view corridor. Expansions to the Red Lion or Mill Creek Court Building could 3�e located behind the Red Lion chimney. This should not be allowed as the existing chimney blocks part of the Gore Range from view and, ideally, should be removed. Staff believes the existing ordinance actually functions this way already. However, the wording ` ambiguous irr='�he present ordinance. ;"°` This approach keep the areas around focal points more open. is � will :I D. Lastly, a fourth point that staff would like to add to � the ordinance is that: i ��om� vi�w corri.�ozs include portions of existinq I stru�tures that cuxrently ��croach into the aorridor. Pre�-e�isting +��aroaehments ia view corridors shall not ' `: `be ��pa�nded or �nlarqed to areate further �ncroachment. For �:xampl�, �er>3cs �hich extend out into a�orridor wili not be allowe� to be enclosed or expanded. Appli- `'; cants requestinq changes to'buildinqs within visw corridors shauld be aware that any existing encraach- ments will be encouraged to be removed from the view corridor as part of any major buildinq modification. Encroachmants like the clock tower and bell tower, which are foca2 points, are egcluded from this policy.�� IV. CONCLUSION �' Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental , Commission recommend that Town Council adapt these revisions to the view corridor ordinance. Staff believes that the clarifications will make the development review process simpler for both applicants and the Town in the future. Staff believes that adding view corridor number four, to those already adopted by the Town Council, is important as � it is a beautiful view of the Gore Range from a high use �, pedestrian area of the village. ' �. . : � � � .- - r{ � _ __.� _�_--•- ..... .��.�..�...._.:.,.__,�_'____- ._ __ _.._. __......___._'._____ ._ .li�._ ...,__.. _. _ ._ __..__ ' ..._. . . . . . . ' __ — .___ _. , - . � � ' - - -' -- -' --�– � � I.� , j �u�r.�s�°"_..- G . . I.� � . . . �. , . I �� i ' i � _� �. � ''� �;: , ! �{ F� � f "�"., � ! 1 -��I ;� � - n �°._ ��'�. �. . ,.'� : � ��a . 1 ".�."" �� ,��{, �� ; _ _�— S f. _ z f� �. � k.�`�'�Y � . . p: y _ .`�'�„ �� 3 y �j.. t' � � I . ' ` -�.x' {„y, � ,�a�✓h . � . ! ? : `6 �. � �. �.�'- � _ _ i. *.: .�, a' � �� .s �, � i �,�y.-hf, � ' . . . F�i`• ya -. < .. . � 1 �,: �� : . . ' . . � � i � �r,. �`�"rs� , . � �i�.,,�_� . . . . € ,� ,�- ' e 3.. ,� ^ ..'.. 1 . � +�i r . � . � . . - .. � � . .''r` � �� '�`��.. � ,. 't. ; S � 1 �'�t � i .. m �3 } F s� F`��` �` �*�, � x� a E � 1 , i `�-,� ;& - . . e`'�' � Yc ..tlY Jx `' Ya'n."" �L F � S i� z � i � ` 1 } ��t -M � .. ' . � � Y �`i 5�`nT > � '� ... "+�3 . � �f. s . 1 � �� ( � � � 4t �i ��_' � �� ' �, : t [� �eF�D� Y': � '�• . I � - � �'': \ �_� � . . , §Yl.ayT� y � � �'"4 ' 1 �' � . . ( y+3 � � �� . � � �' � ; ' . !�T"�ai �� ' � I N :� _ � } � � �; �..1 " _ . � �R� S.+,Z � ' t�'F . � � 1 -�' �.�� ,, � I � ' � � ' �� '`� • t � ' : ; � 1 . � h� � - t� k _ i ; � � � ,; a; ' .� s<� ` I ' ��, �� { �:._ � �, �� , � ' � � ; � �, ' ;� � i " x _ �,., � , , •.•�_ �. ,, ;+', �� ¢ � ��..� � � _{ � +i -��' � & � �t,�, ` i `� }.� � 1 �.,:�,�, ,�. _ `� ' � �� ,= ' � �-,�''' ` _ 1{'- � � t � �� _�� " f43li� _- , r - nr< s'^ _. _ t~� � - - � ..�r ' _ _ �: ::,-� �� . , y � ��`� i. � .' K • �'' Y �^� y" � /�� , ��. - �s 3+" `'.�'��:^ ' r . �� '° ..Y� " ^•F°�:b�, �' � . 3 4 .. ':: ' .. .. -, . ��, ( �. a . . . . ` �%r _ . f I . . . ;.� .... � � i �� y ti �'� ' � . -_'. � ; � � .w� � ' ?`' � �� 'e' . � � � f _ e+? a � -� �-# . �. I � '.�'T�� : � . �3� . .. ' . . �i�+`�G �6'2c' 3 . �"'�� ._ � 1 � � ". k�"1 �. . , � <. .. . ��,y� .- t . 's�" �Vr' � " � ��L -.F,'. � 'r � �* � I � "� � � �sy: . - � _ �"'v?,� ."-e�� .t�= . . � =.:�. -. ��.,�. � � sash � ��" . . - �,, �� .;. ��'' 'C �, � �� - � �- � �„Y !� � y,,,• _ .... �, �, �� _ _,��;," �'_�� <�. � �� ' ; � 1 . . s = v� A�.�°� �� :, � i � _ I . ..3. _ `'�.�5 yY'.��{.r' ". �1 . . ,�.t]'� _� . /� . _. F?'x � � ..3 k$� . :.-., �. : i }�� . " � ��'� � � �:=� �."'-n � � _ �,' �. #�� -�'f , �� ' -��t� �� " ' ��,��- `� r � �, . - � ,� .�" � . � � `�-' T �• � _.s�"`'� z �,�.`� ...�_ � � ... � '� ��: � �� '. � � � ' �- .-t_� ��. . . . __.� . _s, _ .-. �.�.: ..r r•� .,�..-� . 4_� •�; - '�� r ` Staff Recommendation � ,�� ^ 2-25-91 '` ; �„�'- 5' 2" height _. .� - ... � � �� 50 mm lens � � _ �� -�� '�� , � -�� "� > s �� ,,,. �t._�;' ,� .�t'�`_ �a . � s'1--�r � ' -. Y � '1E' r - I ��}�� V..,_ , ;r � :�.� ; ; � �;. � " ' ' ,�'� i � , ` ;: � 1 E � \ I S r �i � � � ^; �� i � � 2 � t:, - t �, t` ,1 ;, � ,: �"i` , + f. ; �.._-. _ _... , , _� _ - �.��f..�� - - �- -- . . -- . - _ — — � � --- -- , _ ..� , - � ^ � - i r � ' - � , � - 'x - i �t - a � � - - t - � � _ - � _ �� l � � � � ,_ : � _ " k � £.:..g�� 3. 4�'��`� � � � _ : — ____�_ ,� �� • �� s �`�" � � -� �' � g �� . ; -- >: � �� :> _ .�� > � .� . : T� , ��{ �` � � �� r � � �� ;� � x , < :�_ . . . - . . �. � ..; � � �, r ��. � � � T� �y_ _, � � £ � ` � g ��^ .. � t � ,�'„�' �"� �__ � „ti � � g� � __ � �� _ . . . �. _ . � + `�,� , �,--� % �, g_�'<� �� L��„r-� - - � � � � , � ��- ! �'.� ,-�� -�m� t � � � . . . - � � ��T � z � � �� _. � f ` ` ; � �� :� " & �"'.� �i i +3' t '�.�r�. "Y . - .. � .�` ��. �`� � � 4 a: 3r��., �� , _ � � f � �•> ' � �4 �� '� � _ : i �� -f i . . ' .ri .., _;L� � . . � : ' � + . � : . . . . � k� Y .'- �{.rs-z¢�"` �x, �-Y�.' . t � � -, i i � . �z�' �;l`' ��ns'��. ' � ^ ,*1 -t � � �� i.4 . . . . . �� r�,'+! �� + i � � i ,� ��y}� �,. �� F� , _ �{ �1 �s� � � � � �� i 1 � ,�.�'=' ,`,r�w'�� '�� _ .� f � � � . . � . �°��',��, r. e � i � :j �j . � r��-F"� �,;�.. : ''�x I _ �,`'°'r � t t' � {jj � :;� ' � � �.- �� - �' �-�^; (j � t -�.t�i�l' "�T �� r •,1 `S r` ;' - ��-� ' _ "° t '� - �c - - �;J � � �,� =r' �``�,. � `'^..�� A,� Y � �'i _T ` } -�y, _� . � f ' i� � -� ,� ��^ �� M y .`'�` 'm'�- __S �C !. - f i '�Y5rv�u`��`�� '� _ k� ' - � � ��%�"'€.. �,y� � � f� .,+-�-��`c'�'- 0 � � w� -�� .� ,�� zr - � �. "�` '�� 3� - . 4 '� .. :. , 3 �,.� �,/ o _ — _ _� � � �� Tz ^'�� ,^g � � ' .. � �� _ .. /�! - -,�p '��e.'=-s� ,�,�-"'r''�� -�'' �" � '�'�'r °,-�,-��f`'- �~� � ,� .. 3 -' .. � ` - r ,. �,'�.� � �� ..s.- � z � �� , - �� ;.a- t4 - / - 2 � �.: `ir �� i�'wf� �'� � � �� '�`.��- �� . , - �°� .. -::��,� '�„�s�. � , � .�- _ �: _ / g� .^ � . .. ��x � -. 3 - „r � � p � .. '`� ' � . - �- "'�',�'�y�.�,,�s�'a...� a +s in- �' �� s.�.a �-- �. � � b �� +na k� � F°a �� . _ �`C �• ., ,� ✓i""� � g1 "3`il+ 3T� 'A �t'��,• '%, �. � � ,� �' � - ,�yy¢.t,,� y� ^� ,.=. . y . _ � ' 7� � -.4 ��'k"�"a �'� � .. _ J t : v<an. � . 4 �� 1 � 3nS '� �� . � . ,� �I J - '�IL - ` � _� { s�� ,�"Y ; � rot - + V� -;I I ' ��"� � � � ' ._ •rx `A c � �,y,�y� . - .�, .�_-z,_;�. . - j _�`�'- �` "�c'� - s . -.q ,& 4-.�-� > '8.'� . � � _ w..so�� ;@ u 'S � �- � ;�� # _ � � r'�-� . • - �"':,•..,'�.,��°'�'�`�.a�"-� a£"c �r 6 � .,,.`s ,�, � - � �i � � � Y?n? - �.a-.� y ' � L �I .;%< ..z�,}� s 'F � � �E � ��-*E i . G� ;:: �"�`� d's g 3E e� �� r � � ci � - n � � � �, F � _ , ' "� X"`,� "� .�� "` ` '��. -- �.._ � �= r x-``. x 3� -�`� _ ,� �;_� : Q .�}`> �.� � � � e�'' `" - � .� ' ... �� .p � i _ ' � ' 4 y.^F �� T= � 'E� ' � � .. � :� Y e.., 7" `¢ - ,_ _ - "i` � _ � � �� E p �2 "A- 4? � gj �..�� r�' �� k- � . tr � - y �" , C 'ta"��.,t2S� �3C�r"'�' � .• m - y � �y J °��5 . �� zz� � qF '^� -�'>.� ��, ^'^� {e.� ,+� "'�`�-- �-> a.- "+-.gs�d��'�'� '" �..�{ - � .. ', �_ . �� ,� �,��.� � ��3 . y - "�t"S.' �t ��' �� 2f. a,�� .' %►�r+ . �� . €'� ty''� � - �: �'' �-�'� `�€ � _ ' �: '� a � a��s. <a3R"' ,,��,. � � . � � ��":c}r '� r K � n ��`.u'F . . r.,� > _K �� ♦ ' �i'K- � �' .. �,�-�.cz ��.��'sss � ix^§ r�..` J -�-," , _ �� _'ri: : ; � r� � � � - � �-s ��"� ,,� _.. ��.�,.�s.r� ,��, aa.a* � ��`%.�'rs�€� � .._ . x -:� --�i �s- : `� .� � "�`�ro�s_" r � . . "�"`'� �-� t'e; � _ <,x��,�r:�'A,,,,�`° `=�°_ 3�i m�"?�"' x,� _ '""r` r. �-. �`w-°�+��..��_ �y,-�--jr_-•�, !' �, :, � � � I�. � 4 �� .� �� S � � Y ��.{, +� � � Y � T . : Y� '• � � ` �' � � � " a' V � - � -. ., � � � r � � S f. " �.` _+3 V Y � �� ♦ � _, �y' •}� � � �-'R�"'a:°- 'k �-�yy�...c r:c �f � �.�.-ti^� � �� .ti`� .. ��. �� _'y-., . . `� �, '� _ g . w- -�v a � � �� _�.: � st. +4 � :� - � �- � k' � I . � ;ye_ _ '�,� �r.� .x3� s Y.#�` � �� .`�v^r . ,tXis: . ,� � `�., t� �� t ` . � -:vx'4 ��t' '�a�"�r'�� "'p� i � 7 _ ta -. �•�,�� ,,��+ s�"i�t:d:.- . -a+�u,� W' �. I� : Y „ �u',,�'is-ae�'��a+` �*^� � �s�� _ - �r "�„ _. - �e �.�;,� � � ' c�' .,� �. Conclusion of PEC discussion � _ -,.. �� -�`° ,z� _ �=' � � � § �- � � � ��,,�� ...< -�.--- " . - ` - from worksession on 2-11-91 �� t� �-� ��{ ,.�� t, , _;�`= _ Sr2" height :y: �-�, � � � ��> 3 � : � �� '� 50 � lens ' �.� � �' � �� '�4 �6 � � ��y,T's�`° g g�Y�_ _ �"n„La'� . �" � �.+,r � '�'t�.�^� 'y'-. � . ' � ,?:"°s � � . ^� _;��-y�.; i" �.. s.. � �- �r.r�,,.'- , - �� . ' -� �� .,...�.c. ... �. . � -_. .�� ,_ __ .. �' :�r- ,F *,.t., ,a �.�->=.f. �' . � ' �= . .. "� -` � : _y ' �• �' > � . ° � - . .+�i�.:.. I i � � .,.... , ,. , . _ _ -:;--�-�:�.---�--rT-�:� T - � _ _ ____ __ .— _� _----- ----- -- -- _, � --- — -- - - - - F I � i � � � Town of Vai? j Town Council � ' 75 Sout:� Fror,tage Road � Vail, Colorado SI657 , � February 5, 1991 � , Dear Mayor Rose and members of the Town Council: f _ � Piease accept the following letter for consideration during your work session discussions regarding the � Christiania Remodel. In October and November 1990, the owner of the ,_. - Christiania Lodge, during work sessions with the Town of Vail Plannir�g and Environmental Commission (PEC), proposed the expansion of the existing Christiania Lodge building. Su�sequent to cor:cerns raised by neighboring property owners, the Christiania Lodge tabled it application before tne PEC. The propos�l for expansion of the Christiania included the addition of a another story to the lccge structure. The addition would raise the height of roof ridge line above the 'present roof line. The applicat�on before the PEC requested a variance from setback requiremen�s. Pdl'king requirements were satisfied by increasing tne ratio of valet parking in the Christiania leased Vail Associates parking lot. The proposal received support from Town of �Iail planning staff. The PEC raised several concerns ��ith regards to the proposal. I and other neighboring property owners raised I issues with regards to view corridors, parking, traffic ,� ' circul�ti�n, and building design. The maLter remains before i i tne PEC. ; We wculd like to bring to yaur attention that the Christiania Lodge is not designated as an infill development in the Vail Village Master Plan. The requested density variance will have significant impacts u�on the n�ighborhood. Appropriate mitigation should be taken to avoid undesirable impacts. The proposed density variances for the Christiania Lcdge should be evaivated within the contexts of the criteria establisned for Eas� Vail Village: Christiania/VA Study Area in the Vail Village master plan. Criteria should include East and South facing vie�a corridors from the neighborhood. (See.attached copy.} � f�� 5 � 4 , � � f f � �� .�: � . �� . �, .. � . . ' t � Vail Town Council I RE:Christiania Remodel k February 5, 1991 � Page 2 l; � The site of the present Christ'ania/Vail Associates � parking area, known as tract P-3, c$onsist of two parcels owned by Vail Associates and a roac� right-of-way owned by the � Town of Vail. The Iocation of the connecting raad (Mill i __ Creek Chute) between Hansen Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive � - is located on the western portion af Vail r�ssociates owned , property. The Town of Vail right-af-way bisects the existing ` parking lot. The Christiania Lodge has a long term lease for � parking on the eastern parcel of Vail Associates owned property. If the two halves of the P-3 parcel are combined, � there is sufzicient land to accommodate a large structure.-- = ', _ ,� :, From time to time consideration has been given to i building an underground parking structure on the site for use � by the neighborhood for parking and other public services.' A proposal in the I°72 Vail Plan adopted by tne Town of Vail, included a pedestrian plaza covering the proposed parking structure_ It is an opportune time for the neighborhood property owners to discuss, with tre Town of Vail, specific neighborhood master planning issues such as traffzc circuiation, view corridors, parxing, and streetscape - improvements. It should be noted that this is the only neighb�rhood in Va�1. Village which has not been included in ' the Streetscape Planning Project currently beinc carried out by the Town"s Department of Com.munity Development. It is with this histary in min� that we have formed a neighborhood property owners steering committ�e. The East `� Vail Viliage Steering Committee is undertaking the initiative '; to prepare a more detailed neighnorhoad master plan, in conjunction with the VaiZ Town Council. Ir,cluded in tY:e neighborhood master plan wculd be provision for the adoption 'i of view corridors; improvements to landscape, streetscape, `! € and traffic circulation; development of centralized parking structure with pedestrian plaza; anu' other related � neighborhood concerns. <; ; If a more detailed East Vail Village Master Plan is adopted, as a catalyst, it is suggested that neighborhood property owners petition the Town af Vail. The petition would ask, that the Town of Vail acquire ana combine P-3 into a development site on which to build an underground neighbornood parkir.g structure covered by a petlestrian plaza. I � _ - i , i -. � i � ,, : ; � !j Vail Town Council ( RE:Christiania Remodel � February 5, 1991 , � Page 3 It is assumed that neighborhood property owners will be --- -----..- .- expected, by the Town Council , to p�articioate in shearing the ' - - costs associated with the parking s!truc�ure and other quaiitative improvements to the area. I The following is a brief description of goals that could reasonably be expected to be achieved. I. Project Goals: 1. Adoption by the Vail Town Council of a streetscape � and open space preservations master plan for East Vail Village. I 2. Construction of a landscaped,'bermed, underground � parking structure covered by a pedestxian plaza_ � I The underground parking structure would provided covered parking for'neighborhood property owners and their guests. 3. P�avide a mear.s by which existing privately owned on-street parking spaces would be exchange for parking in the parking structure. i 4. �pen space that is created'by removal of on-street � parking would be converted to privately maintained Iandscaped buff ers between residential buildings and the street. ;I ! 5. The present street right-of-way would be upgraded to � .a controiled-access, landscaped pedestrianized street with curb, gutter; storm drainage, sidewalks, and street lighting. 6. View corridors adopted by the Town of Vail would `.� � preserve views of the ski mountain and Gore Range. _ 7. That neighborhood property'owners would consider, through election by property owners, the formation of a ;� special taxing district that weuld finance punlic debt. The ; debt would be equivalent to the extraordinary costs resulting from the desires of the property owners. The Town of Vail would be expected, a� a minimum, to finance that portion of the public debt which is customary and similar to public improvements in similar circumstances in the Town of Vail. 8. That service delivery, customer parking, and traffic circulation safety problems that presently exist are improved or solved. ! ` f � I � � _ �� - � ,. { Vail Town Council I RE:Christiania F.emodel �� February 5, 199i Page 4 : ; � � IWe would ask the To� Council give authorization for a town planne� and glanning consultants to par�icipate with the East Vail Village Steering Committee to conduct the necessary planning studies to fulfilJ. the foregoing goals. � ` Sz , � _ _ I _ Gretta rks � East Vail Village 5teering Committee .;� , ,i �II, � � ; 'r ;: f .....��. . . .. . .:. ;:: : .._ -,. ; ` .. '�, � , i `:8 $ � � ._. . . . . . ... . . . . ._ ... . . . . . .. '_-. � � � n7-I Christiania/VA Study Area Presently zaned for lodging, this � parcel current2y provides parking for the Christiania Lodge and Vail Associates. Issues to be addressed in the developmenfi of � this property include covenants ` � ` restricting the use of this property ta parking, accomtnodation of exzsting parking as we21 as '! t � demand creat�d by new develapment ; and a formally adopted view ' �� -�'—: �`�� , �"`� � corridor, looking toward the Gore ' ' � --- �_ . - `� Range. PubZic purpose uses that - � ' " �-_---� ' � '.� �N� �� may be appropriate for this site �-� � �>�,.� >• include park/open space and/or a � l�� `ti -��. 7��.r centr�l loading and delive?-y � �� ` facil.�t for the Village core. � y � \ �ST'Sl1LL.4�C'`" . �' 1. _ 7_� � . o � -` , •.�� • -�' ��. : ,�� { � �, --� � 2 -�' RISTIpry, �'1 \ J . . �' v�/ � -, � !:�'-Lf1,TFit� ��j .. . . . � `� . �. . �� < `; . . � . � ' ' ' . 1 �- � `� ' � ' . . / � . .. `�'._ _ '__^ �J � ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. � �7-2 Tivoli Lodqe Infill �Complete) Sma12 lodging_infill over parking � area off of the existing ladge. + � Mass of building to "step down" ;I from existing structure. A key `! , issue related to this potential , development is accommodating c�n- site parking for new demand created and the spaces lost by the � infill of the existing lot. � . � 5� � � J ��:. i J"�jt_ �� .':�-_ � �V: _ I .....:. . . i.. -� ... : .. .:' . ,� ,� ` �,�y �Yy � 1 i ` — .�f'� � ..._- }� i i �KJ,° f . i� � .; � . . �. . : . ` 1 r . � .. . � . { - ., i ... �.y t .:.�+� . ' _ . �- ° . � l:t . { C...: . � .�. �, .. � f� --�-.� ! it... ��_ � . t.li�� - -:��_ .-�.. �; '; .�: i r� � � � _� �. [ ... `/ .� � � r-7 2 i `,�. %s � �� i � -"*.��. � 3 f^'� ;w� 1}'z � ` — . _ _ . . : -. : n �. . l -. -. �! --{ t .1..-.. w—'� ` � � . � . .. ... . r �"'.t y��. . y �c, � .. . < - .. y J �. . i.- ....fE.. � ; - � _. - J� . � � . '� . , i . � . . ��'- _ . „a. . "�� . �, :'��.. _ - ,. � � ` ; . , . � . - . , j°�-- .r ; _ �~ ; � • � � � 7his ardinmice includes all of the zequested changes which Council madc during fust reading, May 7, 1991. The ad'mance was passed on fust reading wich a 7- 0 vote. The oidinance prepared for secotd reading will have �J:Fferent legat descTiptiores for each view corridor ss the Town is updabng the monwnentation for all of the view corridois. I ORDZNANCE NO. 13 Series of 1991 AN ORDZ2iANCE AF�NDING SECTION G OF THE VAIL V URSAN DESIGN CONSIDERATZONS RELATIN6 TO T': PROTECTSON OF VISiiS AI28IN TH& TOWN OF VASL CREATZNG ]► N&ii C8JlPTER OF TS& MUNZCZYAL CC OF TH& TOWN OF VAIL TO YROVID& FOR TFiB PROTEi OF CHRTAIN VIELiS AZTSIN TiiB TOFII�1 AbID SETT7 FORTH THE DETAZLS ZN RBGARD TfiERETO � ��. � �� 8 � _ ��J1 + �J� � �� ,i � �, ;/' � � v �� i4 J.i � L si . � ��,�� wHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that t e preservation of ,V certain existing view corridors is essential to the chara ter of Vail as a• �� f �� mountain resort community; and �1�� j( _��li'',i' �„� !�L l7 WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect and nhance the Town'�, W t� attraction to tourists and visitors; and �''� ��'" b� WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and en ance the aestheti � and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS the amendment will more clearly identify existing view corridors and development procedures fo= the public's benefit; NOW, TAEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1. Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is ereby modified to read as follovs: Paraqraph G Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other na ural features are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repea ed visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features als provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant and obvious view corridors have b en adopted as part of the Design Review standards in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail M nicipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered e�chaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analys's of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originat from either major pedestrian areas or public plazas, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, or the C1ocY. Tower. The views of the ski slope and of the Clock Tower, which have been adopted by ordinance, were cho en due to their aignif3cance, not only f=om an aesthetic standpoint, but a so as orientation reference points for pedestrians. Development in the Vail village shall not encroach in o any adopted view corridor. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, the imTact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways must be identified nd mitigated where needed. I ;. • i 2. Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as follows: Chapter 18.73 - View •� Corridors I 18.73.010 - Purpose A. The protection and perpetuation of certain panoramic mountain views £rom various pedestrian/public ways within the Town is required in the intezests of posterity, civ3c pride and the general welfare of the people of the Town of Vail; B. It is desirable to designate, pzeserve and perpetuate certain existing panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the citizens and visitors to the Town; C. The preservation o£ such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritaqe and attributes; D. The preservation of such views Will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; E. The preservation of such views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; F. The preservation of such views will promote good design and will provide for natural light in the buildings and public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors. 18 73 020 Adoption of View Corridor Le4a1 Descriptions and Photoqraphs The photographs on record with the Community Development Department and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. 2 I I I � , o A. A view fiom the south side of the Vail Transporta ion Center from the main pedestrian stairway lookinq toward the ski slopes; ViHr POint �1 Instrvment - View Point #1 Backsight - Traverse Point �1 Heiqht of instrument above View Point �1 - 5.4 £eet Lens used in photograph - 35 rmn Hozizonal Angle Zenith Angle Fo esight Point on Photo 358 47' 76 91' A 356 47� 85 49' B 12 06' 89 19' C 15 DO' 89 17' D 22 14' fl6 54' E 35 18' 85 42' F 38 17' 76 21' G I I i B. A view from upper B=idge Street looking toward t le ski slopes between 228 Bridge stzeet,the Golden Peak Building, and 311 Brid e Street, the Hill Building; Viex Point �2 Instrument - View Point i2 Sacksight - View Point �9 Height o£ Instrument Above View Point �2 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm 3 I � � � � � Foresi ht Point 1 Zenith Angle 9 Horizontal Ang e on Photo 287 30' 79 35' A 289 40' 90 17' 8 299 02' 92 97' � 301 51' 74 10' D C. The northeast corner of 294 Wa11 Street, the One Vail Place Building, looking over the =oofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Lion, and 356 Hanson Ranch Road, the Christiania, toward the Gore Range. The legal desc=iption fo= this i view cor=ido= will be based upon the pzoposed Christiania development as shown i on Exhibit A. vier Point #4 � Instrument - view Point #�4 - Backsight - To Be Determined _ - Height of Instrument Above View Point #4 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photogzaph - 50 mm D, View of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Dzive, the Mill Creek Court Building; VieM Point �5 Instrument - View Point �5 Backsight - Focal Point #1 Height of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight Point On Photo 201 31� 81 24• A 2Q6 53' 85 03' B 210 24' SS 11' � 213 09' 84 03' D 213 09' 83 00` 4 - - - - - - - - � i ; � � I _ E. Looking east to the Gore Ranqe from Gore Creek rive betWeen =etail i � I shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at vail, and 193 G re Creek Drive, the i �; Goze Creek Plaza Building. � i j Viex Point �6 I jInstrument - View Point �k6 ' i � Backsiqht - Traverse Point #2 ( Height of Instrument Above Vie� Point �5 - 5.4 feet ILens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Anqle Zenith Angle Foresight oint on P oto 356 55' 81 00' A 357 32' 83 19' 8 00 46' 83 13' C O1 59' SS 26' D 12 43' 85 26' E 12 51' 90 10� F 12 12' 78 58' G 13 07' 73 06' H - 18.73.030 - Limitations on Construction No structure shall be permitted to encroach above the view cor=ido= boundary identified with the dashed tape set fo=th on ach of the adopted photographs. The boundaries are determined by the legal de criptions listed in Section 18.73.020. Copies of the photographs and legal des riptions are on £ile with the Community Development Department. For the purposes o£ this Chapter, the term structure shall include, but not be limited to, new buildings, building expansions, decks, remodels, mechanical equipment, vent , ducts, satellite dishes, fences, stoplights, light poles, utility poles, sky ights or any similar objects. 18.73.040 - Mass and Bulk Controls A. Pro osed Suildin Ex ansions in the Vic'nit of Existin Encroachments When any proposed stzucture infringes upon a Town of Vail view corridor, but is located in front of or behind another structure 5 ! . which already encroaches into the same view corridor, the new structure shall not be permitted. B. View Corridor Heiqht Control Zf the maximum height a1loWed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height limitation defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height regulation shall apply. C. Proposed Remodels of Buildincss Nith Existinq Encroachments Pre-existing encroachments in view corridors sha11 not be expanded or enlarged to create furthe= encroachment. Any existing encroachments will be encouraged to be removed as part of any major building remodel, except for identified focal points, such as the Clock Tower and Bell Tower. 18.73.050 - Submittal Revuirements The following information shall be submitted along with a Aesign Review Board application, exterior alteration application, any variance application, or any other application that may pertain to view corridors, so that the Town staff can propezly evaluate whether a structure complies with this view corridoz chapter: A. Existing and proposed elevations of the development: B. Photographs taken from the adopted view point which indicate the present improvements which protrude into, or are in the vicinity of the view corridor, and a graphic representation on the photographs of how the proposed improvements will appear with relation to existing improvements and view corridor boundaries, Photographs to be submitted must be taken from the same point used to de£ine the corridor, with the same lens size, and with the camera set at a height of 5.4 feet above the pavement. Community Development Department may require �ther submittal materials which show the potential upon the protected view corridor if constructed. 6 i 0 I � i � � 18.73.060 - Amendments and Appeals A. Amer.dments No variance shall be permitted to any provision of this chapter 18.73. The provisions of this chapter, including the legal descriptions and photographs of the designated view corridozs, shall only be amended in ccordance xith the provisions of Sections 18.66.110 through 18.65.170 of this ode. H. Appeals Zf a determination is made by staff that a propos d structure Would encroach into an adopted view corridor, the applican may appeal the determination to the Planning and Environmental Coa¢nission, ccordinq to Section 18.66.030. 18.73.070 - Exemptions A structure which is presently located in an adopte view corridor may remain and, i£ destzoyed by natural causes, may be replaced to its curzent size and height, provided such reconstruction takes place withi one year following destruction. fiowever, no structures which are located with'n a desiqnated view corridor on the effective date of this ordinance shall be pe itted to expand or enlarge the area of the structure which is located within he view corridor. 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, cla ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decis the validity of the remaining portions of this ozdinance; hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, cl declared invalid. or phrase of this shall not effect the Town Council ;h part, section, the £act that any �s or phrases be 9. The Sown Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety an welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thezeof. 5. The =epeal or the repeal and reenactment of any =ovision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affec any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred pr'or to the effective date hereof, any pzosecution commenced, nor any other act'on or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or re ealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive a y provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless e�cpress y stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ ON FZRST READZNG, APPROVED AND ORDE D PUSLISHED ONCE ZN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public h aring shall be held hereon on the day o£ , 1991, at the regula meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Su'lding of the Town. 7 J I ( � � � Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND DRDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk B i � 1 .. � } � �:.i A .J.: '' �;.'� % �. ORDINANCE NO. 18 �'�_!�'�' .•f� � ,�..�'' �. Series of 1992 � ,' ' } � . r �. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION G OF THE VA1 VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS RELATING T THE , PROTECTION OF VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN OF V IL AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MUNICIPA CODE ' OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PR TECTION OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN AND SE ING FORTN THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERET ' WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the prese ation of certain existing view corridors is essentiaf to the character of Vail as a mountain resor community; and � WHEREAS the preserva6on of views wiil protect and enhance the Town's attraction to � iguests and vis'stors; and j WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enh nce the aesthetic and I � economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS this new chapter wiil more clearly identify exis ing view corridors and development procedures for the benefit of the public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COU CIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby a ended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as follows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors 18.73.010 - Purpose The Town of Vail believes that preserving certain vistas is in t e interest of the Town's residents and guests. Specifically, the Town believes that: A. The protection and perpetuation of certain mountain vi ws and other significant views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town will foster civic pride and is in the public interest of the Town of Vail; B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetua certain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the residents and g ests of the Town; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen an preserve the Town's unique environmentai heritage artd attributes; D. The preservation of such views wil! enhance the a sthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; E. The preservation of such views is intended to pr mote design which is compatible with the surrounding natural and built environment, an is intended to provide 1 _ _ _ _- -- __ _ _ _ _ ! � � for natural light to buifdings and in public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors; F. The preservation of such views will include certain tocal points such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, which serve as prominent landmarks within Vail Village and contribute to the community's unique sense of pface. below: 18.73.020 - Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall be defined as shown A. Structure: Anything permanently constructed or erected with a fixed location including, but not limited to, new buildings, building expansions, decks, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, sateliite dishes, fences, stop lights, tight poles, signs, utility poles, sky lights or any similar object. B. View Point Origination: The survey pin, called out as the instrument in each legal description defining a view corridor boundary, which is the basis for each view corridor. Section 18.73.030 - Limitations on Construction No part oi a structure shall be permitted to encroach into any view corridor set forth in this ordinance unless an encroachment is approved in accordance with Section 18.73.060 of this ordinance. Section 18.73.040 - Adoetion of View Corridors Photographs on record with the Community Devefopment Department and the foilowing legai descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. The photographs taken represent the boundaries defined by the legal descriptions. The camera used to take the photographs was held 5.4 feet above the instrument, which is approximate eye levei for most adults. A 35 millimeter camera was used for each photograph; however, once developed, some photographs were cropped or enlarged to improve the graphic representation of each view corridor. A. View Pant #1. A view from the south side of the Vail Transportation Center from the main pedestrian stairvvay looking toward the Clock Tower, 232 Bridge Street, the Rucksack Tower, 280 Bridge Street, and beyond to the ski siopes; Purpose - To protect the views of Vail Mountain, views of Vail Village and to maintain the prominence and views of the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower as seen from the central staircase of the Transportation Center. 2 i - - - - - - - � - -�--- � � Instrument - View Point #1 - a 2" diameter brass disc, marked V.P. Levels 2 and 3 of Vail Vi{lage Parking structure. Backsight - CW 1/16 comer of Section 8 Fieight of Survey Transit Above Vlew Point #1 - 5.4 feet Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anqle Foresiqht Point on Phot� m stair landing between 348°5i'10" 77°2i'30" A- intersection of the ho 'zon with a vertical line 348°30'10" 355°23'00" 357°39'04" 357°57'S9" 004°05' 19" 004°39'S8" 004°47' 18" 006°59'1 i" 012°25'56" 027°08'S4" 031 °53'27" 87°11'30" 87°37'40" 87°40'43" 88°27'22" 89° 16'02" 89°16'33" 89°41,44.' 89°42'12" 87°38'01" 87°28'43" 76°26'35" defined by the southwest orner of the sixth floor deck enclosure on the ountain Haus, 292 E. Meadow Drive. B1 - uppermost railing of th southwest corner of the balcony on the fourth floo of the Mountain Haus, 292 E. Meadow Drive. B2 - east end of the Red Li n roof ridge, 304 Bridge 5treet. B3 - intersection of the Re Lion roof ridge with the southeast corner of the Ru ksack Tower, 280 Bridge Street. B4 - northeast corner of t e base of the Rucksack Tower, 280 Bridge Street. Ci - intersection of the G Ilery Building, 225 Gore Creek Drive, with the nort east corner of the Clock Tower, immediately below he balcony. C2 - western end of facia oard on Gallery Building C3 - intersection of the sl ping roof of the Gallery Building with the ridge li e of the Clock Tower Buiiding, which extends w st D- intersection of the Cioc Tower Building roof and the northwest corner of th Ciock Tower E- peak of the Piaza Lodg vent chase, 232 Bridge Street. F- intersection of the no th side of roof, Gasthof Gramshammer Building, 2 1 East Gore Creek Drive, with the east side of two I rge trees G- intersection of the hori on line on Vail Mountain with the vertical line def ned by the top of the western, very large pine tr e west of Point F 3 • _ � B. View Point #2. A view irom upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski slopes between 228 Bridge street, the Golden Peak Building, and 311 Bridge Street, the Hill Building; Purpose - To protect views of the ski runs and ski base area as seen from upper Bridge Street. Instrument - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2'/2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2(P�S 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of the Red Lion Building, 304 Bridge Street, Backslght - View Point #4 - a#6 rebar with a 2Yz" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 4(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivolous Sal's, located near the northeast corner of One Vaii Place Building, 244 Wall Street. Height of Survey Transit Above View Polnt #2 - 5.4 feet Horizontal Anqie 289°25'48" 290°58' 11 " 300°32'46" 301 °35'24" 303°32'24" Zenith Anqie Foresiqht Point on Photo as of 11/15/91 74°28'18" A- northwest corner of third floor baicony roof of Golden Peak Building 89°58'00" B- PK nail in top of the 24 inch tall retaining walt on west side of Golden Peak House, 1 foot east from west edge of pianter wall, and 10 feet west from the west face of the building 92°05'34" 83°31'08" 73°38'55" C. Reserved C1 - top of south end of ski lockers, which are on railing C2 - southeast corner of top deck rail on Hill Buiiding D- southeast corner of brick chimney on Hill Building D. View Point #4, A view from the northeast corner of 244 Wall Street, the One Vail Place Building, looking over the roofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Lion Building, and 356 Hanson Ranch Road, the Christiania Lodge, toward the Gore Range. Purpose - To protect visws of the Gore Range as seen from the alley between Founders Plaza and Seibert Circle. Instrument - View Point #4 - a#6 rebar with a 2'/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 4(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivolous Sal's, located in the northeast corner of the One Vail Piace Buiiding, 244 Wall Street. 4 � • 8acksight - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2'/z" diameter aluminum ap marked V.P. 2(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of t e Red Lion Building Height of Survey Transit Above View Poi�t 4f4 - 5.4 feet Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anple Foresi ht Point on Photo s of 11/15/91 343°56'53" 62°24'10" A- south facia board of hird floor roof of Piaza Lodge Buiiding, 281 - 293 Bridge Street 348°37'05" 73°05'43" B- intersection of upper d second floor roof lines of Plaza Lodge Building 352°55'25" 73°34'26" C- south end of peak of s cond floor gable oi Plaza Lodge Building 352°31'05" 79°24'44" D- eastern edge of secon floor gable roof of Piaza Lodge Building 352°13'16" 79°24'55" E- intersection of seco d floor roof facia and southeast corner of Plaza Lodge Building 352°13'14" 84°44'25" F- intersection of southe st corner of building and top edge of first floor faci of Plaza Lodge Building i 354°30'20" 86°13'30" G- top of southeasterly c rner of first floor facia of Plaza Lodge Buitding 354°47'22" 86°07'S8" H- intersection of south e ge of Red Lion chimney and upper Red Lion roof I ne 358°21'46" 85°17'48" I- peak of upper Red Lio roof line 359°04'31" 85°30'36" J- intersection of upper Red Lion roof line and northeriy roof line of the hristiania 000°f 6'55" 84°36'56" K- peak of northerly roof ine of the Christiania 001 °59'47" 84°36'56" L- intersection of northerl roof peak and southerly roof fine of the Christiania 003°05'44" 83°32'A2" M- northwesterly corner f second 800r balcony on Hill Building 006°23'31" 83°33'52" N- intersection of top of second floor balcony rail and brick wall on Hill Buil ing 005°32'14" 67°54'58" O- northwest corner of op of facia on third floor roof of Hill Building E. View Point #5. A view of the Gore Range from Hanso Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Mill Cr ek Court Building; Purpose - To protect views of the Gore Range as seen from Hanson anch Road and East Gore Creek Drive. Instrument - View Point #5 - a#6 rebar with 2Yz' diameter aluminu cap marked V.P. 5(PLS G� � � _ � 16827) set in an aiuminum monument box in Hanson Ranch Road in front of the Mil� Creek Court Building Backsight -#4 rebar with aluminum cap (LS 2568) in iron "Landmark" monument box marking centerline of Hanson Ranch Road - box is just west of Mitl Creek in front of the Cyrano's Building at 298 Hanson Ranch Road. Height of Survey Transit Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet Horizontal Angle 199°03'06" 204°06'43" 206°00'02" 208' 12'53" 208°33'36" 210°41'41" 210°41'41" Zenith Anqle Foresiqht Point on Photo as of 11/15/91 81 °23'49" A- intersection of southerly utility pole with ridge line 85°10'4Q" Bi - intersection of northerly extension of Garden of the Gods Buiiding, roofline with hiliside ridge line 85°10'40" 62 - northern end of roofiine of the Garden of the Gods Building, 365 Vail Valley Drive 85° 10'40" 84°55'S0" 84°01'47" 82°Ot'51" Ct - intersection of southerly extension of the Garden of the Gods building roofline and the Villa Valhalla roofline, 360 Hanson Ranch Road C2 - northwest corner of the Villa Valhalla at roof facia D- intersection of top of the Villa Valhalla roof facia and the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column E- the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column on the Villa Valhalla to a point above the horizon F. View Point #6. A view looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between retaii shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at Vail, and i93 Gore Creek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza Building projecting east to the Gore Range. Purpose - To protect views of the Gore Range as seen from the Gore Creek Drive Area. Instrument - View Point #fi - a#6 rebar with 2'/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive in front of the Gore Creek Plaza Building Backsfght - a#6 rebar with 2�h" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6 B.S. (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive near the southwest corner of Pepi's deck � I �I I � � Height of Survey Transit Above Vtew Poini #6 - 5.4 feet Horizontal Anqie Zenith Anqle Foresi ht Point on Photo s of 11l15/91 356°08'35" 81°02'17" A- point on horizon left of the chimney on Gastho 356°55'02" 000°31'36" 001 °48' 10" 003°14'42" 007°56'03" 013°30'31" 013°38'14" 012°55' 17" 014°44'21 " Gramshammer roof, 231 st Gore Creek Drive 83°02'06" B- intersection of southe st edge of chimney and Gasthof Gramshammer's r ofiine 82°54'27" C- southern end o gable on Gasthoi Gramshammer's roof 85°17'34" D1 - intersection of northe ly extension of Gorsuch Building's roof line and asthof Gramshammer's roof, 231 East Gore Creek Drive 85°17'40" D2 - north end of Gorsuch Building's roof 85°11'32" D3 - south end of Gorsuch Building's roof 85°11'32" E- intersection of southe y extension of Gorsuch Building's roof line and bri k pillar on Lazier Arcade Building / Wail Street Build'ng, 225 Wall Street. 78°48'35" F- intersection of face of stucco and eve line on Lazier Arcade Building/Wa I Street Building 78°14'51 " G- top of facia on northea t corner of roof on Lazier Arcade Buitding / Wall Str et Building 73°13'39" H- top of roof on Lazier Arcade Building / Wall Street Building � I � f Section 18.73.050 - Amendments An amendment of the regulations of this Chapter, including a re uest to add a new view corridor, delete an existing view corridor, or amend the boundary of an e isting view corridor, may be initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Plan ing and Environmental Commission on its own motion, or by application of any resident or pro erty owner in the Town, or by the Director of the Communiry Development Department or his/h r designee. A. Application Information for Amendments An application for the amendment of the provisions of this Chap er including the addition of a new view corridor, the deletion of an existing view corridor or an am ndment to the boundary of an existing view corridor shall be filed with the Community Developm nt Department on a form to be prescribecj by the Director of the Community Development Dep rtment. The application shalt include the tollowing information: 1. A summary or description of the proposed amendment. 2. A photograph of the proposed view to be protected if th application is to add a new view corridor or amend the boundary of an existing view corridor The point used as the view point origination and the height of the camera above existing grad or pavement at the time the photograph was taken shall be identified. The photograph or phot graphs shall be marked 7 i � � to show the proposed view corridor boundary or shaii be marked to show the proposed improvements in relation to existing improvements and existing view corridor boundaries. 3. The Community Development Department may require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittal requirements to show: (a) For a new view corridor, the potential impact the new view corridor coutd have on the development potentiai of surrounding properties; or {b) For a modification to a view corridor boundary, the poteniial impact the change would have upon the protected view corridor. 4. Names and addresses of the property owners whose development potential, as set forth in Chapter 18 of the Town of Vail Municipa! Code on the date the appiication is received by the Community Development Department, may be increased or decreased by the proposed view corridor or by the proposed modification to the existing view corridor. 5. if the application is to add a new view corridor or amend the boundary of an existing view corridor, the applicant shall submit a legal description of the new view corridor or the amended boundary prepared in the same fonnat as those set forth in Section 18.13.040 of this ordinance and any other survey information deemed necessary by the Community Development Department 30 days prior to the final PEC pubiic hearing. 6. An appitcatton for an amendment may require review by consuitants other than Town staif. Shoufd a determination be made by the Town staff that an outside consuitant is needed to review an amendment appiication, the Communfty Development Department shali obtain the approval of the Town Councii for the hlring of such a consultant. Upon approval of the Town Council to hire an outslde consultant, the Community Development Department shall esttmate the amount of money necessary to pay the outside consultant, and this amount shall be forwarded to the Town by the applicant at the time the amendment application ts submitted to the Community Development Department. Upon completion of the review of the appl(cation by the consultant, any of the funds forwarded by the appltcant for payment of the consuitant which have not been paid to the consuitant, shali be returned to the applicant. Expenses incurred by the Town in excess of the amount forwarded by the applicant shall be paid to the Town by the appiicant within thirty (30) days of notiflcatfon by the Town. B. Notice and Hearinp Procedure i. Upon the filing of an application for an amendment to this Chapter, or upon initiation of an amendment by the Town Council, Ptan�ing and Environmentat Commission, or a � _--_ :_.-- I_ _ - -- _ e � Community Development Director, the Community Development Director or his designee shall set a date for a public hearing before the Pianning and Environmental Com ission. Subsequent to the hearing, the Pianning and Environmental Commission shall make a recommendation for approval or denial to the Town Council. After considering the Planning and Environmental Commission's recommendation, the Town Council shail make a fin 1 determination on the amendment at a pubiic hearing by ordinance. 2. Notice for the public hearing before the Planning and E vironment Commission shali be given to the property owners designated in Section 18.73.050 ()4 or Section 18.73.060 (A)2 in accordance with Section 18.66.080 of this Code and the heari g shall be conducted in conformity with Section 18.66.090 of this Code. C. Criteria for Amendments The Town Councii shall only approve an amendment to this Ch ter adding a new view corridor, deleUng an existing view corridor, or amending the boundary of an existing view corridor if the amendment comp{ies with the policies and goals of the applicabie lements of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town Policies, and Urban Design Guide Pfans and other ad pted master plans, and meets all of the fofiowing criteria: 1. If the request is to add a new view corridor or to amend th boundary of an existing view corridor in such a way which expands an existing view corridor: (a) That the proposed view corridor or the boundary mendment protects and perpetuates a view or views trom public pedestri n areas, public ways, or public spaces within the Town which foster civic p ide and are in the public interest for the Town of Vail; (b) That the proposed view corridor or boundary mendment protects and enhances the Town's attraction to residents, gue ts and property owners. (c) That the proposed view corridor or boundary am ndment protects a view which is commonly recognized and has inheren qualities which make it more valuable to the Town than other more com on views. 2. If the amendment is to amend the boundary of an exist ng view corridor in such a way which reduces the existing view corridor or is to repeal an existi g view corridor: (a) That the boundary amendment or repeal wili no reduce or eliminate any view or views from public pedestrian areas, publ'c ways, or public spaces within the Town which foster civic pride and are in the public interest for 0 � • the Town of Vai�; {b) That the boundary amendment or repeal will not reduce the Town's attraction to residents, guests, and properry owners nor be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces or public views. (c) That the boundary amendment or repeal wili not diminish the integrity or quality, nor compromise the original purpose of the exisdng view corridor. Section 18.73.060 - Encroachments into Existinq View Corridors An appiication for approval to encroach into an existing view corridor may be initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Planning and Environmental Commission on its own motion, or by application of any resident or properry owner in the Town, or by the Director of Community Development Department or his/her designee. A. Application Information for Encroachments An application for an encroachment shall be filed with the Community Development Department on a form to be prescribed by the Director of the Community Development Department. The application shall include the fol{owing information: 1. A summary or description of the proposed encroachment. 2. Names and addresses of property owners located within 500 feet of the proposed encroachment. 3. Photographs of the existing view corridor. The photographs shall be marked with tape to identify the existing view corridor boundaries, and shall show the proposed encroachment. The photographs shall be taken from the view point origination at the same height as identified in the legal descriptions in 5ection 18.73.040. 4. The Community Development Department may require models, overlays, sketches or other submittal requirements to show how the proposed encroachment coufd impact the protected view corridor. 5. An application for an encroachment may require review by consultants other ihan Town staff. Should a determination be made by the Town staff that an outside consuliant is needed to review an encroachment application, the Community Development Department shail obtain the approval of the Town Council for the hirtng of such a consuitant. Upon approval of the Town Councit to hl+e an outside consultant, the Community Deve{opment 10 � � Department shall esiimate the amount of money outside consultant, and this amount shalt be forwar applicant at the time the encroachment Is submfi Development Qepartment. Upon completion of the r� by the consultant, any of the funds forwarded by thi of the consultant whfch have not been paid to tF returned to the applicant. Expenses incurred by the amount forwarded by the appitcant shall be pat� applicant withtn thirty (30) days of notificatian by th B. Notice and Hearinq Procedure Notice and hearing on an application for an encroachment into shall be in accordance with Section 18.73.050(B) of this Chapter. C. Criteria for Encroachment No encroachment into an existing view corridor shall be permi demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the encroachment criteria: �ecessary to pay the ed to the Town by the ed to the Community view of the applicatlon applicant for payment � consultant, shall be Town fn excess of the to the Town by the � Town. existing view corridor unless the applicant ts all of the following 1) That the literal enforcement of Section 18.7 .030 would preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the appficant's lan . 2) That the development of the structure proposed b the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this Chapter. 3) That the development proposed by the applicant outd not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public space , or public v'sews. 4) That the development proposed by the applicant ompiies with applicable elements of the Vail Land Use Pian, Town Policies, Urban Design uide Plans, and other adapted master plans. 5) That the proposed structure will not diminish th integrity or quality nor compromise the original purpose of the preserved view. Section t8.73.070 - 1Von-Conforminq Structures A) My structure which presently encroaches into an existin view corridor which was lawfully authorized by ordinances or regulations existing prior to the effective date of this ordinance may continue. However, such encroachments will be enco raged to be removed as part of any remodeliing or reconstruction of the structure. In the case of ertain focal points, such as the Ciock Towes and Rucksack Tower, the Town recog�izes their im rtance to the character 11 --- I � � ' of Vaii Village and to the quality of the urban design of Vail Vfllage. Notwithstanding their i nonconforming status, the Town does not encourage their removal. iB) Structures lawfully established prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified � in this Chapter may be modified provided that such modification does not cause the structure to encroach into a view corridor to a greater extent In any dimension or configuration, � specifically height, width or mass, than the existing structure. C) Non-conforming structures may be maintained and repaired as necessary for the convenient, safe, or efficient operation or use provided that no such maintenance or repair shatl cause the structure to encroach into a view corridor to a greater extent in any dimension or configuration, specltically height, width, or mass, than the structure encroached prior to such maintenance and repair. D) Restoration: Whenever a non-conforming structure which does not conform with i the provisions of this Chapter is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by Act of God, or by the � public enemy, its use may be resumed or the structure may be restored provided the restoration � is commenced within one (1) year and diligently pursued to completion. The structure after such ' restoration shall not encroach into a view corridor to a greater extent In any dimensfon or conf{guration, specificaily helght, widih, or mass, than the encroachment which existed prior to destruction. Section 18.73.080 - Heiqht Limitation If the maximum height allowed in any zone district within the Town differs from the height permitted by a view corridor, the more restrictive height iimitation shall apply. Section 18.73.090 - Fees The Town Council shall by motion establish a view application fee sufficient to cover the cost of town staff time and other expenses incidentai to the review of the application. The fee shall be paid at the time of the application, and shall not be refundable. Section 2 Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modified to read as foliows: Paraqraph G Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of #he mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features afso provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant view corridors have been adopted as part of Chapter 18.73 of the Vaii Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted 12 � • should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views. Views t at shouid be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and i clude views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Ciock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and o er important man-made and naturai e{ements that contribute to the sense of piace associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their signi icance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reierence points for pedes rians. Development in Vail Village shall not encroach into any adop ed view corridor unless approved under Chapter 18.73. Adopted corridors are listed in C apter 18.73 of the Vai! Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, e impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways and public spaces must be dentified and considered where appropriate. The Vail Land Use Plan, Town Policies, the Urban other adopted master plans, shall be used to heip determine which vie how they should be addressed. Section 3 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, ciause or phrase of reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validiry of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, reg one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or �ign Guide Plans, and may be affected, and ; ordinance is for any remaining portions of �d this ordinance, and of the fact that any be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town Council hereby finds, dete�mines and declares that thi ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and t�e inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accr� violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosec other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the prc and reenacted. The repeaf of any provision hereby shall not re ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated Section 6 All bylaws, orders, resolutiar�s and ordinances, or parts thereof, 13 Vail Municipal Code as any dury imposed, any n commenced, nor any �n repealed or repealed any provision or any nconsistent herewith are • � � repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shali not be construed to revise any bytaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1992. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1992, at the regular meeting of the Town Councii of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST. Martha S. Raecker, Town Cierk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1992 Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk 14 C:\VIEWCORR.ORD ; � �� y TOWiV OF V4IL 7> South Frontage Road Vail, Coloradv 81657 303-479-ZIOS/F�IX 303-479-2157 July 15, i992 � �� ` � �� Office of the Town Manager Joe Macy Go Vaii Associates P.O. Box 7 Vaii, CO 81658 RE: Finat Dratt of Praposed V(ew Corridor rdinance Dear Joe: Since our last meeting on June 30th, the staff has tak n the comments which were made and incorporated them into the ordinance. We are ptannin to present this to Town Councit for first reading on July 21, 1992, with second reading sch duled for August 4, 1992. If you have any suggestions to make prior to adoption, please call us and let us know. Thank you for your participation in the drafting of this rdinance. We think the quality of the o�dinance improved as a result of your involvement. Sincerely, � �� I n� i� �/9 l � �� RC� rt � � \ _,'r' � l �^ �L`�! � , /+��/ ; ��;1 fj � � / � Kristan Pritz Andy�tf�ud sen Community Deveiopment Director Town Plan er \lyd enclosure , i�_ � � �� TO WN OF VAIL (% 75 South Frontage Road Departmeni of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81 b57 303-479-2138/479-2139 July 15, 1992 Diana Donovan 1014 Homestake Circle Vail, CO 81657 RE: Finai Draft of Proposed Vtew Corridor Ordinance Dear Diana: Since our last meeting on June 30th, the staff has taken the comments which were made and incorporated them into the ordinance. We are planning to present this to Town Council for first reading on July 21, 1992, with second reading scheduled for August 4, 1992. If you have any suggestions to make prior to adoption, please call us and let us know. Thank you for your participation in the drafting of this ordinance. We think the quality of the adinance improved as a result of your involvement. Sincerely, , , 1 . � l� T � �� . ( '�� °, . G; �r �, ; ; � \ t; "!J':J �.�. Kristan Pritr Andy Knudtsen � Community Development Director Town Planner \Ird enclosure • � � TOI�V.�V OF VAIL �� 7S South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2105/FA X 303-479-2157 � �� Offire of the Town Manager July 15, 1992 Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor 3950 North Frontage Road, #4 Vail, CO 81657 RE: Final Draft of Proposed Vtew Corrfdor rdinance Dear Peggy: Since our last meeting on June 30th, the stafif has tak n the comments which were made and incorporated them into the ordinance. We are plannin to present this to Town Council for first reading on July 21, 1992, with second reading sc eduled for August 4, 1992. If you have any suggestions to make prior to adoption, piease call us and let us know. Thank you for your participation in the drafting of this rdinance. We think the quality of the ordinance improved as a result of your involvement. Sincerely, � �j �_ ft '� i(' � /.. �2�' �rf� „��U, 1� ',1 � \ �� r Kristan Pritz Andy Knud sen �- Community Development Director Town Pian er \Ird enclosure � � �{� � �� ', ' �� TOWN OF VAIL �� 7S South Frontage Road Department of Community Development Vail, Colarado 81657 303-479-2138/479-2139 July 15, 1992 Jim Lamont P.O. Box 73 Redcliff, Co 81649 RE: Fina( Draft of Proposed Vtew Corridor Ordinance Dear Jim: Since our last meeting on June 30th, the staff has taken the comments which were made and incorporated them into the ordinance. We are planning to present this to Town Council for first reading on July 21, 1992, with second reading scheduled for August 4, 1992. If you have any suggestions to make prior to adoption, please call us and let us know. : Thank you for your participation in the drafting of this ordinance. We think the quality of the ordinance improved as a result of your involvement. Sincerely, . �,� (j 1 l �c. - zz�� , °f'1( �;-�r��1�, C� ; ,-', �-- �''�,� � Kristan Pritr Andy Knudisen Comrnunity Development Director Town Planner 11rd enclosure . �\ i ��7 TOt��iV OF VAIL � 7S South Frontage Road t'ail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21�8/479-2139 July 15, 1992 • � � �'. � .�� 5 Department of Community llevelopment Larry Eskwith Town of Vaii Attomey 75 S Frontage Road Vail, CO 8i 657 � RE: Finai Draft of Proposed View Corridor rdinance Dear Larry: Since our last meeting on June 34th, the staff has take the comments which were made and incorporated them into the ordinance. We are planning to present this to Town Council for first reading on July 21, 1992, with second reading sch duled for August 4, 1992. If you have any suggestions to make prior to adoption, please call s and let us know. Thank you for your participation in the drafting of this o dinance. We think the quality of the ordinance improved as a result of your involveme�t. Sincerely, .� r. � I �� _,�t� c��:�, �� a��- � { � � � � i i , , -�. Kristan Pritr Andy Knud en � Community Development Director Town Plan er urd enclosure . • � �� x; � � � � � � � � � $� � stt' �zsi� � � �a TOWN OF VAIL 75 Soutb Frontage Road Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138/479-2139 July 15, 1992 Gerry Arnoid c/o Vait Associates P.O. Box 7 Vail, CO $1658 RE: Final Draft of Proposed V(ew Corridor Ordinance Dear Gerry: Since our last meeting on June 30th, the staff has taken the comments which were made and incorporated them into the ordinance. We are planning to present this to Town Councii for first reading on July 21, 1992, with second reading schedufed for August 4, 1992. If you have any suggestions to make prior to adoption, please call us and let us know. Thank you for your participation in the drafting of this ordinance. We think the quality of the ordinance improved as a result of your involvement. Sincerely, r % �'C �,� _tt�t C;[;�Ey � � v E .\� l�'C��'1 r � , � i � Kristan Pritz Andy Knu�tsen Community Development Director Town Planner \Ird enclosure I i i ! �YY 1Y 75 South Frontage Road Y'ail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138/479-2139 � � �.� Q ;� ��.. � � ��, # § ¢ �� i�epartment oj (.ommun:ty Uevelopment July 15, 1992 Craig Snowdon Snowdon Hopkins Architects 20f Gore Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 RE: Finai Draft of Proposed Vtew Corridor rdinance Dear Craig: Since our last meeting on June 30th, the staff has take the comments which were made and incorporated them into the ordinance. We are planning to present this to Town Council for first reading on July 21, 1992, with second reading sch duled for August 4, 1992. If you have any suggestions to make prior to adoption, please call s and let us know. Thank you for your participation in the drafting of this o dinance. We think the quatity of the ordinance improved as a resuft of your involvement. Sincerely, '{' ''��'� � � �� I �� tC"" 'Li__.LC. ` i ]"z'�y' - � . , . I �' � ' � . . � � . �/�� / / V t � � � � . K�istan Pritr Andy Kn�'d en \ Community Development Director Town Plan er �rd enclosure , � i � � �_.. � k < , � \\ �" �� TOiV��' OF VAIL � 75 South F�-ontage Road Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 30�-479-2138/479-2139 July 15, 1992 Kathy Langenwaiter P.O. Box 1202 Vail, CO 81658 RE: Final Draft of Proposed V(ew Corridor Ordinance Dear Kathy: Since our last meeting on June 30th, the staff has taken the comments which were made and incorporated them into the ordinance. We are planning to present this to Town Council for first reading on July 21, 1992, with second reading scheduled for August 4, 1992. )f you have any suggestions to make prior to adoption, please call us and let us know. Thank you for your participation in the drafting of this ordinance. We think the quality of the ordinance improved as a result of your involvement. Sincerely, v - �, � I . � .t,� ��L -f� ��j�/ � s . . . '",\ � ,�'' \, � ( _ . . � L � � . . . � � � Kristan Pritz Andy Knudtsen � Community Development Director Town Planner urd enclosure i f � � � � l� �- � �, � ih TOb�'iV �F VAIL � 7S South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138/479-2139 RANDU � ��M �� -�� De�Qrtment of Community Development TO: Peggy Osterfoss Diana Donovan Joe Macy Kathy Langenwalter Craig Snowdon Geri Arnoid Larry Eskwith Jim Lamoni FROM: Kristan Pritz Andy Knudtsen�' DATE: June 18, 1992 RE: Upcoming View Corridor Tas Force Meeting This memo is a reminder that the next View Corridor ask Force meeting is Tuesday, June 30, at 1:30 p.m. in the small conference room in the unicipal Building. Since our last meeting, the staff has reordered the s ctions within the ordinance. The concepts have not changed, and in fact, many of the sections were relocated without amending any of the text. Some of the text has bee changed, but because the ordinance was completely reorganiied, we were not able to "bo d" the changes for you. We will distribute the ordinance at the meeting and I ok forward to discussing it with you then. Please call Andy at 479-2138 if you have any questi ns before the meeting. : �: ; < � I , . MEMORANDUM TO: Peggy Osterfoss Diana Donovan Joe Macy Kathy Langenwaiter Craig Snowdon �eri Arnold Larry Eskwith Jim Lamont � l, ro, ' �'�� '4 :� ��' �i�''� ti�'� '2 , �� ; � i <, :, £.;;�_ _. , , �.,- FROM: Kristan Pritz Andy Knudtsen DATE: June 25, 1992 RE: Upcoming View Corridor Task Force Meeting This memo is a reminder that the next View Corridor Task Force meeting is Tuesday, June 30, at 1:30 p.m. in the small conference room in the Municipal Building. Since our last meeting, the staff has reordered the sections within the ordinance_ The concepts have not changed, and in fact, many of the sections were relocated without amending any of the text. Some of the �ext has been changed, but because the ordinance was completely reorganized, we were not able to "bold" the changes for you. We were able to get this ord'+nance put into draft form, which we are enclosing. Please review this document before our meeting on Tuesday. Please call Andy at 479-2138 if you have any questions before the meeting. � �¢� ��;�5 } i";�` � ��ill. �• � �ail �sociat �� s, Inc. ; �:rea*ors and Operators c�f `Jail a��3 Be iver Cre�-1:' Resorts May 29, 1992 Mr. Andy Knudtsen Town af Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Andy, Enclosed are VAI's comments on th latest draft of the View Corridor Ordinance. Please review the�n and get back to me with your comments. Regards, f�% ��- -~'._" Joe Macy Manager Mountain Planning JM/km Enclosure cc: Nola Dyal Larry Eskwith Jerry Oliver Post C?ffice Bux 7• Vail, Colorado BlF,�8 iJSA —(303) 476-Sb01 �� i7�R.� i ' �� y kR�STfln/ 5/27/92 �� --� F�, I '' , VIEW CORRIDORS - ADD�. MATERIAL TO BE PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 13, 1991 NOTE: Ordinance No. 13, 1997 was first read on 5!7/91 and passed. There has not yet �( been a second reading. Please advise dd re: next reading of this ordinance. My ---� J„'" � notes indicate a 1992 ordinance number is to be assigned. First reading was over j — �t, _, one year ago and it appears there wiil be numerous changes and additions to this �-.- � , ( \�% ordinence. � � � � � � �v �,, . ,� �� . __ �� ;;, �� '"�' Sectiori 18.73.020 - Limitations on Construction � "" `' {, �a� ' �N ; s;,:. �'` No part of a structure shali be permitted to encroach into any view corridor set forth in this :. \ �'' i` �----.....---.,� �„�: �� o tlinance unles a variation Jis ,�proved in accordance with Section of this ordinance. � Section 18.73.040 Photographs on record with the Community Development Department and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views �' within the Town. I Section 18.73.050 - Amendments An amendment of the regulations of this Chapter including change n view corridor ' ",` boundaries, th �cre�ation � r the repeal of view corridors may be initiated by the Town Council on \`.._ its own motion, by the Planning and Environmental Commission on its own motion, or by application of any resident or property owner in the Town, or by the Director of the Community � Development Department or his designee. p,.-u j f'r � z"" � ( Section 18J3.060 - Application for Amendment An application for the amendment of the provisions of this Chapter including the modification of a view corridor boundary or the creation or the repeal of a view corridor shall be tiled with the Community Development Department on a form to be prescribed by the Director of the Community Development Department. The application shall include the following information: A) A summary or description of the proposed amendment. � B) If the proposed amendment is for the change of any view corridor boundary or i��i�`"'6� proposing the addition of a new view corridor, a photograph of the proposed view to be protected. ��( . .�' y-1'�".._ The point used as the view point origination and the height of the camera above existing grade V or pavement at the time the photograph was taken shali be identified. The photograph or photographs shail be marked to show the boundary of the proposed view corridor or shall be marked to show the proposed improvements in relation to existing improvements and existing view corridor boundaries. C) The Community Development Department may require models, overlays, sketches, i � or other submittal requirements to show: 1. For a new view corridor, the potential impact the new view corridor could have on the development potentiai of surrounding properties; or 2. For a modification to a view corridor boundary, the potential impact the change would have upon the protected view corridor. _ � If the application is for the addition of a new view corridor or f r the modification of the . .. .__. .. , ,_: �. ,_:, : boundary of an existing view corridqr, upon approval of the amendment, t e applicant shall submit a legal description of the new view corridor or the amended bounda prepared in the same format as those set forth in Section of this ordinance and any ther survey information deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. � � . i ,;D: The Community Development Department, in i s sole discretion, may determine that an application for an amendment if granted would have a ignificant impact on the ' community. In this event, the Community Development Department m y. have the application reviewed by pianning or design consultants who are not Town employee , and the appiicant shall reimburse the Town for ail expenses incurred by such review. Any suc i consultant retained to review an application for an amendment shali be seiected by the To n. Subsequent to the submittal of an application for an amendment, the Community Develo ment Department shall determine the necessity of utilizing the services of a consuitant and shall estimate the amount of money needed to cover the cost of the utilization of the consultant. The stimated cost shall be paid to the Town by the appiicant prior to any public hearing on the pplication. Any funds remaining after fhe review of an application by the consultant shall be re urned to the applicant. If the fee paid to the consultant is greater than that estimated by the Tow , the additiona! amount shall be paid to the Town by the appiicant prior to final approval of the a endment. � �Section 18.73.070 - Procedures t ��, ,: �' � � { ` ��'�",�� `% � A) Upon the filing of an application for an amendment to his Chapter, or upon initiation of an amendment by the Town Council, Planning and Environ ental Commission, or Community Development Director, the Community Development Director o his designee shal! set a date for a pubiic hearing before the Planning and Environmental Comm ssion. Subsequent to the hearing, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make recommendation for approval or deniai to the Town Council. After considering the Planni g and Environmental . --� Gommission's,f mmen ion, t Town Council shall make a final determination on the . amendment t a public hearing. U � ��L� �/ � � 2 , i� I ! . � _ __ B) Notice for the public hearing before the Planning and Environment Commission shall be given in accordance witn Section 18.66.080 of this Code and the hearing shall be conducted in conformity with Section 18.66.090 of this Code. Section 18J3.080 - Criteria The Town Council shall only approve an amendment to this Chapter adding a new view corridor, deleting an existing view corridor, or amending the boundary of an existing view corridor if the amendment is consistent with the policies and goals of the applicable elements of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town Policies, and Urban Design Guide Plans, and meet all of the following criteria: 1} If the request for an amendment is for the addition of a view corridor or for the modification of a view corridor boundary which expands an�existing view corridor: a) That the proposed view corridor or the boundary amendment protects and perpetuates a view or views from pedestrian or public ways within the Town which foster civic pride and are in the public interest in the Town of Vai►; b) That the proposed view corridor or the modification of the boundary protects and enhances the Town's attraction to guests and visitors; c) That the proposed vfew corridor or boundary modification protects a view which is commonly recognized and has inherent qualities which make it more valuable to the Town than other more common views. 2) If the amendment is for the modification of a view corridor boundary which will reduce the view corridor or for the repeal of an existing view corridor: ' a) That the boundary modification or repeal will not reduce or eliminate , any view which fosters civic pride; ' b) That the boundary modification or repeal will not reduce the Town's attraction to guests and visitors; c) That the boundary modification or repeal will not diminish the integrity or qualiry, nor compromise the original intention of the existing view corridor. t '� _- Section 18.73.090 - Encroachments into Existinq View Corridors � __. _...... . An encroachment to an existing view corridor may be permitted in order to prevent _ ,� . - --..� linnecessary hardship. � . - � � � . ._. _ � ` Section 18.73.100 - Application � An application for an encroachment shall be made in accordance with Section ; f, .. � . . � _ 3 _ � of this Chapter. }. Section 18.73.110 - Notice and Hearinq t' ` Notice and hearing on an applicat+on for an encroachment int shall be in accordance with Sections of this Chapter. Section 18.73.120 - Criteria No encroachment into an existing view corridor shall be pern demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the encroachmen criteria: ,, , �, � an existing view corridor tted unless the applicant meets all of the following 1) That the literal enforcement of Section wo Id preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's land. . 2) That the development of the structure proposed y the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this Chapter. 3) That the development proposed by the applicant ould not result in damage to neighboring properties or public lands. 4) That the development ro osed b th p p y e applicant complies with applicab�e elements of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town Policies, and Urban Desig Guide Plans. 5) That the proposed structure wil! not diminish t e integrity or quality nor compromise the original intention of the preserved view. Section 18J3.130 - Non-Conformin Structures A) Any structure which presently encroaches into an existin view corridor which was lawfully authorized by ordinances or regulations existing prior to t e effective date of this ordinance may continue. However, such encroachments will be enco raged to be removed as a ,..._ part of any remodelling or reconstruction of the structure. �`- _ _,_ ,._-- �,;--'" � ,,;i��.. B) Structures lawfully established prior to the effective date f the ordinance codified in this Chapter may be modified provided that such modification does n t cause the structure to f' encroach into a view corridor to a greater extent than the existing stru ure. ' C) Non-conforming structures may be maintained and repai ed as necessary for the convenient, safe, or efficient operation or use provided that no such ma ntenance or repair shall cause the structure to encroach into a view corridor to a greater e tent than the structure encroached prior to such maintenance and repair. � , � `� D) Restoration: Whenever a non-conforming structure whic does not conform with � the provisions of this Chapter is destroyed by fire or other calamity, b Act of God, or by the �� 4 '�" ' ' ,�� "� tw 1.�,- _ _� � ,,�,�p < , ,..,. ,, � �: �� U �. ; � �x il � i � � ipublic enemy, its use may be resumed or the structure may be restored provided the restoration i is commenced within one (1) year and diligently pursued to completion. The structure after such I restoration shalf not encroach into a view corridor to a greater degree than the encroachment which existed prior to desfruction. Section 18.73.140 - Heiaht Limitation � — If the maximum height aliowed in any zone district within the Town differs from the height permitted by a view corridor, the more restrictive height limitation shall app{y. /��s-� I '�� z�,�s I � I � I � CiVIEWCORR.ORO . . . . . . . � �- � . . . I 5 i _ i � ORDINANCE NO. 13 Series of 1991 ,n �, ' � � �� Y�� ?,� � AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION G OF THE VA L VILLAGE URBAPJ DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS RELATING O THE � PROTECTI�N OF VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN OF V IL AND �� CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE Ml1NICIPA CODE a� ��" �� OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PR TECTION ry OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN AND 5 TT1NG ��, ti FORTH THE DETAILS iN REGARD THERET �;�� ,�� WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the pre: view corridors is essential to the character of Vail as a mountain res WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect and enhan guests and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enl economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS this new 'Chapter will more clearly identify exi development procedures for the benefit of ihe'rpubiic; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COU VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby 2 Chapter 18.73 to read as foliows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors 18.73.010 - Purpose The Town of Vail believes that preserving certain vistas is in residents and guests. Specificaily, the Town befieves that: A. The protection and perpetuation of certain mountain � views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town will fost� public interest of the Town of Vail; dation of certain existing A� community; and the Town's attraction t� � , �� F �� ince the aesthetic and � �` � ing view corridors and �' � CIL OF THE TOWN OF f �5 ed by the addition of interest of the Town's ws �nc�:othersi�n�f�cant civic pride and is in the B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetua e certain views for the enjoyment and environmentai enrichment of the residents and guests of the Town; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and environmental heritage and attributes; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the and values of the Town; E. The preservation of such views is intentl'ed to promote f' the Town's unique and economic vitality � � with the sur�ounding naEural and bui(t enuironment, anc� is intsnded to provide for natural light in the buildings and public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors; F. The preservation of such views will inciude Cettain focal points such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, which serve as prominent landmarks within Vail Village and contribute to the community's unique sense of place. 18.73.020 - Definitions � For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall be defined as shown below: A. Structure: An hin °° yt g permanenUy,;constructed or erected with a fixed location including, but not limited to, new buildings, building expansions, decks, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, satellite dishes, fences, stop lights, light poles, $fgns!; utility poles, sky lights or any similar object. B. View Point Origination: The survey pin, calied out as the instrument in each legal description defining a view corridor boundary, which is the basis for each view corridor. 18.73.030 - Limitations on Construction No structure shall be permitted to encroach int'o a view corridor unless approved under Sections 18.73.040 through 18.73.060. The view corridor boundaries are identified with the legal descriptions in Section 18.73.09Q and are graphically represented by the dashed tape on each of the adopted Town of Vail view corridor photographs. Copies of the Town of Vail view corridor photographs are on file with the Community Development Department 18J3.040 - Amendments to View Corridor Standards � In the event that an individual proposes an additional view corridor or proposes a structure which would encroach into an existing view corridor, the following procedures are available to review such proposafs: A. Projection: In the event a proposed structure would project iniq a view corridor, an applicant may apply for a projection allowance by fol(owing the procedures outlined in Section 18.73.050 and Section 18J3.060(A). For :example;;; this type of review Cncludas sxpansions located l�ehind othet struc3ures (such as the Clock Tower) as viewed from the view point origination. 2 � � B. Boundary Modification: In the event an applicant propos s a structure that would encroach into an adopted view corridor, and the applicant believes it is in he public's best interest to change the location of the view corridor boundary, he or she may ap ly to do so foliowing the procedures outlined in Section 18.73.050 and Section 18.73.060(B). C. View Corridor Creation: If an individual believes that an additional view corridor is in the public's best interest, he or she may subrnit a proposal to th Town to adopt another view corridor. The applicant shall follow the procedures outlined in Secti n 18.73.050 and Section 18.73.060(B). D. Appeal: If a determination is made by staff that a p oposed structure would encroach into an adopted view corridor as speclf.�eri in Sectfon 1� 73.p9 `; and the applicant does not concur, the applicant may appeal the determination to the Plan ing and Environmental Commission, according to Section 18.66.030. E. Non-Conforming Reconstruction: In the event a structure hich is presently located in an adopted view corridor is destroyed by natural causes, an plicant may propose to reconstruct tFiat portion ofi the! sEructure whlch' e�croached inio a vie corridor to its original configuration, provided such reconstruction commences within one y ar fotlowing destruction. The applicant shall follow the procedures of Section 18.54 and other a plicable sections of Title 18, but does not need to follow the process outlined in Section 18.73. 50, nor meet the criteria outlined in Section 18.73.060. The reconstructed structure shall not en roach into a view corridor to a greater degree than the previous structure. 18.73.050 - Process A. Public Hearings Any individual wishing to make an application for a request idi or make any other amendments to this chapter, shall follow the p 18.66.110 through 18.66.170 of the Town of Vaii Municipal Code. application, the request shall proceed to the Planning and Environme make a recommendation to Town Council. Town Council decisi ordinance. B. Submittallnformation The information tisted below shall be submitted with any 18.73.040: 3 ietl in Section 18.73.040, ;dures listed in Sections ter filing the appropriate Commission, which shall shall only be made by cation listed in Section �,�ti � ��' , � �c � `7 � J s\ ��a"�,l �r.'� c.--/� ,,J`t�..�`•'1 G��'\,. � f'' � �SJ - — -_ - -�� , � . � _ . ` -----`--- -- __.. ` � ' � \ ��S��,C � t^� r � r.ti - "� - , i� r ��.2^^' � .� (�-1 ��` �t:��"��*''� � / t. • .��i r ., c � �� t t- . � U-�- , '� � �: �°� � -` �� a� ; - �yj o�J��ny --___.__ _ _ �._ _ . t 1. Names and addresses of all property owners whose deVelopment poten#!ai � i�'�r ��fi�l be aifected by the proposed view corridor or the amendment to an 4N t� _ _ 2 existing view corridor. Photographs of the proposed view. The point used as the view point origination must be identified, the camera lens size, and the height of the camera above existing grade or pavement. These photographs must be marked io show the boundary of the proposed view corridor, or must be r) marked to show the proposed improvements in relation to existing Nu� . improvements and ex.isting;;view corridor boundaries. ^M� e�;i� � r�_`' --�—„ 3. If fi��s�a`�, the Community Development Department may �� -- �.. - models, overlays, sketches, or other submittal materiais which show: 4. 6. a. For a proposed view corridor, the potential impact the new view corridor could have on the development potential of the su�rounding properties; Qr b. For a modification to an existing view corridor, the potential impact ihe changes could have upon the protected view corridor. Once the PEC gives preliminary approval for any request listed in Section 18.73.04Q, a legal description written in the same format as those +n Section 18.73:0�0 and any other necessary survey information shall be provided by the applicant. Proposals deemed by the Community Development Department to have significant implications on the community may require review by professionals outside the Town staff. in this event, the appiicant shall reimburse the Town for expenses incurred by this review. Any outside consultant refalned to review a proposed view corridor or an amendment _ to an existing view corridor shall be selected and utilized by the Town staff� The Community Development Department shall determine the amount of ��' `�� monies estimated to cover the cost of outside consulting services, and this �� L._. \ } `' k` �� amount shall be provided to the Town by the applicant prior to any public tj �, r,� �,� �{��' c hearing on the proposal. Any unused portions of these funds shall be ?++h � v�' �}"�r,' retumed to the applicant following the review of an application as defined -" � a'� in Section 18.73.040. Expenses incurred by the Town in excess of the ''�"� l,� � � � � 'i �' � ' � � '! � o��.. � ��'`� r ` A, �` a � a 1,� 1 F' 1 ' c �\ �. � �-' r.;°��` � � � 4 � estimated amount shail be reimbursed to the To�n by the applicant. 18.73.060 - Criteria The foilowing criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in ev luating the merits of any application request ident�fied' in Section 18.73.040: ___ . .__ _ � A. No projection shall be authorized unless the Town Cou cii finds that all' �f the � applicable following conditions are met: "'�, 1. That the literal enforcement of Section 18.73.030 woul prec�ude a reasonable . � r� a-�c r-� Q-`,.A-c-C o.., j f1� ',�' z.�t` _ � . developmenC bf;a propased strueture on`the applicanYs land; �� .c� ."� ,� _ J � �fi„�.1�-�'�� t ° 2. That the development of the structure proposed by th applicant wouid rtot be �� such as to defeat the purposes of Chapter 18.73. 7�� c �Y e+�"'��?�� " 3. That the development proposed by the applicant woul ��` k ' r-�.: :.��;�, : __. � � ��, ;.��.L t, ��- a,;�, .� � �.. �,;�_ �„ � _.� . 4. That the development proposed by the applicant complie with applicable elements � �., 6,.�„r�`�.r� of the Vail Lanti Use Pla , Town policies andUrban D sign Guide Plans. �"�.'� 5;; That .ftie proposad stnrcture wifi notj dlminish ths integrity;;or qualify nor ��.,c:� 6. Such other factors and criteria as deemed reasonak request. B. No bound �ication or view corridor creation sh� �' , Town Council finds tha t e following conditions are met: 1. That the proposed view corridor boundary protects and from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town, s foster civic pride and is in the public interest of the To� • 2. That the proposed view corridor baundary protects s attraction to guests and visitors; 3. That the proposed view corridor boundary: a:: For a view corridor creation, �Srotects a view whii other, ir�ore common views� 6: For a boundary' modificaiion, will not' dimi compromise the orig(nat intantian of the; pi � applicable to the /'�� be approved untess'�he rpetuates certain views that this protection will of Vail; enhances the Town's _ _ _ __ _- � � 4. That the proposed boundary complies with applicable elements of the Vail [.3nd � j �f ; t7se Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Guide Plans. �"'`"`� `� ��i,u! `��` � � : r (.�„�� 5. Such other factors and criteria as deemed appiicable to the request. �' � s � . � �- . , , . � 18 73 070' - Approved Development Proposais Which Encroach Into View Corridors � For development proposals which have received approval from the Town of Vail, but have � � �� not received an approved building permit as of ihe effective date of this ordinance, and which I i encroach into an adopted view corridor, the applicant shall be able to renew the approval, not withstanding the pravisions of this ordinance. Renewals can be made, notwithstanding the ; ,�� provisions of this ordinance, providing there is no substantial change to the structure, and � ,;,'° provided there is no increase��iRthe portion of the structure which encroaches into the view � corridor. For Planning and Environmer�tal Commission decisions, the approval can be renewed ' ,, once. For Design Review Board decisions, the,approval can be renewed two times. For Town Council decisions, such as a Special Development DiSfr.�ct, the approval shall not be extended � ,_ If, for one project, the length of time resulting from the extension o'f P�C or DRB approvals differs �� the shorter length of time shall be the maximum allowed. If an approval�l�p \, the right to construct the development shail become void. �'-��ka�''��`�`�' � � 18.73.0�0 - Mass and Bulk Controts A. Height Control Within an Adopted View Corridor. If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code differs from the restricting height limitation defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height regulation shall appiy. B. Proposed Remodels of Non-Conforming Buildings. Any existing encroachments into view corridors wiil be encouraged to be removed as part of any major building remodel, except focal points, such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower. Pre-existing encroachments in view corridors shali not be modffied i� such a way to encroa�h inia a view �orridor ta; a greater �y- _ ��-�f � degree fhan the existing structure� i ; ;,, � , , ' ° �' �,� C. Focal Points. The Town of Vail has certain focal points, such as the Clock Tower� � qi; 1 ��7 or Rucksack Tower, wtiich are approved sttuctures (ocated within the view eorridors� It is the _ _ _ . __ �, Town of Vail's intent that these focai points be maintained, notwithstanding their non-conforming ` status. In the event that modifications are proposed to view corridor boundaries in the vicinity of these focal points or changes to the focal points are proposed, the focal points-sttalf`remair�,�r`�' (� �U�� 6 � E:� c�' i� e�.j_.v' �n.��u-��. �1'v`Z',ii-9 Y�'•,t:s..� . �:'!/1"� L� �I ( L� ,I � 1'��' ,�J � `7 �r� � be reconstructed +n such a way as to maintain the reiationship they have to the surrounding buildings at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 18.73.090' - Ado tion of View Corridor Le al Descri tions and hoto ra hs The adopted view corridor photographs on record with the ommunity Development Department and the foliowing legal descriptions are hereby approved a d adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. The photographs'taken BprsseFlt;;fhe boundarie`s. eniarg�rt 10 improve fhs graphic representation af eaah yisw co�ridor': A:€ liiew Ppiof #1; A view from the south side of the Vail T __ ___ __ _ __ _ _. _ __ _ the main pedestrian stairway looking toward the Clock Tower, the Ruc to the ski siopes; Instrument - View Point #1 - a 2" diameter brass disc, marked V.P. � Leveis 2 and 3 of Vail Village Parking structure. Backstght - CW 1/16 comer of Section 8 Height of Su�reyTr.ansit Above Vlew Po(nt #1 - 5.4 feet 7 i �rtation Center from Tower, and beyond on stair landing between I ! � Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anqle Foresiqht Point on Photo 2s of 2f1l92 348°51'10" 77°21'30" A- intersection of the horizon with a vertical line defined by the southwest corner of the sixth fioor deck enclosure on the Mountain Haus 348°30'10" 87°11'30" B1 - uppermost railing of the southwest cornar of the balcony on the fourth floor of the Mountain Haus 355°23'00" 87°37'40" B2 - east end of the Red Lion roof ridge 357°39'04" 87°40'43" 63 - intersection of the Red Lion roof ridge with the southeast corner of the Rucksack Tower 357°57'59" gg°27'22" g4 - northeast corner of the base of the Rucksack Tower 004°05'19" 89°16'02" C1 - intersection of the Galiery Building with the northeast corner of the Clock Tower, immediately below the balcony 004°39'58" 89°16'33" C2 - western end of facia board on Gallery Buiiding 004°47'18" 89°41'44" C3 - intersection of the sloping roof of the Gallery Building with the ridge line of the Clock Tower Building, which extends west , 006°59'11" 89°42'12" D- intersection of the Clock Tower Building roof and the northwest corner of the Clock Tower 012°25'56" 87°38'01" E- peak of the Plaza Lodge vent chase i 027°08'54" 87°28'43" F- intersection of the north side of Pepi's roof with I the east side of two large trees II 031°53'27" 76°26'35" G- intersection of the horizon line on Vail Mountain with the ve�tical line defined by the top of the western, very large pine tree west of Point F B. Uiew Paint #2: A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski slopes between 228 Bridge street, the Golden Peak Building, and 311 Bridge Street, the Hill Building; Instrument - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2'h" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2(PLS i 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of the Red Lion Building '� � Backsight - View Point #4 - a#6 rebar with a 2Y2" diameter afuminum cap marked V.P. 4(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the I', entrance to Frivolous Sal's Helght of Survey 7.ranslt Above View Point #2 - 5.4 feet i 8 ❑ Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anqle 289°25'48" 74°28'18" 290°58't 1" 89°58'00" 300°32'46" 301 °35'24" 303°32'24" 92°05'34" 83°31'08„ 73°38'S5" c. Reserved Foresi ht Point on Photo 'S nf 1171519i! A- northwest corner of thi d floor balcony roof B- PK nail in top of retai ing wall on west side of Golden Peak House, 1 fo t east from west edge of pianter wall C1 - top of south end of ki lockers, which are on railing C2 - southeast corner f top deck rail on Hill Building D- southeast corner o brick chimney on Hill euilding i I D. i/iew Point #a> A view from the northeast comer of 24� _. . ...._.__ _ __....._. Piace Buiiding, looking over the roofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Re Hanson Ranch Road, the Christiania Lodge, toward the Gore Range. Wall Street, the One Vail I Lion Buiiding, and 356 Instrument - View Point #4 - a#6 rebar with a 2Yz" diameter aluminu cap marked V.P. 4(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, appr ximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivolous Sal's Backsight - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2�/2" diameter aluminu cap marked V.P. 2(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of he Red Lion Bui(ding _A Height of Su;►veyTr�rtslt Above View Poin� #2 =� 5.4 feet �'�� ''� ,�4 9 s �► Horizontal Angle Zenith Anq1e Foresiaht Point on Photo:as o( 11/1�l9t> 343°56'53" 62°24'10" A- south facia board of third floor roof ot Plaza Lodge Building 348°37'05" 73°05'43" B- intersection of upper and second floor roof lines of Plaza Lodge Buiiding 352°55'25" 73°34'26" C- south end of peak of second floor gable of Plaza Lodge Building 352°31'05" 79°24'44" D- eastern edga of second floor gabie roof of Plaza Lodge Building 352°13'16" 79°24'55" E- intersection of second itoor roof facia and southeast comer of Plaza Lodge Buiiding 352°13'14" 84°44'25" F- intersection of southeast corner of building and top edge of first floor facia of Plaza Lodge Building 354°30'20" 86°13'30" G- top of southeasterly corner of first floor facia of Plaza Lodge Building 354°47'22" 86°07'S8" H- intersection of south edge of Red Lion chimney and upper Red Lion roof line 358°21'46" 85°17'48" I- peak of upper Red �ion roof line 359°04'31" 85°30'36" J- intersection of upper Red Lion roof line and northerly roof line of the Christiania 000°16'55" 84°36'56" K- peak of northerly roof line of the Christiania 001 °59'47" 84°36'56" L- intersection of northerly roof peak and southerty roof line of the Christiania 003°05'44" 83°32'42" M- northwesterly comer of second floor balcony on Hill Buiiding 006°23'31" 83°33'52" N- intersection of top of second floor balcony rail and brick wall on Hill Building 005°32'14" 67°54'58" O- northwest corner of top of facia on third floor roof of Hill Building E. Yieinr Point #5: A view of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Mill Creek Court Building; Instrument - View Point #5 - a#6 rebar with 2'/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 5(PLS � 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Hanson Ranch Road in front of the Mill Creek Court � Building I � Backsight -#4 rebar with aluminum cap (LS 2568) in iron "Landmark" monument box marking i centeriine of Hanson Ranch Road - box is just west of Mill Creek in front of Cyrano's Hefght of SurveyTranStt Above Vlew Paint #5 - 5.4 feet 1p i Horizontal Anple Zenith Angle Foresi ht Point on Photo s of 11�15/9t! 199°03'06" 81 °23'49" A- intersection of southerl utiliry pole with ridge line 204°06'43" 85°10'40" B1 - intersection of norther y extension of Garden of the Gods Buiiding roofline ith hillside ridge line 206°00'02" 85°10'40" B2 - northern end of roofl ne of the Garden of the Gods Building 208'12'53" 85°10'40" C1 - intersection of sou herly extension of the Garden of the Gods building roofline and the Villa Valhalla roofline 208°33'36" 84°55'50" C2 - northwest corner of he Villa Valhalla at roof facia 210°41'41" 84°01'47" D- intersection of top of th Villa Valhalla roof facia and the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window colum 210°41'41" 82°01'51" E- the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column on the Villa Valhalla to a point above the horizon F. View Point #6:: A view looking east to the Gore Rang from Gore Creek Drive between retail shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at Vaii, and 1 3 Gore Creek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza Bui�ding projecting east to the Gore Range. Instrument - View Point #6 - a#6 rebar with 2'/�" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive in front of the Gore Creek Plaza Building Backsight - a#6 rebar with 2'/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. B.S. (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive near the southwest orner of Pepi's deck Height of Survey7ranslt Above View Polnt #6 - 5.4 feet 11 Horizontal Anqie 356°OS'35" 356°55'02" 000°31'36" 001 °48'10" 003°14'42" 007°56'03" 013°30'31" 013°38'14" 012°55' 17" 014°44'21 " � � Zenith Anqle Foresiqht Point on Photo;as oE 1':1115/91: 81°02'17" A- point on horizon left of the chimney on Pepi's roof 83°02'06" B- intersection of southeast edge of chimney and Pepi's roofline 82°54'27" C- southern end of gable on Pepi's roof 85°17'34" D1 - intersection of northeriy extension of Gorsuch's roof line and Pepi's roof 85°17'40" D2 - north end of Gorsuch's roof 85°1 f'32" D3 - south end of Gorsuch's roof 85°11'32" E- intersection of southerly extension of gorsuch's roof line and brick pillar on Lazier Arcade Building / Wall Street Building 78°48'35" F- intersection of face of stucco and eve line on Lazier Arcade Building / Wali Street Building 78°14'51" G- top of facia on northeast comer of roof on Lazfer Arcade Building ! Wall Street Buiiding 73°13'39" H- top of roof on Lazier Arcade Building / Wail Street Building Section 2 Section G of the Urban.-Desigrf'Consiti�ratians '-�h`ereby modified to read as foilows: �. Paraaraph G l� L,� ''� �k�`y' i,�'�'^�-� lA � l� Vail's mountaiN' Iley setting is a fundam�nt�l-pa�F�f ts identity. Views ot the mountains, _------ —' ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibiiity, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant view corridors have been adopted as part of Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and other important man-made and naturaf elements that contribute to the sense of place associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference poinis for pedestrians. iz � � Development in Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopte view corridor. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Wheth r affecting adopted visw , corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from pe estrian ways and pubiic , spaces must be identified and atldressed where appropriate. The VaiC 'and Use' Plar�, ihe Tawn' affecE'ed, �nd how theji should;:be addressed<: /� ��ti� (f'� -kkc�'° . � .�� Section 3 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of he remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have p ssed ttiis ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, reg rciless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phras s be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that th s ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and he inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of t e Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrue , any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecut on commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provi ion repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revi e any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6 • All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall ot be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore epealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public he ring shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. 13 � I e ATTEST: � Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPRQVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day oF , 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk c:brdbrd13.91 i � I � - . �. � . . �� . � .. .;. � . . � . � ;... .�- � .. . .� I � � � . � . . � � � . - � �- . I � � ' . . . .. - - . . .. . � � �� 14 - I x�� =��`' �� ` €� L-'i .� ��. , . . ,. , ; �- - . , ', r _V��, _ :: , ii .' � o� � t + i . � /3 -= � �"..f��' 1 _� , F - y y�� J E f � - { � -.� : . L t " �,i.: •_ . �. � . � � � �. J'.. s,.k � ORDINANCE NO. 13 � � � „•' � Series of 1991 : { ; �. ,,,_. AN ORDINANCE AMENDWG SECTION OF THE VAIL ViLLAGE � UR9AN DESIGN CONSIDERATION RELATING TO THE .'` ��'� .;;.. PROTECTION OF VlEWS WITHIN TH TOWN OF VAIL AND CREATING A NE1►V CHAPTER OF T E MUNICIPAL CODE ,., t'�` OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION f„.� , 'Y�A OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHIN THE OWN AND SETTING -_ .- � � F�RTH THE DETAILS IN RE ARD THERETO ,� - 4,- x` s �� v,:. WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Counc I that the preservation of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of Vail as a WHEREAS the preservation of views will p guests and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will ic vitality of the Town of Vail; and resort community; and and enhance the Town's attraction to lize and enhance the aesthetic and �r will more clea�ly identify existing view corridors and !ic's benefit; i � ��i�r��e.. t; ..; . , � i" COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF j i 1 rl �::a � MEMORANDUM � TO: File FROM: Andy Knudtsen DATE: June 1, 1992 SUBJECT: Comments from the May 27, 1992 View Corridor Task Force Meeting The following comments were made by the task force: 1. Notices for a projection and a view corr,idor amendment shouid be different. For projections, the task force believed that a11 property owners within a foot radius #rom the proposed construction shauld be notified. The " " foot distance could be approxi�nately 500 feet. For view corridor amendments, notice should be all properties whose development potential is likely to be affected by the change in boundaries. In both situatians, I think that we should require the applicant to submit a map showing how the surrounding property owners were determined. 2. The criteria for projection were revised as follows: 1. That the literal enforcement of Section would preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's land; reasonable in this situation is further defined as an appropriate amount of development in accordance with the zoning and land use regulations of the Town of Vail. 2. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be such to defeat the purpose of this chapter. 3. That the development proposed by the applicant would not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public places and public views. 4. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with the applicable elements of the Valley Land Use Plan, the town policies and Urban Design Guide Plans and other applicable master plans. 5. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the originaf intent of the proposed view. 6. Such other factors and criteria as deemed reasonable and applicable to the request. 3. The task force suggested thai staff add purpose statements to each view, to define what the view is preserving, how focal points are part of the views, and what the critical aspects of the view are which should be preserved in the future. � � 4. it was agreed that any proposed projection whi h would be constructed above a view corridor boundary will require a fuii review. Th s will include a recommendation from PEC and two readings by Council. It was agr ed that there would be no simplified shortcut review process for any projection loca ed behind existing buildings. 5. It was agreed on that language describing foc I points would be deleted as this ordinance deals with view p�o#ection and the g al of preserving certain structures should be dealt with in a separate ordinance, s ch as a historic preservation ordinance. Peggy Osterfoss 3950 North Frontage, #4 Vai1, CO 81658 Joe Macy Vai1 Associates P.O. Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 Craig Snowdon Snowdon and Hopkins 201 Gore Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 � ;. �� Larry Eskwith Town of Vaii Attorney 75 S Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Geri Arnold Vail Associates P.O. Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 Diana Donovan 1014 Homestake Circle Vail, CO 81657 Jim Lamont P.O. Box 73 Red CGff, CO 81649 x �� y �'OW'�' OF ��9IL � 7> South Fro�tia�e Road Vail, Colorado 81 b57 303-47y-2138I479-2139 May 22, 1992 Kathy Langenwalter P.O. 8ox 1202 Yaii, CO 81658 � . �� Department of Community Development rsE: Review oi the Proposed View Corridor Or inance � Dear Kathy, i We are looking forward to getting together again to di cuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduled to meet on Wednesda , May 27, 1992, at i:30 PM in the Small Conference Room in the Municipal Building. As you an see from the attached draft ordinance, aimost ail of the suggestions that were ma e at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been ped in with a gray shading. We were pleased with the comments #hat were made in the las meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. if you have any questions before the meeting, please eel free to call either of us at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday. Since�rely, � ` C' �` ` Z �" � \ , � ( ,��"t ��r 'l l ��j Andy Knt�d#sen and Kristan Pritr Town �ianner Director of Community Development . � � \� , \ �u I'% TOWN OF UAIL � 7S South Frontage Road Depurtm�nt of Community Development Yail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138/479-2139 � � May 22, 1992 Craig Snowdon Snowdon and Hopkins 201 Gcre Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 RE: Review of the Proposed View Corridor Ordinance Dear Craig, We are looking forward to getting tagether again to discuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduled to meet on Wednesday, May 27, 1992, at 1:30 PM in the Small Conference Room in the Municipal 8uiiding. As you can see from the attached draft ordinance, almost all of the suggestions that were made at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been typed in with a gray shading. We were pleased with the comments that were made in the last meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. If you have any questions before the meeting, please feel free to call either of us at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday. i Sincer ly, � ' ,d ��-- �;s� �{ `� `L� � i /` � ; An Knudtsen � and Kristan Pritz ' Town lanner Director of Community Development � �; ' , � � �` � f i i � , I . .�-`,-�`y_, ,y�i i �y TOW1V OF UAIL � � • 7S South F'rontage Road Department of Community Development Yail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138/479-2139 May 22, 1992 . Jim Lamont P.O. Box 73 Red Cliff, CO 81649 RE: Review of the Proposed View Corridor Or inance Dear Jim, We are looking forward to getting together again to discuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduled to mest on Wednesday, May 27, 1992, at 1:30 PM in the Smail Conference Room in the Municipal Building. As you c n see from the attached draft ordinance, almost all of the suggestions that were ma e at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been ty ed in with a gray shading. We were pleased with the comments that were made in the last meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. !f you have any questions before the meeting, please f el free to call either of us at 479-2i38. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday. SinceGely, _ ��""`� � " �-'--�--__. �� And Knudt�sen and Y Tovrn Pla�ier Y� 1 � � ristar� Pritr Director of Comrriunity Development . � � _ � � � �� TOWN OF VAIL 7) Souib Frontage Road Department of Co�nmunity Development T�ail, Colorado 8165 i 303-479-2138/479-2139 May 22, 1992 Geri Arno(d Vail Associates P.O. Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 RE: Review of the Proposed View Corridor Ordinance Dear Geri, We are looking forward to getting together again to discuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduled to meet on Wednesday, May 27, 1992, at 1:30 PM in the Small Conference Room in the Municipai Buiiding. As you can see from the attached draft ordinance, aimost all of the suggestions that were made at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been typed in with a gray shading. We were pleased with the comments that were made in the last meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. If you have any questions befflre the meeting, please feel free to cafl either of us at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday. Sincerely, � �� .�: � r� � �f � � �,�� Andy Knudt en anc! Kristan Pritz Town Planner Director of Community Development . � � r� � �, � ,� TOW�V OF VAIL � i) South Fronta�e Road Vail, Colorado 81 b57 303-479-2138/4;9-2139 May 22, 1992 Joe Macy Vaii Associates P.O. Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 • i Department of Co�n�nunity Development RE: Review of the Proposed View Corridor Or inance Dear Joe, We are looking forwa�d to getting together again to di cuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduled to meet on Wednesday May 27, 1992, at 1:30 PM in the Small Conference Room in the Municipal Building. As you c n see from the attached draft ordinance, afmost al! of the suggestions that were ma e at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been ty ed in with a gray shading. We were pfeased with the comments that were made in the last meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. lf you have any questions before the meeting, please eel free to call either of us at 479-2138. We look forvvard to seeing you Wednesday. Sincerely, � � � �r; �� = � �� . � An Knudt'sen and Knstan Pritz Town ann r Director of Community Development • � � . .� ` � TOWN OF VAIL �� 7S South Frontuge Road Department of Community Development Yail, ColorRda 81657 � 303-479-2138/479-2139 May 22, 1992 Diana Donovan 1014 Homestake Circle Vail, CO 81657 RE: Review of the Proposed View Corridor Ordinance Dear Diana, We are looking forward to getting together again to discuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduied to meet on Wednesday, May 27, 1992, at 1:30 PM in the Small Conference Room in the Municipal Buiiding. As you can see from the attached draft ordinance, almost al1 of the suggestions that were made at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been typed in with a gray shading. We were pleased with the comments that were made in the last meeting and feef that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. if you have any questions before the meeting, please feel free to call either of us at 479-2138. We look fonn+ard to seeing you Wednesday. Sinc rely, �� li'i 'c� L �f .. � . ; %�� l Andy Knudtsen ` and � � � 1! 1 � Kristan Pritz Town ner D'+rector of Community Development ` � • � � -- � ,�„ ` �y TO�V OF i�AIL � i5 South Frontage Koad Vail, Cotorado 81657 303-479-2138 / 479-1139 May 22, 1992 Larry Eskwith Town of Vail Attorney 75 S Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 � Department of Community Development RE: Review ofi the Proposed View Corridor Ord nance Dear Larry, We are looking forward to getting together again to dis uss the proposed view corridar ordinance. We are scheduled to meet on Wednesday, May 27, 1992, at 1:30 PM in the Smail Confierence Room in the Municipal Building. As you c n see from the attached draft ordinance, almost ail of the suggestions that were ma e at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been ty ed in with a gray shad+ng. We were pleased with the comments that were made in the last meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. If you have any questions befo�e the meeting, please f el free to ca11 either of us at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday. Sincer ly, °L �<� �i}` � 1 � /�-� %�� v� s� i Andy Kn�tsen and Kristan Pritz Town Planner Director of Community Development I � � . �\ ,1 TOI�N OF VAIL � 75 Sourh Frontuge Road Department of Community llevelopment TTail, Colorado 8I6S7 303-�79-213S1479-2139 May 22, 1992 Peggy �sterfoss 3950 North Frontage, #4 Vail, CO 81658 RE: Review of the Proposed View Corridor Ordinance Dear Peggy, We are looking forward to getting together again to discuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduled to meet on Wednesday, May 27, 1992, at 1:30 PM in the Smail Conference Room in the Municipai Buiiding. As you can see from the attached draft ordinance, almost all of the suggestions that were made at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been typed in with a gray shading. We were pleased with the comments that were made in the last meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. If you have any questions before the meeting, piease feei free to cali either of us at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday. Sinc�rely, f� 1� i G`'" � c C--� �� Andy Kn dtsen and Kristan Pritz Town anner Director of Community Develepment -_,.. - - - _ — - - - --- -_ _ -----_ ._,_� �...� _��._.__;_�_.�__. ._ _w,.,�. _ - _ _ . � �-- � � _ � ... . ._ � �,� ._ _ - .. . . . � , . •j, l _� � --� � .. . _ ' . <" � i �i _� ��' ( [I� � r,; i � �f �� p .p,, • � /j� , / � � I 6 j �� / , f � /T t / �tIS ,. ' f� `t 'F',(t {�,f�Yr�'Ji[1 �'�; u.�;� : �� , �- =' ' -� _ _ �c.�'�I ! � : . � . . . . � ,�_,J�,�., _ ` -, '.;�, - . Prj'I �,�' � 1�� r'` r' % ;� f'"� �; � � �_� � ' x ��< � � ' .�_:__. , _ . ' � -� , �"`_ �' t , c�,,' 9 �' '� �� ".�'' , � $ �a''� t . f i� --- --- ��, �y/ g p� . Y� � � P3 ) Q ✓ �'�'*"., ff '�„--�:.� }� 1��?/� ` i.,�`��`F.�' fn��-. � . �yf. ,;�`.,% x ' t . . . ` ; � . . . . . . .. { . � . � . . . .. l� . . .. � f ^ . - . . � ' � r e ! t Lf% /' �✓% �,/; �" �i`�� ! f7.2t—t � � ��/�%! _�.__ _ ._ . .__ _N_,_ . _ _ _ _ �J I � �j t J � .' f _ .._:� __ _ ,,:__,_� . ,.._ _�.__._ _ r — - -_� _ _ � 4 ��/ � -- � � �� — — � .. . _ � �� _ _ �.., _ _ �_� .--.�� _��:._..�.__:^ __ . ,_T_ _.�,..--- -- — -- ---- --- _ _ � .. _ . .� .. _ �� .. �_ �_ ..� , ? . —, 1 ' _ --- -- - - - � _ _ _��`' _ `� _� �` �.�,"�'"°`" - - -- -- - __ .._.K. __ : �. _ __ _ _ , �. .�_- --_ _ _ _.. �/ ��# --- - - - - �` � � �j�� '7- - � � - ��` _ `�-` �- ! '� - -- ` � - - - -- -- _ , __- --- - --- - - __ _ _ �� _ _ _ _u_. ,._ �_�. ' � � 2-- `�_._ . t � _ � __ �---- - �, �./ �� %?�- _ - � ' � ` � _ _ r z � � .� ._ . . _ - - - - .� _ f..�-- _ `��-� __ _ __ � � : - - - . �-��F � __ - _ ��„ _ .� -� _��, �} ` � � f �%T.�--I' _ � - . _ ; � - - - - - � � __ - £ � �,,J�_.' F � �.�j �; n �:,_ i1i ,...�, � �..>-�-r--�e—» ._,.�. �_._ . � . _.. . � ��.._ �..... ._.�_.._ ...�.�« �f�/: , � �.�,,� —�--. - /�'(f/f�� j�I � �._..�� .,. : _ ... . .. £ _ . � " ._E_. � � � f i �e � � � � . .. . �L;/ � : �� 'F _.t. t� �" ^'-----�-� � �� I ----��.�.._.._- _ __ ,._ : _ < <. i � � - �rj �� C...'.":��. ��i1�� ✓ '��` � }'`,-.� L"c ; -. .. : �- �� ; _ ; .. � �• : , t __.� _ _ ....._.,...�.____.�_�..� _�.... _._._.y._.�-..�.�,,.._,....._�... � f . _ - - . ... � . . -+.n ...._.__-�..._, ..� ...,:.�. �.., .,:.4 .._.�._,.._.-��:�-._�.��- . � . / ... . . .. � . .. . .. . II: .. .. . . . . � . ��_ . _... � �...: �., . �_ , � Iy �� .�� - �� \� V i / ' ( .. ..�r� e � �aY � %`7 , . .f „��._ � �. '." i �/ �� 7 ., � l� � , � �. �'. ._ . . ..,r---,,.....:..._...._._w._w_........,.�..�_..f.�_»:.........---",...< ... ... . . . .. .... .. ^�g 'i �'I __..,...� _. _....._ t...-..._:_....�.,,.._..r:_ ne.»..r.c......... ...-._ �.-,r,._.....u.-�....:+.w.....�: L .�...�.,.._ __-_,_d ; .� . . . . _ ... «. .. _ ' ii � �7 �, �—}�Dt- ` �� . �i�-fj�vti �"(_. �..., / .. _ _"`?. � � `v: r _ — �� .. . � . _ t�: �'/ �� 2� �Y'! 9 r ( �'--.-.a.d�l(��:�K�^`!✓�Lf'�. �� l} �/ iJ�(,( � ✓� �U'L �"�''i� y'.✓ � � �'+�',�'�"-`�C �� v/) �� V �`�l J�n ��> �.tie us�.�2.�. C�'�. aU _ a��f� ��` �"� �� ,, ,� � ; �.�,� ceti�rL ��'"� o , ��L� > � . .. v� _ � � �;�;,_ . ;,�� • .',., r� 1r�_ `t'"':`{ ORDINANCE NO. 13 �`!`�kt ": c"` ,{ }¢ F'`��'- Series of 1991 �'�"�.��, . �� 1};��•; � , cc: � AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION G OF THE VAIL VILLAGE - �' . I URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS RELATING T THE '" '- � PROTECTION OF VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VA L AND -'�� j +� CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF 7HE MUNICIPAL ODE � �;�.� � �� OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PRO ECTION �� OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN AND SE ING �� '��'j i � `.: fitw-... FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO `,, 1„ � � '� � WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the prese ation of certain existing , �view corridors is essential to the character of Vail as a mountain resort mmunity; and � WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect and enhance e Town's attraction to � 4 � /� guests and visitors; and I �� WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enh nce the aesthetic and '� � economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and � WHEREAS the amen,drt�ent will more clearly identify existi g view corridors and � i development procedures for the public's benefit; � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUN IL OF THE TOWN OF i VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: ' � Section 1 !� Titie 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby am nded by the addition of , ', � Chapter 18.73 to read as follows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors 18.73.010 - Purpose The Town of Vaii believes that preserving certain vistas is in th interest of the Town's i residents and guests. Specifically, the Town believes that: � A. The protection and perpetuation of certain,�iano7�mlC mou tain views from various i ; pedestrian/public ways within the Town will foster civic pride and is in t e public interest of the i i Town of Vaii; i � B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate ce ain ei�istin� panofamic i triouh.t2ifi views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the residents and guests of � the Town; � C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and pres rve the Town's unique ienvironmentai heritage and attributes; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthe ic and economic vitality and values of the Town; f � � _. E. The preservation of such views wiN�pramdCeµg�--d�stgr�-a��will provide for natural light in the buildings and pubiic spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors; F. The preservation of such views will � focal points such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, which serve as prominent landmarks within Vail Village and contribuCe tab : ,. the community's unique sense of piace. '�, �., �� ' ? � � �� a ,� � � � . � �. � �iw�� S'p`. ��. . 18.73.020 - Definitions , � * e � � � For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall be defined as shown below: s� � A. Structure: Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location including, but not � �� limited to, new buildings, building expansions, decks, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, satellite 'A � a ; '� dishes, fences, stop lights, light poles, utility poles, sky lights or any similar object. } � ��, B. View Point Origination: The survey pin, called out as the instrument in each legal� ��" " ' � y� ��° description defining a view corridor boundary, which is the basis for each view corridor. i� 18.73.030 - Limitations on Construction No structure shall be permitted to encroach � the view corridor boundary unless �� r approved under Sections 18.73.040 through 18.73.060. The view corridor boundaries are � a identified with the legal descriptions in Section 18.73.080 and are graphically represented by the � � ��_, � dashed tape on each of the adopted Town of Vail view corridor photographs identified in Exhibit �� A. Copies of the Town of Vail view corridor photographs are on file with the Communiry Development Department. 18.73.040 - Amendments to View Corridor Standards In the event that an individuai proposes an additional view corridor or proposes a structure which would encroach into an existing view corridor, the following procedures are available to review such proposals: ' ' ' A. Projection: In the event a proposed structure would project ab4ve a view corridor boundary, an applicant may apply for a projection allowance by following the procedures outiined in Section i8.73.050 and Section 18.73.060(A). �This type of review ma� inGude an expansion.; which appea(s�to�be behind another structure (such as the Clock Tower) as viewed from the view point origination.�`. 2 � �'F': _;k � ��G�. ;,;,, ��" d� .� � ��, � ��'� �� .>.�� ,� � � �� . ��, �� _ � � B. Boundary Modification: in the event an applicant propos s a structure that would encroach abeve an adopted view corridor boundary, and the applicant b lieves it is in the public's best interest to change the location of the view corridor boundary, he or she may apply to do so foilowing the procedures outlined in Section 18.73.050 and Section 18. 3.060(8). C. View Corridor Creation: If an individual believes that an additional view corridor is in the public's best interest, he or she may submit a proposal to the Town to adopt another view corridor. The applicant shall follow the procedures outlined in Sectio 18.73.050 and Section 18.73.060(B). D. Appeal: If a determination is made by staff that a pr posed structure would �-------- encroach into an adopted view corridor and the applicant does not co cur, the applicant may appeal the determination to the Pianning and Environmentai Commissi n, according to Section 18.66.030. E. Non-Conforming Reconstruction: In the event a structure hich is presently located in an adopted view corridor is destroyed by naturaf causes, an ap licant may propose to reconstruct the structure to its original configuration, provided such rec nstruction commences within one year following destruction. The applicant shall follow the proc dures of Section 18.54 and other applicabie sections of Title 18, but does not need to follow the process outlined in Section 18J3.050, nor meet the criteria outlined in Section 18.73.0 0. 7he reconstructed � __ _.._ structure shall not encroach into a view corridor to a greater degree tha the previous structure. ? 18.73.050 - Process A. Publlc Hearings Any individual wishing to make an application for a request outlir or make any other amendments to this chapter, sha(I follow the procE 18.66.110 through 18.66.170 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. At appiication, the request shall proceed to the Planning and Environmental make a recommendation to Town Councii. Town Council decisions ordinance. B. Submfttai lnformation The information listed betow shail be submitted with any app 18.73.040: 1. Names and addresses of �all property owners a 3 �d in Section 18.73.040, (ures listed in Sections :r filing the appropriate :ommission, which shail �hall only be made by listed in Section � .�''��' ; : � by the proposed', °;`, j%` _.-, � , � view corridor or the amendment to an existing view corridor. 2. Photographs of the proposed view. The point used as the view point origination must be identified, as well as the camera lens size and the height of the camera above exisiing grade or pavement. These photographs must be marked to show the boundary of the proposed view corridor, or must be marked to show the proposed improvements in relation to existing improvements and view corridor boundaries. 3. If necessary, the Communiry Development Department may require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittal materials which show: a. For a proposed view carridor, the potential impact the new view corridor could have on the development potential of the surrounding properties. b. For a modification to an existing view corridor, the potential impact the changes could have upon the protected view corridor. 4. Once the PEC gives preliminary approval for any request listed in Section 18.73.040, a legal description written in the same format as those in Section 18.73.080 and any other necessary survey information shall be provided by the applicant. 6. Proposals deemed by the Community Development Department to have significant implications on the community may require review by professionals outside the Town staff. In this event, the applicant shall reimburse the Town for expenses incurred by this review. Any outside consultant selected~to review a proposed view corridor or an amendment to an existing view corridor shall be selected and utilized by the Town staff. . ,.� _ � , �1� The Community Development Department shall determine the amount of monies estimated to cover the cost of outside consulting services, and this amount shall be provided to the Town by the applicant prior to any public hearing on the proposal. Any unused portions of these funds shali be returned to the applicant following the review of an application as defined in Section 18.73.040. Expenses incurred by the Town in excess of the estimated amount shail be reimbursed to the Town by the applicant. 4 I � , i _ .: _ ..: • � 18.73.060 - Criteria The following criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in application request listed in Section 18.73.040: A. No projection shall be authorized uniess the Town Council following conditions are met: 1.- That the literal enforcement of Section 18J3.030 woulc � development of the applicant's land for theitse-pFapasec 2. That the development of the structure proposed by the such as to defeat the purposes of Chapter 18.73. 3.- That the development proposed by the applicant is the which would be needed to secure for the applicant from tt return in its service, use a�e; the merits of any nds that the applicable preclude a reasonable; �. y -� ... . .._ . _ .. would not be `minimum development ; property a reasonable 5. That the development proposed by the applicant would �ot result in damage to neighboring properties or public lands. 6. That the development proposed by the applicant complies ith applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urba Design Guide Plans. 7. Such other factors and criteria as deemed applicable to t e request. F -_'t:'. ... .t� , . . B. No boundary modification or view corridor creation shall e approved unless the Town Council finds that°4he`fol(owing conditions are met: 1. That the proposed view corridor boundary protects a d perpetuates certain pa+�tnamie mountain views from various pedestrian/publi ways within the Town, and that this protection will foster civic pride and is in tlje public interest of the Town of Vail; 2. That the proposed view corridor protects and enhances he Town's attraction to guests and visitors, 3. That the proposed view corridor protects a view which i commonly recagnized and has inherent qualities which make it more valuable o the Town than other, more common views. 4. That the deveiopment proposed by the applicant compiies of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urb� 5. Such other factors and criteria as deemed appiicable to . " �itk 5 r� a � p'��r � � F i' , ! ,i .l , . � 5 � ,. . r;-F;, r �, ��,:� � . _�, ��_ ;, :h appiicable elements Design Guide Plans. request. i • 18.73.070 - Approved Development Proposals Which Encroach Into View Corridors I iFor development proposals which have received approval from the Town of Vail, but have i not received an approved building permit as of the effective date of this ordinance, and which • �., �- ��n!;.. � `l ��.. - � encroach into an adopted view corridor, the applicant shall be able to renew the approval, not withstanding the provisions of this ordinance. Renewals can be made, notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance, providing there is no substantial change to the structure, and provided there is no increase in the portion of the structure which encroaches into the view corridor. For Planning and Environmental Commission decisions, the approval can be renewed once. For Design Review Board decisions, the approval can be renewed two times. For Town Council decisions, such as a Special Development District, the approval shall not be extended. if, for one project, the length of time resulting from the extension of PEC or DRB approvals differs, the shorter length of time shail be the maximum allowed. If an approva� lapses, the right to construct the development shall become void. 18J3.075 - Mass and Bulk Controis A. Height Control Within an Adopted View Corridor. If the maximum height ailowed by the zoning code differs from the restricting height limitation defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height regulation shali appiy. B. Proposed Remodels of Non-Conforming Buildings. A�y existing encroachments into view corridors will be encouraged to be removed as part of any major building remodel, _ _ -. ,. t . . .., except focai points, such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower. ;Pre-existing encroachments } ` r y � �.� i �. ,: .. . . .. . .. _.. ._. .. . . _ . .. .. _ . . .. ... .. .. . ........ � . �. ... �y�.:�i,�. 'in view corridors shail not be expanded or eniarged to create further encroachments. _ � "r , . ,; ,. � i, � C. Focal Points. The Town of Vaii has certain focal points, such as the Clock Tower ,�. ' 1� �% . - „�? or Rucksack Tower, which e�siea�;to the view corridors. It is the Town of Vail's intent that - ,, � �.,'; �� I r � ,�. these focal points be maintained, notwithstanding their non-conforming status. In the event that �k � , j . ,- modifications are proposed to view corridor boundaries in the vicinity of these focal points or C�� , j ,...., . . :� changes to the focal points are proposed, the focal points shall remain, or be reconstructed in ,' such a way as to maintain the relationship they have to the surrounding buildings at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 18.73.080 - Adoption of View Corridor Leqal Descriptions and Photoqraphs The adopted view corridor photographs on record with the Community Development 6 � , � Department and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved an adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. .�-.°a� . � - A. A view from the south side of the Vail Transportation Center from the main pedestrian stairway looking toward the Ciock Tower, the Rucksack Tow r, and beyond to ihe ski slopes; � _ : f�- .t � K � �� Vlew Point #1 Instrument - View Point #1 - a 2" diameter brass disc, marked V.P. 1 n stair landing between Levels 2 and 3 of Vail Village Parking structure. Backsfght - CW 1/16 corner of Section 8 Helght ot Instrument above Vlew Point #1 - 5.4 feet � s _. lens used fn photograph - 35 mm r. .-yr:+, Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anqle 348°51'10" 77°21'30„ 348°30' 10" 355°23'00" 357°39'04" 357°57'59" 004°05' 19" 004°39'S8" 004°47' 18" OQ6°59'11" 012°25'56" 027°OS'54" 031 °53'27" 87°1 i'30" 87°37'40" 87°40'43" 88°27'22" 89°16'02.' 89° 16'33" 89°41'44" 89°42'12" 87°38'01 " 87°28'43" 76°26'35" � .� � `�"� ,�!.4,, �� Foresiqht Point on Photo ' �Y A- intersection of the hori on with a vertical line defined by the southwest orner of the sixth floor deck enclosure on the Mou tain Haus B1 - uppermost railing of the southwest corner of the balcony on the fourth floor f the Mountain Haus B2 - east end of the Red Li n roof ridge 63 - intersection of the Red Lion roof ridge with the southeast corner of the Ruc sack Tower B4 - northeast comer of th base of the Rucksack Tower C1 - intersection of the G Ilery Building with the northeast corner of the CI k Tower, immediately below the balcony C2 - western end of facia b ard on Gailer�r Building C3 - intersection of the slo ing roof of the Galiery Building with the ridge lin of the Clock Tower Building, which extends we t D- intersection of the Clock ower Building roof and the northwest corner of the lock Tower E- peak of the Plaza Lodge vent chase F- intersection of the north ide of Pepi's roof with the east side of two large tr es G- intersection of the horizo line on Vail Mountain with the vertical line defin d by the top of the western, very large pine tre west of Point F B. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski 7 es between 228 Bridge � . � street, the Golden Peak Building, and 311 Bridge Street, the Hill Building; View Polnt #2 Instrumeni - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2Yz" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of the Red Lion Buiiding Backsight - View Point #4 - a#6 rebar with a 2'/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 4(PLS 16827� set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivolous Sal's Height of Instrument Above View Potnt #2 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Anqle 289°25'48" 290°58'11" 300°32'46" 301 °35'24" 303°32'24" Zenith Anqle Foresiqht Point on Photo 74°28'18" A- northwest corner of third floor balcony roof 89°58'00" B- PK naif in top of retaining wall on west side of Golden Peak House, 1 foot east from west edge of planter wall 92°05'34" C1 - top of south end of ski lockers, which are on railing 83°3i'08" C2 - southeast corner of top deck rail on Hill Building 73°38'S5" D- southeast corner of brick chimney on Hill Building C. A view from the northeast corner of 244 Waii Street, the One Vail P►ace Building, looking over the roofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Lion Building, and 356 Hanson Ranch Road, ; ,_r the Christiania Lodge, toward the Gore Range � a, ,' � `� � e, ° . � � ..k. � � ° � � �v i . � ' � �`� .rt � , � a `� � �_. 1 4� V(ew Point #4 instrument - View Point #4 - a#6 rebar with a 2Yz" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 4{PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivolous Sal's Backsight - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2�/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2(PLS 16827) set +n an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of the Red Lion Building Height of Instrument Above View Point #2 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 50 mm 8 _ • , � Horizontal Anqie Zenith Anqle 343°56'53" 62°24'10" 348°37'05" 73°05'43" 352°55'25" 73°34'26" 352°31'05" 79°24'44" 352°13'16" 79°24'55" 352°13'14" 84°44'25" 354°30'20" 86°13'30" 354°47'22" 86°07'58" 358°21'46" 85°17'48" 359°04'31" 85°30'36" 000°16'55" 84°36'56" 001 °59'47" 84°36'56" 003°05'44" 83°32'42" 006°23'31 " 83°33'S2" 005°32'14" 67°54'58" Foresiqht Point on Photo A- south facia board of t ird fioor roof of Plaza Lodge Building B- intersection of upper an second floor roof lines of Plaza Lodge Building C- south end of peak of se ond floor gabie of Ptaza Lodge Building D- eastern edge of second loor gable roof of Plaza Lodge Building E- intersection of secon fioor roof facia and southeast comer of Plaza dge Building F- intersection of southea corner of building and top edge of first floor facia f Plaza Lodge Building G- top of southeasterly co ner of first floor facia of Piaza Lodge Building H- intersection of south e of Red Lion chimney. and upper Red Lion roof lin I- peak of upper Red Lion oof line J- intersection of upper ed Lion roof line and northeriy roof line of the Ch istiania K- peak of northerly roof li e of the Christiania L- intersection of northerly oof peak and southerly roof line of the Christiania M- northwesterly corner of econd fioor balcony on Hill Building N- intersection of top of s cond floor balcony rail and brick wall on Hill Buildi g O- northwest corner of to of facia on third floor D. A view of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road ju t east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Miil Creek Court Buildi g; Ylew Point #5 Instrument - View Point #5 - a#6 rebar with 2Y2" diameter aluminum ap marked V.P. 5(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Hanson Ranch Road in fro t of the Mill Creek Court Building Backsight -#4 rebar with aluminum cap (LS 2568) in iron "Landmark" monument box marking centeriine of Hanson Ranch Road - box is just west of Mill Creek in fro t of Cyrano's Helght of instrument Above View Palnt #5 - 5.4 feet 9 i _ _ I � LJ � Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Anqie Zenith An4ie Foresiqht Point on Photo 199°03'06" 81 °23'49" A- intersection of southerly utility pole with ridge line 204°06'43" 85°10'40" B1 - intersection of northerly extension of Garden of the Gods Building roofiine with hiliside ridge line 206°00'02" 85°10'40" B2 - northern end of roofline of the Garden of the Gods Building 208'12'S3" 85°10'40" C1 - intersection of southerly extension of the Garden of the Gods building roofline and the Villa Valhalla roofline 208°33'36" 84°55'50" C2 - northwest corner of the Villa Valhalla at roof facia 210°41'41" 84°01'47" D- intersection of top of the Viila Valhalla roof facia and the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column 210°41'41" 82°01'51" E- the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column on the Vilia Vaihalia to a point above the horizon E. A view looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between retail shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at Vail, and 193 Gore Creek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza Building projecting east to the Gore Range. View Point #& Instrument - View Point #6 - a#6 rebar with 2'h" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive in front of the Gore Creek P{aza Building Backs(ght - a#6 rebar with 2Y2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6 B.S. (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive near the southwest corner of Pepi's deck Helght of Instrument Above View Point #6 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm � 0 � , Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anqle 356°OS'35" gi°p2'17" 356°55'02" 83°02'06" 000°31'36" 001 °48' 10" 003°14'42" 007°56'03" 013°30'31 " 013°38' 14" 012°55'17" 014°44'21" 82°54'27" 85° 17'34" 85° 17'40" 85° 11 '32., 85° 11 '32" 78°48'35" 78° 14'51 " 73° 13'39" i Foresiqht Point on Photo A- point on horizon left of the chimney on Pepi's roof B- intersection of southeas edge of chimney and Pepi's roofiine C- southern end of gable o Pepi's roof D1 - intersection of northerly extension of Gorsuch's roof line and Pepi's roof D2 - north end of Gorsuch's roof D3 - south end of Gorsuch' roof E- intersection of southerly extension of gorsuch's roof line and brick piliar on azier Arcade Building / Wa�i Street Building F- intersection of face of tucco and eve line on Lazier Arcade Building / Wa i Street Building G- top of facia on northeast orner of roof on Lazier Arcade Building ! Wall Stre t Building H- top of roof on Lazier rcade Building / Wall Street Building Section 2 Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modifie to read as follows: ParaQraph G Vaii's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. iews of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are e�t-reminders of th mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain buildi g features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant view corridors have been adopted as part of hapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be conside d exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analy is of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from either ajor pedestrian areas or public spaces, and inciude views of the ski mountain, the Gore Rang , the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and other important man-made and natural elements tha contribute to the sense of place associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by rdinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also s orientation reference points for pedestrians. Development in Vail Village shail not encroach into any adopted iew corridor. Adopted 11 I I • . ! corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting ado ted view '�` ...�. _._.___ _...._. _.., _,. ,.. ____... ----__ , coFridors or not the impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways and public i::.� f !�'.� �;�spaces must be identified and�mitigated where needed. � � � ; ";,�_ _. �i ,. Section 3 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it wouid have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town Councii hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer snall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vaii, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Cierk 12 Margaret A. Osterfass, Mayor i I i ' I � . � READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDE ED PUBLISHED this day of , 1992 ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk c:brd�v'rewcorr.ord 13 Margaret A. Mayor , ; � i i � � TO: Larry Eskwith FROM: Andy Knudtsen DATE: February 25, 1992 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Council Posirions on the View Corridor Ordinance Larry, � I've put together what I think the Council said today, and I have written it up in an outline of what I think they expect to see in the ordinance. The oudine is just a organizational suggestion of what ever information you think is necessary to be included. Section I, Purpose Under the purpose section, should we discuss the belief that the views protected are to be regulated from the survey pin, but that, actually, views are protected from the general area around the pin. Section II, Definition of terms Here, I think we need to lay out the types of reviews which can be made. The term we could use for the reviews is in parenthesis. �1-- adding a new view corridor (creation?) ;� 2-- changing the location of an existing boundary (Boundary modification?) ; � 3-- allowing a building to "pop-up" above a boundary (projectior%;allowance?) ' 4-- allowing an approved development proposal to be built out which may encroach into a � corridor, liice the Christiania (exemption?} �, �`'' S-- allowing a building to be rebuilt if it burns down (exemption?) -='�6-- allowing a building with an existing encroachment to be modiiied (nonconformity?) ! �7-- defining the word structure for this chapter (structure?) 8-- allowing a developer to appeal a staff decision that a proposed structure would encroach into a corridor (appeal?) � Section III, Boundaries List legals, reference pictures, adopt them. Section IV, Meat oi the ordinance "No structure shall be allowed to be constructed above�or III, unless approved under a review listed in Section ." Section V, Amendments, in general List criteria, approving authority, and process for A. Crearion B. Boundary Modificarion C. Projection Allowance D. Exemptions E. Non-confonning buildings F. Appeals I think each one should be identified by listing it section so we don't get too redundant, though. Section VI, Mass and bulk controls (the details) A. Building behind the clock tower Restrictions apply to buildings which example, the ordinance will need to pre� boundary behind the Clock Tower. I thir They did not want to allow for sta construcrion projects" nor did they want B. Most restrictive height applies (between C. Importance of focal points (for Peggy's This all is quite rough, but I hope it is helpful. The 1 some good points about areas to tighten up. � of the boundaries adopted in Section kind of review: y-- maybe we have a general criteria are hidden from the survey pin. For �nt construcrion ahove the view corridor k 5 of the council gave direction for this. �f level exemptions of these "hidden just a PEC approval of them. and view corridor ordinance) from VA is attached. 1 think it has i � � � �I.$g D� COD� term, OnO in811Yb2i w serve a three (3) year number af additional asaietanta ar�d the tarm, one mamber tv aerve a foar (4) year aalar:es of �uch additional assistant8 ahall be term, one zuember to serve a flva (5} ysar fiaed by coun�eil. tcrm. A13 suoaequent appointment� ahall be (Code 19b0, � 649.1-2} f�r five {3) ye�r tsrme. {Coc�e I�50, � 849.�-1) 5�c. 41-73. .Rulee for prooe�din�s. 3eo. 41-8�. Removal of inembers. Membera af the board of plan enfarcement r�view and variatian may b+a remavad by the mayor tinly for c�uae upon wzitt�n charges �nd aft,�r public hearing. (Coda 1960, � 648.1-1) Sec. 41-?d. Yeeaac3e�. Any �ac�ncy whi�i� occurs on the board of plan anfar�ament zeview and varistion shell be �llod by the msyor for the une=pir�ed term of any member �+hoeo term became vacant. (Cade 18b0, � 648.1•1) �+p�, �1=71. Ca�apanaation. Th� board of plan enforcemeni review and v�riation shall adopt ruisa �averning all proceadirigs before i� Such rules ahall provide anci rsquire tha�: (1) Public notice shall be given of eii hearinga and dil heeringa �hall b� apen to the public. (2) Due notice of all hearinga ahali be givan ta the ap�iicant and ta the direc#�r of aviation, the city enginee=, the directcrr af building inapection, tha zonin� adminis- trator and the pienning d'uectar �ny 4f which depsrtmenta, individ�sl�y or oai• lectavely, or by the city it�elf, �hell be permitted to intervene in aii public hearinga. Mem�bers of ihe baard of pl�n enforcement �$� review e.nd variation chell sasve Rithout compen�ation. ' (Code 1950, $ �49,1-1} $ea. 41-7;�. �taif. Tha stsff' of the boarti uf plan enforeement review ar►d variation ehall consiat of a secretary and auch other aaaistants, ss may be authorized by couneil. The secretary ahall be the � cu�todian of the reaorda of the �iaard, �hall conduct off�aial correapondencs and gQner�Ily euperti3s� the cleri�al and technicel wark of the hoard. Th$ secrGtary ahAll be appointed by the msyflr with the conaent of trie board; gravided, however, that nothing h�rein ahall be canstrued ta prevent the mayor fram saaigning the dutiea of the 98CtCttlTj" � 8 j?8I"t-t1�9 fUI1Ct.lOA Qf !l pSC6CAt emFloyse af the city, gravided that such emplay�es ia n�t �e�igrr�d to the departmant af �ublic warka, the department of zanin� �c3miniatration, the board Qf ad,juaiment, the buildinS in�pection division or the planning OffSc�, ar_ any aubdiviaion af e�ny of the foz��ains. 'I'ha aalary of the eecretasy� the � � At sny Yiublic hearing e repr�e�nkative of �' tht d�po�rtamenta afora�sid e.nd any oth�er ; intereated P�Y ��Y aPpear in p�rean or by agsnt or by attorney, off�r eviden�e and teatimouy and crosa-sxamine wit- neesee. (4) All witneasas ehall be awora or eball affirm tl3eir teetimony in the me�r��r required i�r� courts of recard. (6) Ali evidence and testimony ahall be presented publioly. Tiie boe�d may tuke judicial notice of facta to the same eztsnt end in the aame manner es courte of racord aud msy consider as�y relever�t facts wit�in the pereQnal �Owibdge o� any mamber of the boerd which ar+� atated iz�to the record by such memb�r. � {S) Far each ca�e or matter he�r�, the boer� shall cause a record of ite pzoceaciing� to be prepared. Tha rncord of proceedingsi ehe11 include all dt�cumontas end phyaical evidence considered in the cue ta�ther with � transer!$�� ateno�r�phlc record of ail publia grace,oding�, Tha tranacribed � � � � �ttnographic record ahall include, but need not be llmit=d to, the verbatim testimony offered by all witneeses in the caae and all personal knowledge of the msmber� of the board coneidered by the board in rtaching its deciaian. Th� record of the graceedin�a ahall not inclvde the da�iberations or di�cuaeione af the board at grivnte or executive sesaioae but ehall show the graunds far each decision and the vots of eaoh member upon each que�tion, or, if ab$ent or failing to vote, aha11 iudicete auch fact. The record oP procecdinaa shall be filed immodiately in the affica of ths board and shall be a pu�lic record. (?? The baard ahall eat,�btish e fee schedule of such a n$turc that the reaeonably deter- minable co�ta of the hearinge are paid by the a�pplicant, but In no csae ahell t�so fee be legs thaa twanty-�va do�lars t$25.00). 9uch fes ahall tae payable immediately upon application, and no applicatioh shall bs coueiderpd untii such fee has baen pmid or waived, es herein�f'Eer providtd. Pt�ytaent of the fes may be waivad by the concurrent vote of four (4) members of the board upon tha filin& af an af'�davit by the applicant that tbe appiicant zs financially unabte to pay the fee. (Code 19bd, � 649.I-3) $ea. 4x-?4. Powera. Subject ta Lhe limitatian� enuznerat,ed here- in, the boerd of plau enforcement revisw and 94ri�tiOn ah�li havb and easraise Liie foIIow- ing powere in aonnoction witis chagter 10 but witil no other poition, of thiq Code. Ia tha euercise of ite powers, the baard mny reverse ar sffirm, whol�y or partly, or may modify th� ord$r, requirement, deciaion or determination ap�ssled from and may malze suah order, requirement, decision ar determination ar oug�t to ba made, and, to that end, �hnll have s1I the powere of the officer or departmant from whom the Appeal is tske�i. 20a7� � } 41-74 ) Admaniatratice reuiew. To hear eund decide appeals where it i$ alleged tharb is error in any otder, raquirement, d+�ccision �r determinatian mede by an adminutrative ��cia� in �e enforc�menc of c�n�ur 10. ) Variationa. Tu authorize, upon 8ppeal in epecific cesea, auch variatiane f�om th4 Lerma of chapter 10, �ubjact to terms and condiiious fized by the board, at will not be contrary td the pubiio Intet�st where, owing ta szcaptianal and extreordinary circumetancte� Iiterai enfcr�ement of th,� praviaiuna ot ch�pter 10 would reault ixi unnecessary hasdahip. Every vairf�tion authorized her�under ahall not �re per�on- el to t,he applicant therefor, but eh�ll be transferable and ahall zun with Eha land. Na vari�tian ghall be dutharized hereun- der unleas the board �hall ffnd thet ali of the followin� conditions exia� a. Thdt the uae propoead by t,he appli- csat is a permitt�d usa in the zoning distzict applica6le to tha subject land; ';" b.' Ti�at literal anforcament af ch.sptar iQ -��` Would preclude a� xa�onabla develog- ment of Lhe la�nd of the a�pplicant far the use proposed; c. ThAt tha develop�nent of the land propaaed by tha epp�icant would noi be sach as to dePeat the purpobos of chapLer 10; d. That the development proposed by applicant is the minimum devalap- ment which would be x�eed�d ta secu;'� tor eppli�ant f�om t�e lend a resaoa- able retum i� service, uae ar inc�ome; s. That� tha deve2opmeat proposod by appllcant wauld not reeult in damage ta neighharing prop�rties or public lancie, Oatha and af#�ndanca of witneaaes. For the purpcssa of eaerci�ing the powera enumeraLed in this aectioa, the boasd ehall el�t e chairperaon and vice-chair• peraon. T'he chairperaon, or� in the chairp�rson'a abaence, the vic8•chairper- � .- , � f ii 5 �[ F�^'� �� ! . .7 t � 4 .� S. . ' ` `ti J� �'' � �;;s,•'3 } 41-7� �J r : wlTl�;�d��i soa, .hall adminieter oaths ta or accept affirm$tiong from witneaaee and me�y camp�l the ettendanca af witnesaes. A failure or a refusal to appear in reaponae to a aubpo�na issu�d by thC board shall conertute a violation of this articlz. (Code 1J.50, � $49.1-4) Sec. 4Y-?5. Ltmitatione oa pow�ere. (e) Concurring uote required. The cancur- ring vate af f�ur (4) members af tha board of plan enfarcement review end variation ahsil t�,D neceasa.ay t� revera$ any order, require- ment, decieion or dstermination of any administrative afficial Qr to decide in favor of t,hc applicant at� t►ny metter upon wh�ch the b��rd i� authori�ed to psss ur,der chapter 10 or to effect any variativn iz� chapter lp. (bl �''inding8 of f�et. Every deciaipn of the board of plan �nfarcement review and varia- tian �hall be ba�ed upan findinga af fact and ev�ry findin� of fact �hal1 ba aup�orteci in the record of its proceed:'ngs. The ettumeratad conditions rsquired ta eust on any matter upon which the bo�rd i� �uthcri�9d to pses undar chapter 10 ar to effect any variations in chapter IO �hall be con$trued a� limitations on the power of the board to ec� A m�re finding or xeci�ation of the enumaratad condition� unaccompanied by findinga of specific facts ahall not be deemed ivadinga of fsct and shall not be deamad compliance with chapter 10. (c) Fvrvera etrictty canatrued. No�hing con- tain�ed in this article �hall be conatrued ta empower the board of ple.n enforcement 286a � review a�d variat�on ta change ths terms af chaptar 1Q or to afPect changsa in any ma�p incozp�rated therein. The pc�were of th$ board eha17 be aa conairued that chept8r 14 and the meps incorgorated therein ara �triotly an- forced. {Caie 1950, � 648.1-5) $ec. �1�76. ADDoaI� from the board. (a) Procedur�. Any pezson aggrisved, any tagpayer, the city or �ny offioer or depnrt- ment of Lhe city m�y have a deciaion oP the �rd of plan enforcement review and varia- ti�n revi�wed in the manner pravided by rulas rela'ng to civil proceedinga. No auch review aball be gasnted unlesa a getition theref�r, duly verified, setting forth thet suoh decisian ia iilegal, in whole or in part, azad spec�iying t}►e grounds of such illegality, ia presented to a court of record within thirty (80) days after the �ting of the deci�ion in the �ffice of the boerd. Ths board ahall not be required to return t,he or3ginal papers act.ed ugon by it, �ut it ehali bo eufiiciebt to return certi�ad or sworn copias thereof ar �uoh porticns thereaf as may be called far. The return ahall concisely sat forth Buch ather facts a� m�y be pertinent and materiel to the deciaion ap- pegled from and shall be verified. (b) Effect of appeat, The i�auance of a writ an a patition hereunder shall nat stay proceedings ��pan the de�ieion appealed fram but the court, an �pglicatiob, after n�otice to the board of plan enforcement reviaw arid varietian and oxi due cauee ahown� mey grent � restraining order. iCocie 1860, � 649.1-B) (The hent. AeB+ ie 2911) � � �� Vall�> � '�ail Associates, Inc. Creators and Operators of Vail and B�aver Cree1F' Resorts HAND DELIVERED Mr. Andy Knutson Office of Community Town of Vail Vail, Co 81657 February 25, Development re: Town Council Review and Adoptic Ordinance Dear Andy: 1992 of Proposed View Corridor Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the proposed View Corridor Ordinance (the "Ordinance'). With respect to the composition of the Ordinance, Vail As ociates has retained outside counsel to review the language of the Ordinance. We have attached counsel's comments to this letter f r review, consideration and response by your planning staff and legal department. We would request that the second reading of the Ordinance not be entertained until we have the opportunity to d scuss your response to the comments. Vail Associates has also retaine consultants to study the impact of tt 4, known as the Frivolous Sal View potential of certain parcels owned by of J, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Si negative impact on the development p would like to review such analysi consultants. In light of the impact imposed < we request that the Frivolous Sal ViE the Ordinance until such time as < proposed, recognizing that a numl development need resolution prior to time that a development plan is pr� qiven to both the proposed develox public's interest in the view corrid� t surveying and architectural e proposed View Corridor No. 'orridor, on the development �ail Associates, P-3 and part ice the analysis does show a �tential of the property, we � with your staff and our n Vail Associates' property, w corridor be withdrawn from development plan has been er of issues relating to a development plan. At the posed, consideration can be ment and to protecting the Lastly, since the view corridor as been proposed by the Town of Vail, Vail Associates considers i appropriate that the costs for studying the effects of the view corridor on any development potential of impacted property be bo ne by the Town of Vail. Post Office Box 7• Vail, Coloraclo 816�8 I• USA -{303) 47b-5601 � � Thank you for your consideration of these very important issues relating to the Ordinance. � � ��„Lic:.- : i� .,, �^-,�2 � �'�� . Sincerely, , / �� `�� / r�� j �� Joe Macy Mountain Planner .� �- `� � � "�. �� i � �� y �' (!!/'P �w'Li� V ' � �� l� � �� ../ �j � � �CG�cj , • �- - ; ��-� � � �� - � ��- ��,� � _ /{;' �� L.�G' � �� . �d-.-""'.:XeA.�."".r,-r�-;-=---�-=��--'-- � � � �'� l :X ��-.y.:v t-��'',%tt.��. =� r `� .�--,�,,�,� �-� � �.�--� � � � � --� � . - ._,� � �'T7� � ��,� �, �u.y' � ,��.m.. t �rr �, �.�� " . � 1. section l. Sect Considerations. Paragraph G indicates that the ariginate from either major pedestr: therefore, the specific view corr implemented in a minor pedestrian a: sentence of paragraph G, which identification and mitigation of development, regardless of whethez corridors, contains no standards fo� the purpose of the ordinance, and woi present Colorado law. 2. Section 2. (a) Section 18.73.020. the town in establishing view corrido possible view corridors, with lines d establish permitted and nan-permitte and awkward, a better approach woulc view corridors set forth in the Den� (see attached). View Corridor No. C attempt of a development proposal which has : board approval. Apparently this Christiania expansion to go forward. memo, at page 2 discusses this con� sets forth two possible approaches. Council adopt the new view corridor lines of the Christiania, with the st addition may be built per the app presently approved plans for th delineated ridge lines, and because first approach would constitute imprc may constitute an unlawful attempt t The second approach to adopt the � construction, and promising to ame lines of the Christiania have be� constitute an impermissible attempti (b) Section 18.73.030. section shows the problem of esta dashed tape set forth on adopted pho for knowing whether these photog� reference point monuments, nor is ti the perspective angle, and pos photographs. (c) Section 18.73.04 l� G of the Urban Design views to be preserved must ��1��. an areas or public plazas, �,��-' � .dors proposed, cannot be : �L' ea. In addition, the last ''�`'t �: � ;,s,. attempts to require the �he impact of a proposed � it affects adopted view'� review, is not related to� ld be deemed unlawful under The apparent approach of s based upon photographs of awn on those photographs to construction is imprecise� be the basis establishing� er Municipal Code sections= � to permit the construction eceived final design review �as enacted to permit the The November 12, 1991 staff ept in greater detail, and The first approach is that based on the existing ridge itement that the Christiania �oved plans. However, the � Christiania contain no :here are no standards, this �er special legislation, and � r bind future town councils. r,�-. iew corridor with existing ; _,T;S �d it later once the ridge �;��y` .; n established, would also�'„ a bind future town councils. �'. The first paragraph of this �lishing view corridors by :ographs. There is no basis aphs were taken from the ere any determination as to sible distortion of the . � � r�� .� ��' , ,-� r� {�� ;,. � �,� ,: � �� }, A. This paragraph is inconsistent with y�,,;t'�� previous paragraphs establishing view corridors above existing ;�� ;�' structures. It contemplates prohibiting any proposed structure ,�;�'�?' which is located in front of or behind another structure which ;y ,�a,;i°� alreadv encroaches into the same view corridor. However, if the �-^�' �-� concept is to grandfather in existing structures, how can a ' structure already encroach into the same view corridor? In � addition, if view corridors are to be established irrespective of existing structures, even if existing structures encroach within ` them, and these existing structures are grandfathered in, other ': lower structures both in front of or behind the grandfathered ', structure should be permitted, because they are not increas�nc� :; . l�,;'= ._ the encroachment within the view corridor: An argument that ;" could be made to prohibit lower structures-in front of or behind � of another structure which encroaches in the same view corridor, _ would be if the encroaching building were destroyed and not ; permitted to be rebuilt, or if there is some concept of an ; amortization payment to encourage the removal of encroaching; structures. Hawever, Ordinance No. 13 does not deal with these� alternatives, and more thought is needed. � Paragraph C of this paragraph prohibits the expansion or enlargement of pre-existing encroachments in view corridors which creates further encroachment; however, what is meant by further encroachment is unclear, and the lack of clarity and standards for review makes the provision defective. In addition, the sentence relating to the encouragement of the removal of existing structures is vague, and can very easily lead to arbitrary and capricious actions. (d) 18.73.050. The first paragraph refers to a variance. application which is unclear because a later provision indicates that no variances from the view corridor ordinance are permitted. This paragraph may refer to a variance from another ordinance which could affect a view corridor; however, this is not clearly stated, and should be clarified. B. The submittal requirement for photographs � which indicate improvements which are in the vicinity of the view � corridor is irrelevant, arbitrary and capricious. ;.: ..=s�,�� :ti ; :,# �..;.r � ` `� ..'i... C. The requirement of models could be �k� extremely costly, and may be unnecessary to show the potential ��-� impact the structure could have upon the protected view corridor if constructed. (e) 18.73.060. It could be argued that it is unreasonable and ,' unfair to prohibit variances from Chapter 18.73. There could ; �,�� very well be hardship, no substantial interference with a view °'%` � corridor, or a justifiable project which would technically � � violate Chapter 18.73, but would be 'n the spirit of protecting the views. The criteria for revie in the attached Denv�r's Board of Plan Enforcement Review and ariation is included herein for the Town's consideration in perm'tting variances. (f) Section 18.73.070. The first paragr ph which indicates that no structures which are located within a designated view corridor on the effective date of this ordinance hall be permitted to expand or enlarge the area of the structure which is located within the view corridor, is potentially unreas nable. What if there is an expansion of a structure which is lo ated in the view corridor, but this expansion takes place at th ground ievel and does not ; affect the view corridor? Under the p oposed language, this would i}: be prohibited, but it would be u reasonable to prevent the :�v�,r, expansion. This is a good exa ple of where subsequent '' � implementation of the view corridor rdinance should allow for a� variance procedure. .ti � ti, v" � + ;,"� � (V . . � l��v _ w� . . � ` �1`. n U `� v � ; i � t i I � � � HUILDLNGB AND BUILD�G REGULATIOi�IS—RESTRICI'IaN$ ON 9TRUCTiTEtES, ETC. 3 L�`g re�iaCer�ed rnail an an occupant who ie not an ownar, agent, servant, emplaye�, or lessee whn are believad to be in vialationa of the proviaions af ihie articlt. The data of ineiling shail ba thc xff�ctive dats of �ny noLice $ent by registered mail. (d) tn addition to mny af the foregaing remedies, the city m�y rneintain an setion for an injunction ia restrair� eny violatior� of thia ertiel�, and may agply for a temporax'y rastzaining ord�r without posting bond and mey instituta �un� other appropriate actian ar pTOCSedinge #,o prsvent and reatrain th� violation. (e) Additaonal3y, any peraon wh;o ie a�. grieved by any vialnticra of thia azticlo m�y maintain any apprapriate action to prevent and restrain the viot�tion. (C�cie 19b4, � 641.8) Seca. 10-�3-10-85. R�amrved. ARTICLE III. RE$FkVED'� s��$. ia.as_io-ss. ��sa. ARTIC�.� IV. �t�$TRICTIpN�7 4N �1TRUCTU7RE$ WITHIN AREAS NEC�S$ARY Tp PR.�9LAVL M�IUNTATN VIE�V� Sec. 10�b8. Purposa. Upon aoneideration af a recommendatian E�� t��an�� ti�a so: c�s p�r�� of prsaer�in� und protectin� the health� eafety and �er.ergl welfare of the peopla af the city and their prflperty therain situats, the cauncil �ndu: (1) Tkat the protectioa and perpetuatioz� aP cartain panarauai� mountain viewe troaa •Editor'� �tota—�7rd. Ne. 5d8�88, $# 1—$. s:�3ops�d Sept. 8, 1988, rapealad �# 14-88, 14�88 and 14-40, wh3ch arctianv com• pria�i the suhstanciaa proviaiens af Atticle III, concern4ng restrictio*� an s#ructutea wit}ua and uae of areas dssignat�d an drain�ge caursae. 5aid rapenled aectiona derived iroza Coda 1960, 4 4 848, i-843.3. Supp. No. 38 variaue par3c� �nnd public pia�� within the city ia rdquired in the intersata of tba prosperity, civic pride �tnd �ener�tl wtlf#�za of the people; (2) Tbat it ie desireble to deaigne.te, prea�rve sad perpetuate certain ezieting peno=am- ic mountain viea+e for the an,joyment and enviranmantal aArzahment of th+� citi2er�� af the community nnd visitara heret4; (3) That the pragervntion af su�h viear� will etrez�gthen and preaezvs ihe municipaii- +�y's unique anvironment.�i �ierftage and attributes ea a ci�y of the ple�iae et th� fc�ot af the Racky Md�t�int�; (4) 'Tht�t the pre8ervataon vf duch views will faeter �fvie �ride ia Che basuty mf the city; (b) That the gre�srvs,tfan of aucb viewe �viil atabiliz�� and enhanae the ��.��thatic and oconamic vit��lity � and value= oi the s�srraunding areas within which auch viawe ara prsaerved; (g} Thrt the presozvatinn of guch vfew� wi�l protect and �enhanc$ the city's st�rac#ao:� to touriats and vi�it�r�; {7} That the �re�$rvatian af such view� will promote good urban da�igm; i8) '1'��at re�ular s�seciii�d �rr.�a c��atituting penoramic views ehouid be eateblishad 5y protecting auch p�n4zamic viecva frotn encroachment and pi�yai�i abetnection. tCode lsc�1?, � 8a6.1) ��. io-a�. pror��ti�n�. No land ahall be used or occtagiad and no atxucture shall be deaigned, erected, aitered, usad or occupiec� ezcept in con%rmity with ali ragul�tione eetablished in thia article +�x�d upon perfarmance of all cc�nditione hereiri aet fortb. {Gode 19b0, � 8�b.3-1} 869 Sea. 10-6$, Craumar P�rl�. (ai Adoption aj map. The at#ach�d mnp ehall be end hereby ia approved at�d edapt�rl and the portion thereon ind{cated by ehadin� or croeahatching �hali be� snd h�reby ie � 4 10-69 DEI+IvER CODE det�rmined Lv bo nnd i� d�ei�nttted at {tn esea ncc�ssary for #he pzeaervstion af a aerta.in panoramic viaw. The restricLivs provieians of thi� artiol�e aheill be in f+,�ll force und 4fiect ai to ihe portinn of the attached msp indicated by ahadim� or croaehatchin�. (b) Lirrcitcrtiona an conatructian. ?�Ta part of a structuza within the �ra� on the attuched mep indacated by shading or crois- hatching $hall exceed en blbvptibn of fiva thousand. four hundreti thirty-four (b,43�) feet ebove mean ses Isvei pl� one fcwt for eACh �ne hundred (lOd) fest that the part of � etructuze ia horizoatally distant fram the refersnee peint. Wherevar �► atructure liea partielly outside and partieily ineido of ihe area on the atta�ched map indicated by �hnding or czo�hatching, th� psovieians aY thi� section shall epply on�y �o that gert of tha �tpuctura th�tt liea within th• area indicatsd on tbe mep by ahading or cross- hatchin�. (�} Re�ere►ue point. Rsference poiut ia s point having an elov��ian af five t�ousand four hundred thirtyfour (b,434) feet ttbovs mean eea leval and �atahliahed at the mountain view indicator in Crsnmer Park� whieh paint ia iclant�sd on the attachcd mnp and which point ia indic,at�d in the aforesaid Cranmer Park by a crasa set in tbe top atep of the aforesaid mous�tain view indicator. (Code 1860, $ 645.4•1) Supp. Ata. 46 870 . 1 [The neat pa8re fe 896I � i . - � � BL'TLDI.'�GS AND BUILA�VG REQULA'MONS $10�58 Supy. Na f 8$b (The nrxi pa�ae ie 897 j t _ _ _ � i: 1t__� t t � � 9aa lU-8�. �ity Pa,rk--N'atural Hist4rY :�ius�um. (a) Adoption of rreap. The atLached map ahall be and hereby ie approvad and adopted and the portion �h�reon tndiceted by ahadin� or crosshaLchiug shall be and he�eby is detezmined to ba e.nd is designatsd a� an erea aecessary for the preservation of a certain panaramic view. The zeetsic�ive provi�iana af this artiele shall be in fuil force and effect a� to the portion of the att�ched map indiceted by ahading ar croaahatclung. (�) Limitati�rsa on conetruction. No part of a atructurs within the area on the attached mAp indicgtzd by ehading or crosahatching shali e=ceed an elevation of fivz thou4and tiuee hundred three and ninety-three one- huLdr�dtrca {5,3p3,93) feet ab�ve mean $ea level plua ane foot for aech one hundred (100} Pset that the part af a atructure ia horizontally diatmr�t fzom the referen�a po�� Wherev$r a �tstteturb lies partially outaide and partially insid$ of the area ou the atta�hed m�p indicAted by shnding or cro�hatChing, the 897 � i;EtIUI.A'I'IONB � lo-8z p viaions of thL section �hall apply only to t pe�rt of the 9tructure that liea within the indicaLed an the map by shadin� or cr hatching. c) Rsference point. R�fertnca point ie �► po nt havinQ a,n elevation of Sve t�o�end ee hundrsd three and ninety-ihree one- h dredths tb,808.93) feot a►bov�e mean eea le el and estsbliahed es a point �pproaimate• ly two thoue�nd eeven hundrad (2,700) feet no and one thousand (1,QOQ) feet weat oP th southsest corner of Saction 38, Townahip 9 outh, Range 68 weat of the 6th Principal M ridlan� Clty $nd County of Denver, $tate af �olorado, mare particularly described as fol �ws: Quch referenee point i� 198 f�et aauth azy 69 feet west of the nozth�rnmo$t cv��t eo ner of the �tuseum of Naturai x�awry $vildin�. At the raference point ie a atandard br e diec aet in a concrete wa►lk�vay, and is t ea (3.0) feet asst of the wea+. edge of eaid sv �Cway. Such point is identified an thG s ched mnp. (C e 1964� � 846,d•S) I � •� � � 14-a� DENV�'.R CODE $9$ �� 1 \ � � � BUILr3FN'�iS AND 8ec. 1Q�82.b. SUUthm�or Farlc. (a) Adop#ion of maF fike attached map ahalt be and hereby is �pprovad and adopted and the por- tian thereon indiestad hy ahading or rmsehatching ai:al� be and hereby ;a d�termined to be and is dasignetEd as an area ntcesaary for the pre�erva- tion of a cartain paaoramis virw to accomplish tb� p�upoaee set forth in section 10-55. The re- strictive provfaions of thia erticle shall be in full force anc3 et'i'ect as to the portion af the attached ivap indicated by ehadinq or crossheL�ning. (b) �imiEationa on con�tructian� Na pexL of a structure within the erea on �.he attached map i�dicaLed by sheding or croashntching ehall ex• �sed an slevation of �ve thousand flne hundred forty-eight {5,b48) feet above mean se:t 3eve1 plu� t�ro (2) feet far each ana hundred (100) feet thst a�id gart af a strueti:re ia horizoatally di�tant fzotn ��e ref�rence point. Wi�erever a etr�cture lfas pr�rtially out�id4 and gartiaily in$ide of the area on tha attacized map indizatsd by ahading �r aroashatching, �he provtsioas of thfa aection snall apply only ta that part of the etructure that lies within the area indicated on the mag by shading or cro�aheiching. (e) 1�sfaren� pain� '1'he reference point i� a pdiat hsving an elevation vf itve thoueand five hundred £tuty-eight {5,�L8) feat �bove mean sea :evei, which pcsint i� :dentified an the at�ached map, at which point ia located the branze marker �et in cancrete in the vi�inity of Southmoor Perk sign sat in concret� and which referenc� point ia located a� folloK�s; A lina from referenca pvint et SouLhmoor park to center line of Quincy Avenue and csnter line of Happy Canyon• Raad, aloag center line of �Happy Canyan Road to center linea of HappY Can- pon l�oad, Hampden Avenue and Dahlia Street, �arth elon� center line of Dahlia Straet ta cenLer line of Yale Avenue, east along Yale Avenue to �iona�o Street Parkway center Iir.e from a point at center line of l�iotraco Strest Parkwa�y and Yals �venue center Iine h�oit to referer�ce pciut at Southmoor Park. td) Exceptiona (11 A1lawabla he��ht. �ithin ax�y diatrict zoned far busineae a strnct�ae whirh, und� Ehe termi Supp. Na il __ __ _ .. ___ 0 898. � REGtlL�TIOHB g 10�62.5 of t,he �ectfon IO-0Z.6 wouId be limited, ncay be constructed to a height af fortvtwo t42) feet above the natuzsl grade. ;} ��ent usas. Any cuzrently sx;sting struc- ture whieh �vouid not be in compliance with t�is section m�y be replaced �s necesaery �'or its curr�nt heiQht and uae. ?rd. No. 378-82, 4 1, 7-19-82; 4rd, ti'a 94a•64, # , 7-2-$4) £diWr't ttole—Ord. ttio. 378�82, � 1, adopted July 19, i882, ided � e�S.��s io !he 186D Code; at the editor'e discretion ieas groviaiens bave been includad ea � 10�82.5. � �� '___-� �.o—� � _, � / `°=�.°-�/ � ... �---: -- ,m ia , i � �� ! ' I �. i �' � �, � � ,'�' Yx �+ � ! / . ��. . m+FnY,k, .?'c� w �`'r? `=�� a� . - �� _- ��E °�� ' " ��,/ >—�1��,,u ��; ;� . � -1'€<- ( � . � �`�7 p' � ) �y �3 � � , '�- -- � �i,�� _ � � -� � _�� lE j r. :. t � � '��r.r==� �� P �..--__ ,��.�_ - � •- �-1 r`_ 1 �`t'-_ y T _ �_--_��_°.�r�=.��ti�._ I -.��_ : � °. . _ i�t\ _ _ _ ;,� �-�!i <�-`. �a; : " ,� �=�.— � =_�:-- ; � `� _��-, , !'�`� ', �—^" I e Ii �_ � �' I �i- I �r � �i / �__ . �° ' ti 0 _ --- --- - - - - _ _ � ORDINANCE NO. 13 Series of 1991 AN ORDiNANGE ArAENDING SECTION G QF THE VAI VILLAGE LiRBAD! DE�°`=.r. C:r`3h3`=�'?ERlITtC)i�:S �iEl_1-r�;vG'-., T�i� PRG � c��'TgOt�: :.; s= !!lE4k':� �`;'4�i�1�! �'F-iE TC:' .� e:. '�. �iTJi3 CR�C:! i€�;'a A i�(EYJ CN� - i ER C3F THE Fd:'� t;.',i�Ati .�;..�'1':�E OF T'HE 'i Ct`JN OF VA�L TC} PROVIDE FOR T't-!E f'RO i tE'TQGN OF CERTAIN VIEWS VVlTHIN THE TOWN AND SE ING FORTH THE DETKILS IN REGARD THERET WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the prese ation of cert2in existing view corridors is essentiai to the character of Vail as a mountain reso community; and WHEREAS the preservation of views wiil protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enh nce the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS the amendment will more clearly identify exist ng view corridors and development procedures for the public's benefit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COU CIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modifi d to read as foliows: Paraqraph G Vaii's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are constant reminders of t e mountain environment d, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain buil ing features also provide i portant orientation references and visuaf focal points. The most significant view corridors have been adopted as part of hapter 18.73 of the Vail nicipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be consid red exhaustive. When luating a development proposal, priority should be given to an ana ysis of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from eithe major pedestrian areas r public plazas, and inciude views of the ski mountain, the Gore Rang , the Clock Tower or the Rucksack Tower. The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower, hich have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an esthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. 1 � � • ,,, *, � Deveiopmsnt ira �e Vaii Viliage shali not encroach into any adopted view corridor. � � Adopted corridocs are �#�3 in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting i ar9c�-�`s� �v�i�w cc�s�;:�:3� �sz �i. the impact of proposed d�velop;r��:nt on views f-�m p�d� ?ria� jways r,au�st b� i�nta�a�i and rrir'.igated where neaded. Section 2 Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as follows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors 18J3.010 - Purpose �: �. '�; The Town of Vail bel;eves that preserving certain vistas is in the interest of the Town's '� � residents and guests. Specifically, the Town believes that: � N�� ; ��. A. The protection and perpetuation of certain panoramic mountain views from various w:;�. pedestriaNpublic ways within the Town wiil foster civic pride and the general welfare of the people� �,_x��' ,* w�. ��r of the Town of Vail, and is in the pubiic interest; �,;;,, B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain existing panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the residents and guests of ,� , the Town; `,� � C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique t environmentai heritage and attributes; � � D. The preservation of such views will e�hance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; E. The preservation of such views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to � A�' � � tourists and visitors; ".�� F. The preservation of such views wilf promote good design and will provide for natural light in the buildings and public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors. �� 18.73.020 - Adoption of View Corridor Leqal Descriptions and Photoqraphs The photographs on record with the Communiry Development Department and the�,, ,.�' ,� � foliowing legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as officiai view corridors protecting views within the Town. A. A view from the south side of the Vail Transportation Center from the main pedestrian stairway looking toward the ski slopes; 2 i � _ � -___� _ _ • � � View Point #1 instrument - View Poin,t #1 - a 2" dizmeter bs�ass disc, marked V.P. 1 0 .Leve!s �2 and 3 0! Vail 4'i�la�e °4rkirc .c_+:� �cture. c_;,:'�C�iS':.`i`"It - i,'�. . �.:'�S COTI?�i ot �`.2C'. _ $ Hefght af instr.-=�ient abnve Vl�tr F��Int #t - 5.4 fieat Lens used in photograph - 35 mm n stair landing beiween Hor,zonfal Anq1e Zenith Anqle Foresipht Point on Photo 348°51'10" 77°21'30" A- intersec6on of the hori on with a vertical line defined by the southwest orner of the sixth fioor deck enciosure on the Mou tain Haus 348°30'10" 87°11'30" 61 - uppermost railing of the southwest corner of the balcony on the fourth floor f the Mountain Haus 355°23'00" 87°37'40" B2 - east end of the Red Li n roof ridge 357°39'04' 87°40'43" B3 - intersection of the Red Lion roof ridge with the southeast comer of the Ru ksack Tower 357°57'S9" 88°27'22" B4 - northeast comer of th base of the Rucksack Tower 004°05'19" 89°16'02" C1 - intersection of the G Ilery Building with the northeast corner of the CI ck Tower, immediately below the balcony 004°39'58" 89°16'33" C2 - western end of facia b ard on Gallery Building 004°47'18" 89°41'44" C3 - intersection of the slo ing roof of the Gallery Building with the ridge li e of the Clock Tower Building, which extends we t 006°59'11" 89°42'12" D- intersection of the ClockTower Building roof and the northwest comer of the Clock Tower 012°25'56" 87°38'01" E- peak of the Plaza Lodg vent chase 027°08'54" 87°28'43" F- intersection of the north side of Pepi's roof with the east side of two large t ees 031 °53'27" 76°26'35" G- intersection of the horiz n line on Vail Mountain with the verticat line defi ed by the top of the western, very large pine tre west of Point F B. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski sio es between 228 Bridge street, the Golden Peak Building, and 311 Bridge Street, the Hill Buildi g; View Pofnt #2 instrument - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2Y2" diameter aluminum ap marked V.P. 2(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of t e Red Lion Building 3 i + � Backsight - View Point #4 - a#S rebar with a 2'/2" diameter aluminum cap ma!ked V.P. 4(PLS 16827) set in an a3uminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivotous SaPs i�i.i�ht o€ :nstru�e.�t ¥i�ose 4''inu�� P�;�t #2 - 5.4 f2et Lens used in photograph - 35 mrn Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anpie Foresiqht Point on Photo i 289°25'48" 74°28'18" A- northwest corner of third floor balcony roof 290°58'11" 89°58'00" B- PK naii in top of retaining wail on west side of Golden Peak House, 1 foot east from west edge of planter wali 300°32'46" 92°05'34" Ci - top of south end of ski lockers, which are on railing 301°35'24" 83°31'08" C2 - southeast comer of top deck rail on Hill Building 303°32'24" 73°38'55" D- southeast corner of brick chimney on Hill Building C. The northeast corner of 244 Wall Street, the One Vaii Place Building, looking over the roofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Lion, and 356 Hanson Ranch Road, the Christiania, toward the Gore Range. View Point #4 Instrument - View Point #4 - a#6 rebar with a 2�/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 4(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivolous Sal's i Backsight - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2'/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge SVeet in front of the Red Lion Building Height of Instrument Above View Point #Z - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 50 mm i i � ; I__ _ � � � Horizontai Anqle Zenith Anqle Foresiqht Point on Photo 343`58`53" 62°24'10" A- south facia board of hird floor roof of Plaza Lodge Buiiding .."=:3Tti�" 73°G5'43" 3- irt�rsec!i�� oi upr�er ar, ssrer,d tfoe, �^ofi !' es cf Plaza Lo:� �e 8�.�,dir;g �::2°5�"25" 73°34'26" C- �outh end of peak of se und fioor gable of Piaza Lodge Building 352°31'05" 79°24'44" D- eastern edge of second fioor gable roof of Plaza Lodge Buifding 352°13"16" 79°24'55" E- intersection of seco d floor roof facia and southeast comer of Plaza odge Building 352°13'14" 84°44'25" F- intersection of southea t corner of building and top edge of first floor facia f Plaza Lodge Building 354°30'20" 86°13'30" G- top of southeasterly co ner of tirst tloor tacia of Plaza Lodge Building ' I 354°47'22" 86°07'58" H- intersection of south e e of Red Lion chimney I and upper Red Lion roof li e 358°21'46" 85°17'48" 1- peak of upper Red Lion roof line ' 359°04'31" 85°30'36" J- intersection of upper Red Lion roof line and northerty roof line of the C ristiania 0�0°16'55" 84°36'56" K- peak of northeriy roof I ne of the Christiania 001 °59'47" 84°36'56" L- intersection of northerl roof peak and southerly roof line of the Christiania 003°05'44" 83°32'42" M- northwesteriy comer o second floor balcony on Hill Building 006°23'31" 83°33'52" N- intersection of top of econd floor baicony rail and brick wall on Hill Build ng 005°32'14" 67°54'58" O- northwest comer of t p of facia on third fioor roof of Hil� Building D. View of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road ju t east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Mill Creek Court Buildi g; View Potnt #5 . Instrument - View Point #5 - a#6 rebar with 2'/2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 5(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Hanson Ranch Road in fr nt of the Mill Creek Court Building Backsight -#4 rebar with aluminum cap (LS 2568) in iron "�andmark monument box marking centerline of Hanson Ranch Road - box is just west of Mill Creek in fr nt of Cyrano's Helaht of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet E �— . � Lens used fr� phatcsgra�rh - 35 mm I � � � Horizontal AnQle '��ri's8� .�nq4e Foresiqht Point on Photo i':��°C..^"�" �"3=�:"s°:�" A- int�rsaction of soutre�fy utility p4ie ��n-�th ridg� lir,e 2D4`I�'�4'3" �5'�ii`��' B1 - ir;ters�ctian of northerly Sx't�RS!On of Ga�clen of the Gods Building roofline with hiiiside ridge line 206°00'02" Bb°10'40" B2 - northern end of roofline of the Garden of the Gods Buiiding 208'12'53" 85°10'40" C1 - intersection of southerly extension of the Garden of the Gods building roofline and the Villa Valhalla roofiine 208°33'36" 84°55'50" C2 - northwest corner of the Villa Valhalla at roof facia 210°41'41' 84°01'47" D- intersection of top of the Villa Vaihalla roof facia and the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column 210°41'41" 82°01'51" E- the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column on the Villa Valhalla to a point above the horizon E. Looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between retail shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at Vaii, and i93 Gore Creek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza Building. Vlew Pofnt #6 instrument - View Poinf #6 - a#6 rebar with 2Y2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive in front of the Gore Creek Piaza Building Backsight - a#6 rebar with 2Y2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6 B.S. (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive near the southwest corner of Pepi's deck Height of Instrument Above Vlew Point #6 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm L. .... .._.. .. ... . s ., �~ . B. C. �-�f, ` � L'� �. LV (, t�S � �� !� ,M� .I'v ir�i n �.i' t� �:� D. c �� F G. L • . , .,,;�, z� t �r �;u : �-..� {- - ,IC�� ._.wi <'(�r�,r. � � ``` ', /� '� � �-=_ I� �a�.� �., r,�. � Names and addresses of a14� property -�nnsers'°affecte by the proposed view `"� •`�`'" . i f. S ,`n(., � corridor or the amendment to an existing view corridor. -�' ==�` i�'�` �`'"r �j 1�,J;�� t-r al �, ri� c t`. �_ r;-, iv , �� L�.; ; � For a proposed view corridor proRosal, photographs of t e view to be established <<.,,, c,; , =1 t_ TT1U.''_ uQ Sl;i,{ ,`�G�. Tr�c Pi "i?.f)hS i1lUSt b2 il"i cu 0 ^YI t"lE C_' .;3f� Gf tne proposed view corridor i,�.:; point used as the origi of the corridor must be identified, as weil as the lens size and the height of the ame!a above pavement. For an amendment to an existing view corridor, photog aphs must be submitted which have been taken from the adopted view point which show a graphic representation of the proposed improvements in relation o existing improvements and view corridor boundaries. Proposed view corridor oundaries must also be shown, if requested. Photographs to be submitted must be taken from the same point used to define the corridor, with the same lens size, and with the camera set at the same height above the pavement. If necessary, the Community Development Departme t may require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittal materials which s ow: 1. For a proposed view corridor, the potential imp t the new view corridor could have on the development potential of the urrounding properties. 2. For an amendment to an existing view corridor, the potential impact the changes could have upon the protected view corri or, either if it is changed to accommodate new construction or if it is ch nged to become more , restrictive. Once the Town gives preliminary approval for either a new view corridor or an ' amendment to an existing view corridor, legai descripti ns written in the same � format as those in Section 18.73.020 and any other nece sary survey information must be provided by the applicant. Proposals deemed by the Community Development Depa ment to have significant implications on the community may require review by rofessionals outside the Town staff. In this event, the applicant shall reimburse the Town for expenses incurred by this review. Any outside consultant select d to review a proposed view corridor or an amendment to an existing view corri or shall be selected and utilized by the Town staff. The Community Develo ment Department shall determine the amount of monies estimated to cover the ost of outside consuiling . :, • s services, and t#�:s amount shail be provided to the Town by the applicant prior to any pu�rc hEaring on the proposai. Any unused portions of these funds shall be te#:,rmeall 2A ths applicant following ±he review of the proposed view corridor or �c;,�<��^.� ��s a^ .:=x.;sting view corridor. Fxo��nses i�curred by� the To�•-rr in excess a#�;e esti��a}ed amount shal! be reimbursed to the Town by the appiicart. i8.73.060 - Amendments, Appeals and Additional View Corridor Proposals A. Amendments 7he provisions of this chapter, including the legal descriptions and photographs of the designated view corridors, shall only be amended in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.fi6.110 through 18.66.170 of this code. Two types of amendments may be requested. These include relocating a view corridor boundary and allowing a structure to extend above a boundary line defined by the legal descriptions in Section 18.73.020. No variance shall be permitted to any provision of this chapter �8.73. B. Appeals If a determination is made by staff that a proposed structure would encroach into an adopted view corridor, the applicant may appeal the determination to the Planning and Environmental Commission, according to Section 18.66.030. C. Additional View Corridors The Town Council, the Planning and Environmentaf Commission, Town staff or a member of the pubiic may propose additional view corridors. Any proposal shall be accompanied with the information required in Section 18.73.050. Proposals for new view corridors shall be reviewed by the Town according to Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.170. 18J3.070 - Exemptions A. Destruction Due to Natural Causes A structure which is presently located in an adopted view corridor may remain and, if destroyed by natural causes, may be replaced to its current size and height, provided such reconstruction takes place within one year following destruction. However, no structures which are located within a designated view corridor on the effective date of this ordinance shail be permitted to expand or enlarge the area of the structure which is located within the view corridor unless an amendment to the existing view corridor is approved. B. Approved Development Proposals Which Encroach Into View Corridors For development proposals which have received approval from the Town of Vail, but have 10 _ _ . � .. .,. __ _ _ ; � .__._ .. . _--------._..---------------------_ ___ . . . . ..-- I � • i � not received an approved building permit as ef the effective date of thi ordinance, and which encroach into an adopted view corridor, the app{ic2nt shatl be able to renew the approval, nct 'Y.t�',{3�?r'-�.�'t^: �ii� rT: .�:�ir-?c. :' ,}liS � - -'af1C2. Fi ;'�a!ifl �^O ::^.� Ff7Vl Cfl^"'P.�+cl C'�, ..•-,,R1jcSiC� dec�srorss, ths approvai can ba rene�,�;�cf once. �ei �es:r,n Review 6oard dec;sions, tf?° zpproval can be renewed two times. For Town Council d2cisio,�s, such as a Speci I Development District, the approval shall not be extended. if, for one project, the length of ime resulting from the extension of PEC or DRB approvals differs, the shorter length of time shail be the maximum allowed. !f an approval lapses, the right to construct the developm nt shall become void. Renewals can be made, notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinanc , providing there is no substantial change to the structure, and provided there is no increas in the portion of the structure which encroaches into the view corridor. Section 3 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, ciause or phrase of t is ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of t e remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have pa ed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regar less of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrase be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the heaith, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and th inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any dury imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provisi n repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not reviv any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated h rein. Section 6 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereoi, i consistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall no be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore re ealed. i1 I ', � • � � � . . INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBUSHED ' ONCE W FULL, this day of . 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , i991, at the reguiar meeting of the Town Councii of the �'�v�n o{ :'a�l, Co;oradn,, an ��ae t��unicipai ��i!ding cf tY�e Town. ATTEST: Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Cierk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of . 1991. ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 12 Kent R. Rose, Mayor � �_ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECi: 0 _ _ __ _ �..� _ ;��X.�� T9wn Councii Community Development DepartmeN= February 25, 1992 Worksession Discussion of Proposed � i Corridor Ordinance I. PURPOSE The purpose of the view corridor ordinance under discu sion is to: �� ,� ` �c..,, 1. Create a new chapter in the zoning code hich will regulate view corridors ��.� Update the photographs and legal descri tions based on improved physica! i' ��' , � monumentation + �'`�� '� 3. Add a fifth view corridor to the four alread adopted �� ;-�� A summary of the ordinance is provided below, and the utl ordinance is attached for the ��iY��'� Counc+Ps intormation. During tne worksession on Febru ry 25, i 992, s#aff will be preseniing � i the photographs for Council review. These will include oth the original photographs taken in f� �'� the early 1980s, as well as ones taken recently which re lect the new monumentation completed by Dan Corcoran. Though the legal descripti n for each corridor has been ,��,,`, updated, the location of the boundary locations are inte ded to stay the same. �-� � �� z . li. SUMMARY �,Lec� Section 1 � � �c:�- r� � �� Revises the Urban Design Considerations which currenty regulate the view corridors. V Section 2 �,j � '�.�'� �,��. 18.73.010 - � ��j" A Explains the purpose for having view corridors. � � �� 18.73.020 .�` � i� � Adopts the new legal descriptions. The legals will actua ly be codified within the Municipal ,,� . Code under the current proposaL �� 18.73.030 Prohibits construction above the view corridor bou s. � � r� , s;�'. i"x�..L� Disc��,��:s i �e d�tu;is =:�: `r:�ss and bu!� contr�'s. This section prohibits any construction above �i�e view c��ri4�r baun�ary, and specifica!!y discusses existing ercraachments. Far exampt�, a prop�sal for a buiiding expansion directiy behind the Giock Tower wouid not be aifowed. This section atso discusses existing encroachments, such as chimneys, balconies, as we[f as buildings. Th2se are not required to be removed as part af any major buiiding remodel, but staff wiil enci3uraqe the removal of them. This section aiso identifies focal points, such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, and states that they are intended to remain in #he view corridor. 18.73.050 Provides the criteria for amending view corridor boundaries or proposing new view corridors. 18.73.�60 Establishes the review rocess for view corridor changes, and specifically identifies two types of amendments: changes to the boundary locations and allowances for buildings to encroach above a boundary. No variances will be allowed regarding view corridor boundaries. Changes must be approved by ordinance, which requires PEC review and two readings in front of CounciL 18.73.07Q Allows for exemptions for two situations: structures which are destrayed by natural causes, and development proposals which have been approved by the Town of Vail, but not built as of the effective date of the view corridor ordinance. The Christiania is an example af this situation. The goal is to have any approval valid for up to, but no longer than, three years. Given the way the code is written, the DRB, PEC and Town Council approvals have different expiration dates. The ordrnance has been written in such a way that each type of approval wifl be valid for a maximum of three years. • IIL CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES During previous wor4csessions, some specific questions about the ordinance were raised. These are listed below: A. Can someone rebuild a structure which presently encroaches into a view corridor? ' 1. tf the buiiding were torn down, the new building would have to conform to the ordinance. No portion of the structure could encroach above the view corridor boundary, unfess the Town Council approved an amendment to the boundary. See 18.73.040 C. 2. if a portion of a building is remodeled, and an existing part of the building encroaches above the boundary, staff will encouraqe the applicant to remove the encroachment. However, there is no requirement that an entire building be brought into conformance with this ordinance if only a portion is remodeled. In the case of the Gold Peak � s +� House, f`:e remodeied bu�IG'ng auid be allow� ,��ove the boundary as muc� as it does to ay. Additionct .��a ;�t would not ��. be allowed uniess the Town Cou c�� pproved a�: �me, =>t to the � bounciary. See 18.73.040 C. % 3. tf a building, like the Ci�ck Towe or the Rucksack Tcwer, v1•Ere � compleie�y removed, it could not be rebuiit without an amendment to the � ,.�`� view corridor ordir�ance. 8ecaus these two structures are recognized j'=��`��'�'�( as focal points in this or dinance, ta ff believes there would be a basis '�' for approving amendments to th ordinance to allow for these h,,:�' redevelopments. � 4. 1f a structure is destroyed by nat ral causes, an owner has the right to rebuild the building to the same egree of encroachment as existed prior to the destruction, as long as co struction begins within one year. See Section 18.73.040 C. � Could the ordinance be written in such way to be less restrictive on the taller buildings located farthest from the origin of the view corridor? Staff acknowledges that the boundary s t for the view from the Transportation Center staircase is based on the high p aks of the buildings in the Village. We understand this does give the opportuni for two-story buildings to expand up to three stories in so;�e situations, as lo g as the height requirement and Urban Design Guide Plan are met. Staff be)iev s this is inevitable in any view corridor, in that the higher buildings natu ally set the location for the bo�ndary. C. Cou1d the light post on the Transportatio Center staircase be shifted to the west so it does not encroach into the vie corridor? �" Staff has discussed ihis and it a ears ha b in lin h � , p p t y s t a l g n e w I � g h t p o( e s �.��: ��: proposed with the AIPP project or by rel cating the sxisting pole, #he light can be removed or relocated. The cost to re ocate the pole has not been budgeted for the view corridor project, so staff ma be requesting those funds at a lafer date, or address the issue through the A PP project or landscaping fund far the VTRC. ��",, � �, i'l.�tc-c , ( <�.F'-�%�= �� C�"- G�Y)N�c-'-/-- ( � , ! � � .: �,E ji G�C-, ?'^�- � �_� : UJ j - ni ; ,� ,�i�� , !�' �l L� '��-�l �„�/'vr�1�-�-' �` tz.a-� /' , � � � � 1 �� , `-r' -�ri z'^, p`�C � , / J >- �.._�: � I 1: �'�,, � L'jJ ��`��'� /�'�'4 +/ �'G, -`, ` � � I � ii,�n r�1`j . �� El � . . . . . �. . . . � . . . . - � . . � . . . .. I � . �� :.,,^ ' � . �.�� 1�L,.L� �iff � . i.,; r �. (,A s ..t � ti C�. � � � � � .. . � .__� � ./ ; � i .. . . � . . .. . . ,��J / 4 a i J ;�� l ;� �' j � �-- ;�r�,-� ,�,; ;� ,� . �' � � j k} (, � 7 �� svZLZ f +� 5 `' '�i ��'t`c- � ( : ��^� � � tfi.-�.. j` �� L-� � Vr1..�..� t_ ' ,_ r � � �� t_ i c � � �--�._ ��.,�� ,� �, � ; �LI.�� .<.Y vz-a'� c� �"�' � v�,�c, ;� `- , ' � � �,-� �.- � �l � G .. '� , j ��--, �C C� Cc_ . 7: �� S- S.�c''r�2 � ' ��-� �t � �. Ct,. � c. � .-i�i.. /G - [. ' , Lt <.. t: r y� ��'j')'�. c �� {,,ti � .. ' '" Kc . o � ` _ ...._ . . _._— ..._. "�.� �� Gc�utd a� ��sti.'� ;-_ made ta a bui;ding thai is {ccuted immediatel� �ehin� :r:;; Clock Tower �-�d :�ove the view corridor �oundary? The diagram beiow shows how a proposed dormer might faii inta this ca�egory: y 'g �(� 5, U� . . . . . . j`\ +F,l �„`'*c.'L�S�� ' S e 1 !'' � � . . . � � . . . � � . I � . � . . .. .. . � "� �. . N % y4'� i ._ „ _"_�"--.._.�._".»_._"_____ ._ '. . � � �^ �. . . . . . . . - . - . .. . � / \ � . ' �' � � . .. . .. . . .�.. ` � . . � � . ' . � . ♦ � ' ��t'°�e� �o�r�- .�d- �� M .� ./� . s s te�� ! . � ?:-f L4J LdWI� L`O�/" . s�...�� r,, . ,/� . ^/" ��4 . i � �s 5 . 4 h/ �-�" � i The dormer woWd not be ai[owec� witnout an amenoment to me view corridoF,. vrdinance. There appears to be precedence for aliowing remodefs which do t exceed the height of surrounding ridge lines. For this s+tuatio�, the Tawn wou io evaluate the ordinance amendment request using the criteria in Section 18. when it was made. � . ��:� � `��% � �"'� � � i��' t� ` � ��t � '-, � i 'U'�. '� t�� ° � ot � . � � ' I a have � ;: �3�050.i��i'r �� It is also important to understand the aifect the ordinance wouid have on building ��.� �'' modifications completely below the ridge line. The sketch ahove is drawn looking south. Hypothetically, someone could request to add a small additian to the south elevation, keeping it compietely below the ridge tine. This type of change would not be visibfe from the view point, since it is behind the Ciock Tower, and on the south , elevation of the building. For these situations, staff believes the full amendment process may be too much review. Possibly allowing the PEC to apprave this kind of _� addition or categorizing it as an exemption are better ways to handle this. Staff wou �d �� like to discuss this with the Council more during the work session. ;E � � � ��, w��; � � � � �� ..� ��; �� 7:, 4 "� �-�y �. � �� -, � � ! � � �� % � ,� a � r �.k � � .� �r��-� , , <�J '�.r'` �{ ' tj`� °�'' +��` - . . . . . (/� .. ��1%� � � <�J . �"�Y . . , . . . . . � , � � . - . . . .V� � . � . �. . ' , . . . � �.F'� � ; i _� y=- N:z�; � Lr.,� 1 _.. _, � ��.:-�'�_ � ;-; �; -� � ��--; ..+= Z`2'� .'�E . %� G• ! / O}i. �J � � . � C� ' � ; �3 J ` -; ��"'c z,�.Y . Cz� �; ;�>�. �°-�; ,,� f _ �� :' ! �� %L 1'i'z.�.yt_ (� �? ��i� �' � ' �` � ,Y{ a— _ `% �/�` ri �t--ic � � � � f �� J � �C N_ A�'""� .. � , «�� r C L. � ` '\ �S�r° t' z-�,-2-t'.4 r,�.� `c.�; f,, / r� �`J . e'� dy,-c,�,t c�y. ��.+ �-c..�1L�,.i". C�i�:7;,7`�{ �-�cc: �" %�.�_ �j,�f-P�,� 4.��V.�-; . i./ '� � �� / r� v"�`.?�� " `�`"" t'r f 1 ��G�'L� i 7 �/ , � s. e� �ji� .,=.r..�„� J..�� . � (�,-a'LYy"_) C �-i !Lv'i �_ f � f cC. I '� l� ��J v'i "�l. 1 r�"�"_, LC-Z %�ci r� � .. r�� W�. j/Z..21� �" � J � V . n, 1 .. � � �-' ' j j' � �� } � v(� � i . Ct i ; f•^v� ..�- �L E.�� ' �'(��3`"1 �'��i/% r �/ � �; �. �.:1 /��' a�j',�'�i�?�� .�i y t� t�i✓u-� �-�j GLs-,.i.o.�.t� - f, � � VAIL TOWN COIJNCIL WORK SESSlON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1992 10:Q0 A.M. tN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA `�,,�� .�� , --� 1 ` PEC Report. 2. � DRB Report. �, 'YS`3.( Presentation on 5-Year Financiai Projection and Options for Funding Land Purchases and Housing. 4. Police Building Presentation. 5. Review of Fnal Draft of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, Concerning Village View Corridors. 6. Discussion of Parking/Transportation Plan Alternatives for Vi{lage Loading. 7_ Library Department Report. 8. lnformation Update. 9. Council Reports. 10. Other, 11. Adjournment. ��, �',� �• �,,.-- �,� I ; � i C:VtGENDA.WS � � . s -��,y � G � TO��" OF yA1L � � 75 sauth frontage road � �� vaii, coiorado 81657 � � \ Z�• � � �l �V � FAX PHONE TRANSMIT AL SHEET � . \ � . <. � TO• �,\ `� � � �, COMPANY NAME: :'� � __ r . �-�. - �- ._� �, ,,,\ 'x FAX PHONE NUMBER : ��'; � "" �� , � � FROM: ---__��\ \,�\,; `'� 'ti i1 � � \ DATE : � ;Z'1 , �� : � TIME : # OF PAGES IN DOCUMENTS (NOT INCLUDIN COVER SHEET): RESPONSE REQUIREI�? _ `. SENT BY: :'.•�,_`�", . EXT. # i � ,` TOWN OF VAIL FAX PHO�NE NUMBER: 303 479-2157 TOWN OF VAIL REGULAR PHONE NUMBER: 303 479-2100 � � : i , i � � i I i I 0 u �S �,� \ � � �� ,�„ tow� afi uail �� 75 south frontage road vaii, colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303)479-2i39 February 21, 1992 Mr. Jim Lamont P.O. Sox 73 Red Ciiff, CO 81649 u office of community development Re: Town Council Review and Adoption of Proposed View Corridor Ordinance Dear Jim: The Town of Vail has been trying to update the standards used to regulate the four existing view corridors located in the Vail Village area. The new standards will be reviewed on February 25, 1992, at approximately 2:OOPM, by the Town Council during their worksession. Part of the new ordinance includes an updated legal description for each view corridor. The Town has improved the monumentation of each of the view corridors, which has resulted in the need for revised legal descriptions. Please note that the new leqal descriptions are not intended to affect the development potential of any propertv within the Villaqe. The new legal descriptians genera(ly define the same boundaries previously approved by the Town Council. In addition to these changes, the Town is proposing to add a new view corridor. This one originates at the One Vail Place Building, and extends to the east to the Gore Range over the Red Lion and Christiania roofs. The week following the worksession, on March 3, 1992, at approximately 7:30PM, staff will be presenting the ordinance to Town Council for second reading. We would appreciate any input you may have on the ordinance, the monumentation, or the new corridor. Please cal! me at 479-2138 before February 21, 1992 if you would like any additional information. Sincerely, k � � � � `' � r�i �/,�; � � � v K-z c'�� . �i , Andy I�wdtsen � Town Planner /ab r 0 = � - �.:� [t � L � ;� '� ;��*�: TOWN OF �'AIL VIEW CORRIDOR The basis of bearings for tiie Town of Vail View C rridor information is a line connecting the NW 1/16 corner and the CW /16 corner of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixt Principal Meridian, being S00°09'E. The NW 1/16 corner of said Section 8 is a#4 reba with an aluminum cap (PLS 16827) The CW 1/16 corner of said Section 8 is a 2 1/2" iameter aluminizm post with a 3 1/2" diameter aluminum cap set 3" belo the surface af Mill Creek Road as described in the field notes of th 1987 official record of the survey of the subdivision of certain S ctions in Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meri ian. The co-ordinate base used for the Town of Vail iew Corridors assumes Nortlling co-ordinates of 10000.0000 and Eas ing co-ordinates of 10000.0000 for said NW 1/16 corner. Elevations used for the Town of Vail View Corrid r points are based on an elevation of 8177.85, provided by the Town of ail for BSI#6, an "x" chiseled on a bonnet bolt on the fire hydrant across the street from the northeast corner of the Garden of the Gods Build ng. POINT SUMMARY POINT NORTHING �A�1 ING NW 1/16 corner 5ection 8 1 � 100 0.0000 CW 1/16 corner Section 8 �. 09 100 3.4547 View Point 1 3. �5� 100 3.6114 View Point 2 �� 01a ��33 100 0.9358 View Point 4 � 10103 5927 98 9.5319 View Point 5 �� 10185.1764 101 5.4374 View Point 6 10365.4750 96 4.7031 View Point 5 backsiglzt point 10145.2734 101 8.8993 View Point 6 backsight point 10403.7697 98 5.1791 ELEVATION 8180.98 8173.72 8174.69 8178.46 8160.19 8175.74 8160.90 Slleet 1 of 6 � � �J VIEW POINT 1 Tnstrument = 4iew Point 1- a 2" diameter brass disc, marked V.P. 1 on stair landing between Levels 2 and 3 of Vail Village Parking Structure Backsight = CW 1/16 corner of Section 8 Height of instrument above View Point 1= 5.4 feet Horizontal angle 348°51'10" 348°30'10" 355°23'00" 357°39'04" 357°57`59" 004°05'19" 004°39'58" 004°4'7' 18" 006°59'll" 012°25'56" 027°O8'54" 031°53'27" Zenith angle Foresight point on photo 77°21'30" A- intersection of the horizon with a vertical line defined bv the southwest corner of the sixth floor deck enclosure on the Mountain Haus 87°11'30" B1 - uppermost railing of the southwest corner of the balcony on the fourth floor of the Mountain Haus 87°37'40" B2 - east end of the Red Lion roof ridge 87°40'43" '�`� B3 - intersection of the Red r�� Lion roof ridge with the � soutlleast corner of the Rucksack � Tower 88°27'22" B4 - northeast corner of the base of the Rucksack Tower 89°16'02" � C1 - intersection of Gallery Building with the northeast � corner of the Clock Tower, immediately below the balcony 89°16'33" � C2 - western end of facia board on Gallery Building 89°41'44" C3 - intersection of the sloping � roof of the Gallery Building � with the ridge line of the Clock Tower Building, which extends west a� 89°42'12" � D- intersection of the Clock � Tower Building roof and the northwest corner of the Clock � Tower 87°38'O1° � E- peak of Plaza Lodge vent chase 87°28'43" F- intersection of the north side of Pepi's roof with the east side of two large trees 76°26'35" , G- intersection of the horizon line on Vail Mountaii. with the vertical line defined by the top of the western, very large pine tree west of Point F Sheet 2 of 6 � � VIEW POINT 2 Instrumeirt = View Point 2- a#6 rebar with 2 1/2" diameter aluminum cap rnarked V.P. ?. (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument bot in Bridge Street in front of the Rec Lion Building Backsight = View Point 4- a ik6 rebar. with 2 1/2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 4(PLS 16827) set in an luminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivolous Sal's Height of instrument above View Point 2= 5.9 fe t Horizontal angle Zenith angle Foresigh point on photo 289°25'48" 74°28'18" A- nor hwest corner of 3rd loor ba cony roof 290°58'11" 89°58'00" �- PK na'1 in top of retaining �� wall on w st side of Golden Peak �� 1�� House, 1 foat east from west � ��,�1 yL edge of lanter wall 300°32'46" �'�32°05'34"� C- top of south end of ski �� lockers, which are on railing 301°35'24" 83°31'08" C1 - so theast corner of top deck rai on Hill Building 303°32'24" 73°38'55" D- sout east corner of brick chimney n Hill Building ' Sheet 3 of 6 -- - --_ -- -- _- — �J ❑ ��zEw Po7:vT � InsYrument = View Yoint 4- a#6 rebar with 2 1/2" diameter alumintim cap marked V_P. 4(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivolous Sal's Backsight = View Point 2- a#6 rebar witYi 2 1/2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of the Red Lion Building Height of instrument above View Point 2= 5.4 feet Horizontal angle 343°56'53" 348°37'05" 352°55'25" 352°31'05" 352°13'16" 352°13'14" 354°30'20" 354°47'22" 358°21'46" 359°04'31" 000°16'55" 001°59'47" 003°05'44" 006°23'31" 005°32'14" Zenith angle Foresight point on photo 62°24'10" A- south facia board of 3rd floor roof of Plaza Lodge Building 73°05'43" B- intersection of upper and 2nd floor roof lines of Plaza Lodge Building 73°34'26" C- south end of peak of 2nd floor gable of Plaza Lodge Building 79°24'44" D- eastern edge of 2nd floor gable roaf of Plaza Lodge Building 79°24'55" E intersectioii of 2nd floor �f facia and sautheast corner of Plaza Lodge Building 84°44'2 ' � F- intersection of southeast � � corner of. building and top edge �� `�w�',, of 1st floor facia of Plaza �V Lodge Building J 86°13'30" G- top of southeasterly corner of lst floor facia of Plaza Lodge Building 86°07'58" H- intersection af south edge of Red Lion chimney and upper Red Lion roof line 85°17'48" I- peak of upper Red Lion roof line 85°30'36" J- intersection of upper Red Lion roof line and northerly roof line of the Christiania 84°36'56" K- peak of northerly roof line of the Christiania 84°36'56" L- intersection of northerly roof peak and southerly roof line of the Christiania 83°32'42" M- northwesterly corner of 2nd floor balconv on Hill Building 83°33'5?" N- intersection of top of 2nd floor balconv rail and urick wall on Hill Building 67°54'58" 0- nortYiwest corner of top of facia on 3rd floor roof of Hill Building Sheet 4 of 6 I , � • line VIEW POINT 5 Instrument = View Point 5- a#6 rebar with 2 1/2" diameter alwninum cap marked V.P. 5(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Hanson Ranch Road in front of he Mill Creek Court Building Backsight =#4 rebar with aluminum cap (LS 2568) in iron "Landmark" monument box marking centerline of H nson Ranch Road — box is just west of Mill Creek in front of Cyrano's Height of instrument above View Point 5= 5.4 feet Horizontal angle Zenith angle Foresight point on photo 199°03'06" 81°23'49" A- inte section of southerly utility pole �aith ridge line 204°06'43" 85°10'40" B- inte section of northerly extension of Garden of the Gods Building oofline with hillside ridge line 206°00'02" 85°1�'40" �B1 - nort ern end of roofline of the Garde of the Gods Building 208°12'53" 85°10'�� C- inte section of southerly � extension of the Garden of the '` �� Gods Buil ing roofline and the � Villa Val alla roofline 208°33'36 � 84°55'50" C1 - nor hwest corner of the �� Villa Val alla at roof facia 210°41'41" 84°Ol'47" D- inte section of top of the Villa Valhalla rvof facia and the upwa d e�tension of the north ed e of the trim on the window column 210°41'41" 82°01'51" E- the u ward extension of the north ed e of the trim on the window c lumn on the Villa Valhalla to a point above the ]7orizon : � Sheet 5 of 6 'I _. :_ _ i • VIEW POINT 6 Instrument = View Point 6- a#6 rebar with 2 1/2" diameter alumir.um cap marked V.P. 6(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monwnent box in Gore Creek Drive in front of the Gore Cr�ek Plaza Building Backsight = a#6 rebar with 2 1/2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6 B.S. tPLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive near the southwest corner of Pepi's deck Height of instrument above View Point 2= 5.4 feet Horzzontal angle Zenith angle Foresight �oint on photo 356°08'35" 81°02'17" A- point on horizon 1e�t of chimney on Pepi's roof 356°55'02" 83°02'06° B- intersection of southeast edge of chimney and Pepi's roofline 000°31'36" 82°54'27" �- southern end of gable on epi's roof 001°48'10" 85°1 ' �'� D- intersection of northerly � c� extension of Gorsuch's roof line �`,.`� and Pepi s roof � �`v 003°14'42 ��5°17'�" D1 - north end of Gorsuch's roof 007°56'03� 85°11'32" D2 - south end of Gorsuch's roof 013°30'31" 85°11'32" E- intersection of southerly extension of Uorsuch's roof line and brick pillar on Lazier Arcade Building / Wall Street Building 013°38'14" 78°48'35" F- intersection of face of stucco and eve line on Lazier Arcade Building / Wall Street Building 012°55'17" 78°14'51" G- top of facia on northeast corner of roof on Lazier Arcade Building / Wall Street Building '21" 73°13'39" H- top of roof on Lazier Arcade Building / Wall Street Building Sheet b of 6 . .� �� t�w� ot uail 75 south frontage road vaii, colorado 81657 (303) 479-2138 (303) 479-2139 February 13, 1992 Ms. Gerri Arnold Vaii Associates P.O. Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 Re: Dear Gerri: � �� ,��v4�^ f, � '�1i� /� V �� ;_. � � � �� ~ � � , ':; �- �; ,� . �' s ,L �v �� ' ��4 �;�"�VN•7' � � � f �� `Y S�L office of community development V= � r �, ��.� � 1 � �� Y �„S �� L, v ��- �;�,�� r�� `� `� `'S C�� tL�� 2�t ��, 1 Town Council Review and Adoption pf Proposed View Corridor Ordinance The Town of Vail has been trying to update the stanc view corridors located in the Vail Village area. The n February 25, 1992, at approximately 2:OOPM, by the Part of the new ordinance incfudes an updated iegaf Town has improved the monumentation of each of th the need for revised legal descriptions. Please note intended to affect the development potential of anv p� descriptions generally define the same boundaries pr irds used to regulate the four existing w standards will be reviewed on own Council during their worksession. escription for each view corridor. The view corridors, which has resulted in �at the new leqal descriptions are not �perty within the Villaqe. The new legal viously approved by the Town Council. In addition to these changes, the Town is proposing t add a new view corridor. This one originates at the One Vaii Place Building, and extend to the east to the Gore Range over the Red Lion and Christiania roofis. The week following the worksession, on March 3, 199 , at approximately 7:30PM, staff will be presenting the ordinance to Town Council for second eading. We wouid appreciate any input you may have on the ordinance, the monumentation, r the new corridor. Please call me at 479-2138 before February 21, 1992 if you would like ny additional information. Since .r. ly, C� �� Andy Knudts�n Town F�nner /ab � � _ . : i'- . ;<Fit �. : � '::F � s � < .,,....<.. �:, _.. ................_.,..,.�„�_... �....�....».. _..V..._ ..._._.__"__ _... .,,_... ..,�-,� _... ..„ _.__._.» < , , _..��._.�._._...,_... s � � . r . .,... � i $:. t` . �.-,a '+� . . "�� t �-� _ . ; r�. ° ,E • f�L .�`� • 9 �. ,�,-�-, _.. .� �_,��_.�..�.... _ _. ...._w . ...w..,._ x_n.. ... . ___..�..,�_ . .. ��..,...,..a. �__ _�____�._. __�_.._ r a , is � , _ j � #�� ='f � � ; � �,� � �s' � �!#�''� e ..:rr.r't _ � { _. . . ... .. ..... . ,. f� '�L2. ' .�,J�� .G�� _ t��. � {+t..• � '� ~ t��`�1'i�.��_4 � ..... ..r .>. .. . .._ . ...� ..... � . . . ..... .... .. . . ..... . ; .- _. . �� . �: v� �� _ :� � . �� _� . -., � �. �/ � f.�- /,z.. i "' �-�"iC-."�i-c' C�t,."�,. `� c. � �. �-�--°-""`:--.---t _ � — � I k � � , � - - ----- ' � Y� �e � . ;-�� ,,,�{ ., 4 _. �� l ��..• �� - _ l v-�- f_ __ _... � _ _ _ _ _ _ .� I .__ i ,- -�,.,�� `�-,�t'L� � J 1.. � C ;'!. T` _ . _ �_ , _,._. __ :-� � , , , � _ , � � ,.. _,, � �f�,,Lr� I L � � � ,_ , , �.� '�•rl, � �' , . � . . ff � � � � _ � �� r-�-� _ � �;i � J � i � � � S � �� _ _ ; _ . _ � ;; E a . �� 3 ��'� �L�� " � 5��'d � � ;� � _ � __ _ . ,§ __ _ _ _ ,� , , . '� 3 . t � ..� � �l�r"''"`�',� �� ✓ ,/ � � �� ; . _ ��_ _ :� . �� '..,�: ; ,, ;; __ s1 , , _ \ J� �'^^„"`��`�: � [f f � °` ,,.j /� 'b i� �=J� C / �'Lt-Y ��.( %'..f .� � �1 �� ....3 _ . L' _ 75 ' � � _ �� _ ! � .___,-�..� i ) �� l. �.L- � l��ti'�"�.,� �;j ry t �` � � � � �•' � , � _. � , . � �; ' x . __ �� , �----------� ,. � � 1:.�� _ ,� . a ,>. . _ � , lr „ } �, � � 5 / s / % � � �-'CL C£ L-C..l r'i / ��L.zti,.�_, �" `"� ! f '. t� t a ..� ,� _ _ _ _ < , � /� � / � \ /� y�� ',._.._ _ _•._._..�-... �� ....... �U..j�.�'t.�--� .._.... �,-�"-{� �:_ .. {� . � '� .. _... ...... ...... " ..... � Gi�"`"'\ ...... _. ............. r, _ � q . ; , . �, � / p. /� _.____� � � �^4,.c G !' /°s` � � i/ � �z ,, i '✓`� '` C7t!(� )� � � � `1 � I � �� , o 4 _ _ ' ` /�.�-� '.�--,�- � `' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ " _ ; � �-=-�. .�.� � � i � {( j j/- / � . i ... -..--11 � �J�LL�l� %� GY+..... G-:�.—�� il L �-�'`.`t/�J V f.. . � , �'....._ ...... ... . ., .. � . �3L0_�--$ -� ` 1 � - � �� ..._ .... . ....._ .. .... �, : � .....,_ . - .. r % ..... .... .._ � �""'—,-a �' l.� � � �/ {r'� - � � � t < �F . , _ _ 1 ' �l; i� .G,.-e�'sZ-, � �. "�7.�ti �� . ,' � . �-�, �. � , _ . , , r ` f� ,�/ � . � _ , ;�n. ..�. r j�� Z � ; J�'6 y�t� � � . �� ,t � . � , ;�+ �, -� —`'--•�; . a'. ..._ __ _p� . .. . .... .... ... ... �: .. .... .. � .,:,.... � %'... ...'... ._� 'L'�'��: _. .��I.'^' ..._.. �_ „ � .. � . . ' �.. . .. � .. . . .. � ._ ...._.. t� j� } 1 , ? _ .: . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . t y . . __ � ,� .. y, � . { I _ _. . _ _ _ _._ _. __ � � MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FR�M: Community Development Department DATE: February 4, 1992 {Revised February , 1992} S�BJECT: Analysis of Boundary for View Corridor #1 Revised 11:30AM February 7, 1992 after field work with Dan Corcoran and his crews. Changes to the boundary for View Corridor #1 are ne ded because of a(terations made to buildings in the Village over the past several years. seen in the table below, Points B2 and B3 are related to the expansion to the Red Lion. When the project was approved, this view corridor boundary was amended to ailow the ex ansion. Points C and D need to be re- set dus to the Gallery Building redevelopment. Staff r commends that the points be re- established at the lowest visible points shown on the hotographs on either side of the clock tower. In the proposed ordinance, Points A, E, F and G will be defined more specifically, but will not change from the previous boundary. Former Description Proposed Description Point of Location of Location A West edge of Mountain Haus Same point. Intersection of the � : : Top of trees above Mill Creek Building (Point not used) {Point not used) B4 (Point not used) horizon with a vertical line defined by the southwest corner of the sixth floor of the Mountain Haus. Uppermost railing of the southwest corner of the balcony on the fourth floor of the Mountain Haus. East end of the Red Lion roof ridge. Intersection of the Red �ion roof ridge with the southeast corner of the Rucksack Tower. Northeast corner of the base of the Rucksack Tower � F�rmer Description Po�nt of Location C1 Bottom, east side of Clock Tower C2 C3 i r❑ (Point not used} (Point not used) � Bottom, west side of Clock Tower E Top of a+r duct on Piaza Lodge building F West side of roof on Pepi's buiiding G Tree line at top of Vail Mountain, east of Gondola tower Proposed Description of Location Intersection of Gailery Building with the Northeast corner of the Clock Tower, immediately below the balcony. Western end of facia board on the Galfery Building. intersection of the sloping roof of the Gallery Building with the_ ridge line of the Ciock Tower Buiiding, which extends west. ,_ intersection of the �raMe�r �'-t�;-t- �`r"'`' , - ;? ' `.'�:- Building roof and the northwest �� corner of the Ciock Tower. Same point. Peak of Piaza Lodge Vent chase. Same point. intersection of the north side of Pepi's roof with the east side of 2 iarge trees Intersection of the horizon line on Vail Mountain with the vertical line defined by the top of the western, very large pine tree west of Point F. � y � � D � fi � � ' '�' � � L u u � 1_l _ ; � , i:Lz�� !' � -' � = ` 1 , MEMORANDU ' '"-' ,..��- �r; ry-t ��. _ � TO: Town Counci{ „_> i> ,� ��f �;°;� ,,'-> . _. FROM: Community Development Department . , DATE: February 4, 1992 . , %.,� , ; -,f �.<� _- :'�° ��`-- s ..�Yl�� i� .. . ..ft 1?-.--. I_ f. . , \ j SUBJECT: Analysis of Boundary for View Corridor 1 �' �� f" ;, ,: . , : ., - _ . _, ,, , . _ ,.:�-; ,. � � , > ,_ t ; , ,., . --, ,; . .. �._.. .�{:, ` _ , . _ .. . . � � - ' � '- - 3 :, „ , s .r � ' . _. Y,. Changes to the boundary for View Corrido(�#1 fare ne� ded because of alterations made to buildings in the Village over the past several years. A seen in the table below, Points B2 and B3 are related to the expansion to the Red Lion. hen the project was approved, this view corridor boundary was amended to allow the exp nsion. Points C and D need to be re- f set due to the Gailery Building redevelopment. Staff r commends that the points be re- estabiished at the lowest visible points shown on the p otographs on either side of the ciock tower. In the proposed ordinance, Points A, E, F and will be defined more specifically, but will not change from the previous boundary. Former Description Proposed Description Point of Location of Location r�' A West edge of Mountain Haus Same point. Intersection of the horizon with a verticai line ' defined by the southwest corner of the sixth floor of the Mountain Haus. ; 1' B1 Top of trees above Mill Creek Court Uppermost railing of the i Building southwest corner of the balcony � on the fourth floor of the � Mountain Haus. � �,� 62 (Point not used) East end of the Red Lion roof ridg e. �% 63 (Point not used) Intersection of the Red Lion roof ridge with the southeast comer of the Rucksack Tower. � Northeast corner of the base of � � B4 (Point not used) the Rucksack Tower � , ° i -Former Description �Proposed Description ~ Poinf of Locafion of Location C Bottom, east side oi Ciock Tower Intersection of Gallery Building with the northeast comer of the Clock Tower. C2 (Point not used) intersection of the lower and upper �oofs of the Galiery Building. D.,%�� Bottom, west side of Glock Tower Intersection of the Gallery Buiiding raof and the northwest corner of the Clock Tower. E ti�' Top of air duct on Piaza Lodge Same point. Peak of Plaza ' building Lodge Vent chase. � � �`� West side of roof on Pepi's building Same point. Intersection of the _ i north side of Pepi's raof with the east side of 2 large trees , -. G Tree line at top of Vail Mountain, Same paint. Harizon of Vail � east of Gondola tawer Mountain, located between iwo tall pine trees used to defermine Point F t -, � �'� �v�� ,E � � �� .- , • � �- n � ,�� . � � I � �, k,� �' � . � ' r.'1 t f7; `� "� �� j � `,'1 a�,,� � . . � i �.; ' �'a'�� it f.: � \ , ��'V yi� ��j . `� � ..-il , .-.!}' '�.�� - . � , � � .��, �' ' ' � . . . . . ,� r\ � ��' � �� f ! � � �'- ` ' � - . . , L. �% � �� . . � . ^ - . . . . . . .; 1_ � . 1 / �' Gry` . 4 . y��1 ` . . . �U n � � �,1 � L � ' � ,� t..�: � L� ��i�, , �i,' ��Z �! ` �� i ; �� - � � � �'"�'`� 'i.;�'`��, � � � � � � � � � � �� I .., _ . - � .: ��* a�J 1.. . . .. . : � . . . . �. . ..J,�, � � . � ., �....... , � . . � � -. �� '1 � � �� . y t l I k�� ` � , �� yt`" � , t j�- `� Lv �`� � �� ; . , � ,,�i � � 1 �t� �� /' l y- - , � , - r .;� � i ( . � �� ` t" r `� x � � 5 ^ `` f i f,. ' , L./ r � `" � � � � � '�"""ci' 1 '� '' � 7 _ �r � �� , � �, , --,� ` - �-� �, �-�, ',` � � << t y. { � -. ?` . . . . . . ., } 1.'. ' .� �� %' � ( F s �' . .. ?. ti �+.: ?.3:i. � �'� � ?� 1 ,. . . ....._m�...�_...,..�. ,.,,.._. .. _ . . . . - . _.,u : 1 s � . . }•.:�F,,. a`. i , . �E t f : ' �� y.s 'Xts ;•�, J, � .� � ;,Sr- .� ' < : 1 � � - ' . . �' :�� .� � o i Y ? a.�,..�'��W � �" , . . . , " . _ . y,"'�'" �i iR ��.s:; ." ,-„.. . �. t � _ _�...s� � ?�� i . . �� !4� ��,! ��) � i Fi ��`�'�� ' iM � �� ... � ��1 � �j!l v ''3`t�' .,. i�. �' Y�1 _ (�� ';r•'"�• � �1 ¢:�.� # r E �� f,`�„�,. t a.�a,�� k ��'" �. i`.`. . r ,{ i�.�` a�� #n � � ^° 'sVs��r y�� i��"[�� "�°��Srfi Y �� t,a� � r �. %y # t � � ` � � �-y.. 7r i �zpi, t r �j ��J � '�+, _''�4 F[W' t'3'!t � P' � [� y' t � � t .'�C.�.4^ �� ,y' '�:J,�rh' `�Yic t � : ��{� 1 l � �" � . 'A�.{++r.F�� V�� A�� sz �..�, . 1l� tk d -�, . . ��{+-�s- .•,i-t �� ^'� �.0 a �� fy �, � s§ i'i�x�� Y+'y ,� � �, u{�.,��4 p� a�� L � ��>� {�fz�t�,�f�e �. ��' Y �,� c �' � . f ia _ �Y, g d '� a'� � xi t '� � -k'+^� ; ,�� ,�� ,. ��'( �.,q r. �.,. . ^"� � J' s1� °�� 91rJa- .l3 �. _ j ,. ,$ ' i '9` .: �r,.ay1�;^:R s rg�.x�..� -.'��,� ' � ��' .YsA��`�f�-��,r^hy'r�al�; < �;t" ��r z��, �c } .°..�-! �. _ ' �.` , . :- k k fyA 4��SH. �' S'�y��,, �__��'�?. .a f � ni .'� t' a�yn '�+ f j ,�L �L�f�� 's FAy7�. l�� .,�,. ��F 'e R �f ,.� M g � ,Ig�.F ::��Aa ��s- �it pl��,� . ,�5 E�� $ i L Il ''` i Z�` -?'""�'� '�3 �� r- t g�`tf;� �"��,e 3�� . r r+�� :, ��;=�� y i�3 }'�o t� es, r '. �-,� ��R�, �y,�� . �< . eS}�,s.t � : � �. ..�§,`t '; �^ � � ��'� S� ' 11i�.fi �� ..�4� i �,. d h � � t.#.c,� ti Y��}4`4r i�k ' t� l,��Vr�'� a �: i"' h �� 3Ja5 4 r, a" .. � � � z i � t� :, '� . ��4'� �, �� 4d ).. sy� . � � 4 �` d_ ; �:� �� ?'�� ri .. _ �.. W i c . t . .. {��-�i7 � },- _;� ,� �� ji ��.�: �`t+. k" - Q��, �, �� ,C �+.k� ��'e f �h �� . }�.,, 4 � � i _ >Lys...,`�eY'ei+-Y �y"�r�n �3 e £��'"" � '.4 �.�..i..�: � .�> � � f��].'-' y, �� l 2 i�' T � _ �� _ ...Y� jj''��'' F � t�� .Df� :..?`�x.pp� .'��__ ��--�_�= �,. �� 1 __'-_"._-- _ -_-___"-_.-_____'.____._"_.... � i� I � i ' I ' VIEW POINT A1 ' I I Instrument - View Point lll , Backsight - Tzaverse point O1 Height af instrument above View Point /I1 - 5.4 feet Horizontal angle Zenitf� angle Foresight point on photo 358°47' 76°41' A 358°47' 85°b9' B � 12°06' 89°14' C � 15°00' 89°17' D 22°14' 86°54' E 35°18' 85°42' F 38°17' 76°21' G . . � � , � � _ I . ,. I • , � .- • • I • • ��.� � l�v � ' � ; �� y, r_, . c� � . �.� ��t, t�� ,. .�'e`� � , �, �... � l ��n1 .�� , � ,,, ^_,____._� __.�_�___.__ .._---------- _ _-.------------ .__ _ _.._ _.--- __._ - -,_ . _. _ __ __ _ ___ _ . .. _ _----- -- _ _ —__ __ __.._------ I � � i - E t � � 3 r�_ ___ „a__. __ � , __.��.��. _ __/��, ._... �. ,_..� .M . � € �� )� ° . -°� ;a� � f -7 � � : :� ,� ��- ( 4�, T : .� .�` �. � y � I"�7�n.A.. �L�'1 '( F ��...� - 7 7��# �i �� „ ! I ° ' 1 .. ............ . .�....., ..,...3.�..F. ��w _...�.-.. _..,r�.,...r_.m.......�....,..........�..,.a..ar �. � ........__ ..e_._.....a� , ,.. . _._., � i _ _.,..�u �,....._ �,. .�, � ' i ` ` ' F .�%f� �/'�� '�t [ i � � F . _ _. � � 1 C._ %r_ ' � � � t t �.,., _ £ �F + i�' �,.�'�S�y . ....... ....,.. ._._. i: ' . . _.. ........ ........ ...... ........ ... .... . . .. ... . ..... . .. ... ... . ........ . . .. . . . .. . .. . . � 1 ....... ....... . ........ t :.. . .. .. .. .... .. ... ... .. . . .. . . . . .... . ... .. . ... . ... ... .. ..... ... . . . . . ... ... . . .. . . . . I f,4 . . .. ... P; . . .... ... ... . �/.. _... ..._ ... ..._ ...... _.. ..... .._ ._. _. _. .... �._._.�..--�� 7 � � • ! _., .. . ...��l.i�-� � .11�L (.i� � ... �� ... .. .. . ..... . . ... _.. .. . ... ... �� 1� � _�. . . . _... _ ._ .__ . . . __,. ''�,� `......-_.. C,��YL�-+.1R C+-•'�,./ � r , � �Gl 5 S'c"e1� p'Yt j j C S J �f C c�E� • ;�� '( c�,� _ �r l ��f � ,?, , . , .; l, f I '/ I.� f�,,L } / _.... .,..,....,.. .. �� .._. . �.L'�.. �L'f"� .. ° I ...... *'�....... �GZ"•<-`'(;,c,c�.�[ ...... �'I..L��G.l1,L1 f/!.�. ....��vr7l'�s(, ...... ............. ....._ ,., . . .. � ...:... �. . •� J'�-. i ,! � � , � � ; _ / .� ,C j ) . . . . ?� ._... .. �%..y�..s-� .....�Sv .._.. ��w! v�i�ii' .��u_....... jC.� z_.�i.,.... G 12c:�.:�,,.�-�L,t.... � .._ ��. . . . . . . .. _.. ... . .. . . � <' _ .... . .. . . [ �j ✓� c�'Yt-�c� L, cJ.r`�+L 1 S '�-� ut�=� ✓1'.�'". t o4�7 ll�o'ri._ . _ i,�s"�� _.. _ . _ �� . � _.,. . . �� _ _._ _ _ ' _.,,, . _ , _ _ s� f / ,. �, ,. _ , _ _ ; � GJ �� C i � ,_ . c'°�'t . �� zz,�-� I� ��3 - �/, � _ ., . .....:. .._. =t -__ ..... ..,.:,.. �J7.,�,..�"Gifii� ..�:�i.�-i�i...�. ...j,�(.r�--G"�.L'v�Z�l''`<-.^�-�.�u�a...�i ��.. .____ ....... ....._.. __... .. .... . �� '� �� ' �-� � � > � t _ _ _; _ . _ _ _ '� , ; _ 1 �-�' �..� �'x- �5 � �a4• �-s�- e;-�i,i ; _. , � _ . . `s # � ° _._ _ ,; _ __ _ _ _ ,, , � �f �T�`�'+�- t' �! `7Z; �'£�C-1, � °t�-�t''� L� %-(Gt - E— �.= CT r-�'L.� . /�-'� e--s , _ . . „ , ' 1s _ �ir:��'t'�r`� �:.� %�-tr _ 1 �' �� ,,�� j� 1� _ _ . __ 3: : : n _ .� . ;��i�. c-�,•�-��'�`-L� '�. �c'�cc�r`�`��. ��✓t �.i'�/f<`�•-c,_. _ � , � � �. _ ,, _ _ �' `? � ` � �� c� f��'J !�' � ` �, � � r. �vt �- , _ . ----,--�_ .�:< _.. _ _ _ __ t._e�._�.�..,�--. � �j _ , s _ w �� rk., �.r'rn � ¢� t� �a:, �c, K �{ �. � _ _ _ ,; . , . �" . � ; _ _ vl-r�_ ��4-�s�`�{ �j �, r��+-�k.. G�.-.��,�-�-_ ;1 �.J , � ., / . 1 ` t�r.�-;� yc:;(.�,�.�i t'� ��,; :-z:.�!3 Li. �� +.. �.. s C� .�G�.' S' _ _ , � , : , � c �t __ �.. r�:�� :� . , , ; ,. , , , ; 5 ��r� �..f;1.��; � � .,�,� ��.-�,�� - � � �-=x--� _. T �,,�-� �� ... .. . . z.. . .. . . . ... . . � �Y`-u u•'"�'i. �.�-L ...... . . . ,r--i�. v l�c . .. . . . G� ( . . . ... G�-4•v .. .. . �C!�+,r/ . . . .. . . . . .._.. _._ . . . . . . . , ..__ ........ ... . .. ... . . ....... . . . tl ii ! V .. 'P:... -. � I. . ... . ......... .�. ...., .._.. ... .... .... ... ....... __... .._..... ........ ...._. ...._. _.._.. .._... _.__. ,..,_,.... . ...._ ___.. .__. rwt� �.� (.s'.. � L.1 e,�c^, _ r c £� LJ1�"� �-srr-G".Y: �, _ l, , � ( ., � �Y7�, ��.(f�'�r'G�{ %7'�l. G"�� c�� '� J//�"/f //� � ��' � �f� ' J . .. ... .. .. �'•L��. ...T t`I� ...0 .�� i�lCtri._ � ��z !L . ............. P ,w t- � � �e�J�j''� � ? _. . . .. . . .. .. . . . _ `fJ� `4i' ` A� C+�...... . . Y� . . _ ' '. .. v .. .. . . . . . . _ _ d . .. { ..: . _...... ....,. ....... L�'��? ° � 1 -s�Kl e4..s�-c'z-� I Y,irf+_ �! � , f �_�__,_,__ __ -- _ _ . _ __,. _ ,. . _,.. ....,.._ _ . . _. _ �- ' � �� _ ;��.�-� � � � _ _ _ _ __ � �. _ ._�_.____. ------_ � z�c�=� i�-��..._ � . ,_.� , .G�. _ �2 __. 1/ G� e�.�s;��w `,z,.,� �-%/-�� -� - . - _ __ < . < , � .. -. • i � � - 4S��j._._ts'�.c:�%t r � ir'�`� ��' �j' Ii �'C�-S �j _ .__ � � _ � __ _ _ _ -_ _ - - . __ .._. �/ , , , . � � . ._ . - � i . .. . _ _. . _.. .. . . ...... 1- .. ^ _.. . . . .. �r.. .. ..:. _ f t'-r - . . 4- y .I �!�. .,.�L� *�c.�K_ � . � K.ti:-� _. �-G�-G[ i f ) �/Y(. .. _ lAj c%Y.�-c( C cft�t Tt �tt.E , t J' j . ��f �� __ ..tiTF"i` ....�j�1 P�:c:!� C �{ ��...."�-�=- l�.�_.._.. ��.:.: v �...-:-, -.. _. _ ... _.:,.,., _. ,.... _..-.. . ...._. _ ' _.' '.. � ��' .. .. , .. � ' . �..... _ __ _ _ � . _ _ � _ . � _ ; j �`� __ ,3 .,._.. . , _ f?�'r � �','�: _ �.� _� , �'-� _' : l;�f+��Ll1 �s�2:�=,`S_. ��e __.F� �� -°-�"z'�)�,�-.,-•'�, ..y - ' . _.__. __..__ . ._ -_.__ . �!`� ��- <Cr� ` �' �� {.1�-�:Z�. _j� ��`�� r � _ _ �,,� ,� /��' � '� � ' _.�_ �_ � -�t..�_ _ _ __-_. ._.._�__ .n._,.___-_ __�_ .�� ` _ �'�-=.L..t �� ._._. � =�A _� __.__T � .�,, ._�..�v�,,a z _��_ _ � _ ,__ �. .. _ ._ . __ _. ... . _ _._ _ ___ �:�.��.. �..c� � ��s-;�� _� c � � - _ _ _ _. _ ._ - __ ._ _� _. __ �`�'Yt��f'=��f d�t� _..� ..�.,; / - -- � %1Sy�.' ��'t �;:! �t_..-. .... _ .°'`'s.c�,.�� . _.:.._- _...._..s.._ ..._,�...,.a...T.._,.-.._.,._ ._�. -..-° . _`-_.,__,f _- _.. � _ _ .. �. . _. , . , - . ._ _ � c r.� 1 L'�d-� ri C? [.c 1 j .,,_ _ �s7` � __ _ ---, . ._. r _ . _ �,. _ _.. . � . ��. �.. n�__ . ___ . --�= �..`___°--__.� _ _ __ ; �'�� .:�,�.5 � � f _��_.�4,—...�. t� �; � �,ji� /�J ._...._..._ .., . .. . .,�_.��a�'"' ...�+�� ` ��-.i � /�� '� ,�,( ' -._ 1 �'�r.. �s?.'S-�/_._._!_j -r . . j�Lt./L.�� . � � � .�. i f � � : fi`a.-..._... �.,,..�_..____":•�� lJ .,___ ;___... _._._..._..,� � -ti .� £ ...,,_ ....�. . _._. . , � j :. . t,, . �` ...._:a. ..... ...... . ,_. ._ ........ ._ .... ........ .......... ... .......... ... . .... .. ...... .. . .. .. ... . . . ..... �� .. .... ...... .. . . . . .. . .... ...._. .. .... { i . : .. .. .. .. . . . ... . . .. . . .. ... ... .. . ...... .. . ..... . .. .. . .. .... .... ......... ....... . ......... ... .... ... ... ... ... .... . . . . { i1 �F �.. ! +.-,-.�« _.........e. .+._.. _.�-._ _ _ ' � -=:�'-k'��:.'� � _ _ � . >.... - �� ;, ,� _ ,� _ . _ _. . _ _, _ , _ _ ��`'�� --�-�_�---- p,� � �...... � :�_ ,.. _ ,��, ... �- . . _. ___ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ . . �F i; ii :, _ . . ....._ . __._.. _. .. _ __ __ �, _ _ _ __ �� ' _- _. ��, _ _ .,. .. v � 1 ' 1, / � f f �....5,•.��`�"� �.v �� -?-,�r . �'�Y'Y'_"- �Act f �— �.... J � � � :t _ __ . ;� . ,E _ . _ ___ . � . ; . 1 . � - � `" r�<:; ; rt ;I�,r �,� � ., .-c � - c"� � ��c�-:�: C'�'� _ __:..,_ _ �� . �`Y . r// �- fi� / _ ' � _ . _..... __._.. , � ____.. —_ ,� _ . _ _ _ �� ,� _ __ _ _ __ � _._ _ �� _ _ ... _ ; � s � �l � � '' , * � ... , � � ; cZ-.�-v�-'in-. .?YL ♦ ;�`7? S � tti�'�-' '�-�'`! 1+L.. _ _ � __ _ � 3 z��t-4 ��! i _ L � , -��- % � ti �,.�..�__ ,�y �G�1 _ � Z;'�_ . .� � � �i ��r _ __ . , `, ] fr _ __ �.._._ __ .. _ _� _ . _ _ _ _ . .... � .,_.. . .._. ... __. . __._. __ _. �t ;; ___ _ ;� __ _ ... ...... . _ _...... �. _. . __._ _ , � _. _ 1� _.. _ ._ _ _ . .. . .. _ __ ___ �--_ __ s � _ _ _ _ ;€ i _ :� _ _ __ _. __. __ _ _ . _. ; �� _ ............. ____ _. _ __ _.. � � �� . i= s: � �3�r.�� :. �.� ,.. .� "� =3 �.—�. .-... �l ;� ._ ■ l. �. . � �. . .. ...., ..,'� � R , �s _ � ;� - _ - � _ �� w ! _ - _ � �• ,� i _ �',�� ,y , ¢:�M • "a._ 'y. � «-..,,, t - �. �� _ � � t:;� ' .��'�.R� �- �}/.'r_ � , . _ . . . �'".��: } �+ '� '� —� � � ""�` u., �� - :3 � } � � _ -� ; { } ,. f . , t � }- 6 i �;.: i` "'°�r`t'`"` . � + � j E t � �. ` i �,� � � � ,w. �� t C� + ` � _ � ,. ` , ' ( � ` - '�!. . � � � � �( � � � � }' ' E :r i . �l �� ` `�,s. � ..� � � � i. :�\ 'r : ` a i '� � �:- ... � _ `s: � ` �� t *{{ '~l '4 _ " S • *' ► �•��. `�� , 4 ��`• . � ��'� � �F f i - �� ,�. 4= �� .,i�`� � � ` ��f�� '�� : _ - ' ! ..� i i . �..-�"'i f,�, F, +--='-' ��,�.R�a � '� t. !!i °� ,� R�' � ' . � ` c � , . � _ . - ._ h � - M_ �:. . _ 7z . . . � ,�� _."� . i�. , < _ _ . � a � t � ' y i �, X � ,�a!� � �' '� � . � y` ,��.. _ _ � _. , � � � —'�-� ' ;�� ^ . ,.� �- _� � � " i �r:. : .. �..:_ � F�.� � ;�L F ' .�y' .A- � _ .'-: ..�'} . ' - - . . .. _ ...�.+ � . . �:� ' '' ' . ��'� _ .__ : � t� ,� _ .. . r� � �- � MEMORANDUM TO: View Corridor File FROM: Andy Knudtsen DATE: January 13, 1992 SUBJECT: Discussion of View Point No. 1 � _ __- — , - ... � - -.._..._ ..._......_.__. ....._._.::_ : _.__..._......_.. --- :::::::::.� .:::::::..:::::::::: :::.:::::. ,:: � --........_..::::,--::.:,:,:.:..-.:.::,::::..:.::.:::,,::«:; , „ . :.. :.. _. _:. ::: ;; > -. ..:: :::::=:��: .: ,: . ..... . .. :... . ..: . , _.. _.._. _... . . :... _ .......... ...._ _. . . . . _..... ...............- .... ... _.........._ ; :... : :...;..::;: _.__.. . .:.:....:::::-:.:.:.... __. . __ .... . .. .. ..:..... _ ..:.... . _.......... . _. ._..... ._ . ..:.......... _._...__............ .:::.:.::. ::.. . ..:.:.... :.:... .....:..:........:.:: .:...::.:.�::.::.: . _ . _ ...... . ...... .. ,,: . : : : : :: ,.,.:: .:., <: ::> :..:. Today, Dan Corcoran, Kristan Pritz and I met out on the site and reviewed the picture of the oid View Point No. 1. We reviewed the condition of approval regarding the Red Lion Exterior Alteration, and determined that the boundary should be based on the new Red Lion ridge line. We have incorporated that ridge line into the view corridor as described below. In addition, we have reviewed the field notes Dan Corcoran made when he originally created View Corridor No. 1 and made some modifications to that boundary. Below is the proposed boundary. Point A- Intersection to the horizon with a vertical line defined by the southwest corner of the sixth floor of the Mountain Haus. Point B- Uppermost railing of the southwest corner of the balcony on the fou�th floor of the Mountain Haus. Point C- East end of the Red Lion roof ridge. Point D- Intersection of the Red Lion roof ridge with the southeast corner of the Rucksack Tower. Point E?? D- The northeast corner of the base of the Rucksack Tower. Point F- Let Council decide Point G- West side of the Clock Tower at the same horizontal level of Point F. Point H- Formerly Point E, peak of the Plaza Lodge chase (we may want to use the base of this chase.) Point I- Formerly Point F, the intersection of the horizontal line defined by Point H with the eastern most point of Pepi's roof. Point J- The peak of Pepi's roof. Point K- The horizon located between two tall pine trees. � i i ; I i l � � � TO: View Corridor File FROM: Andy Knudtsen DATE: November 18, 1991 C� __ _ __ _--, SUSJECT: View Roints ; < > : . _.::. �;< .. .... ..... ... . . ............. .. . ....... . ... ...... View Point #4 8acksight: View Point #2 Height of Instrument Above View Point: 5.4 feet rement taken from pin itseif) Point A- South facia bouad of the third floor roof of th Plaza Lodge Point B- Intersection of upper and second floor roof li es of the Plaza Lodge Point C- Southernmost edge of the second floor roof idge Point D- Eastern edge of second floor gable roof of t e Plaza Lodge Point E- Intersection the second floor roof facia and t e southeast corner of the Plaza Lodge Point F- intersection of southeast corner of Plaza �o ge and the top edge of the first floor facia Point G- Top of southeasteriy corner of the facia Point H- Intersection of south edge of the Red Lion c imney with the upper Red Lion roof ridge Point I- Peak of upper roof ridge of Red Lion Building Point J- Approximate intersection of upper Red Lion r of with northernmost Christiania roof Point K- Peak of Christiania ridge, smaller wing Point L- Intersection of the roof ridge of the small, no therly wing of Christiania with main roofline Po+nt M- Northwesterly corner of second floor balcon of Hill Building Point N- Intersect+on of the top of the balcony railing ith the north facade of Hill Building Point O- Northwest corner of the top of facia on the t ird floor roof of the hill 8uilding View Point #2 Backsig ht: Instrur�nent � View Point #4 5.4 feet above pin, not above grade � Point A- Roof of the third fioor baicony, the northeast corner Point B- Midpoint between trunk of a tree and the upper planter shown in the picture. This point is 1.0 feet to the east of the western edge of the upper retaining wal( and is now marked with a survey nail. Point C- Southern end ofi the silver ski hoiders mounted on the railing around the HiU Building Point D- The uppermost rail on the balcony railing on the southeast corner of the second floor deck of the Hilf Suilding Point E- Southeasterly corner of the chimney View Point #5 Pin and Cap LS2568, approximately in the center of Hanson Ranch Road Instrument: 5.4 feet above monument Point A - Point B - Point B1 - Point C - Point C1 - Point D - Point E - View Point #6 Lower of two utility poles on the slope north of the interstate Intersection of that same slope with the horizontal line created by the ridge at the Garden of the Gods Northernmost point of the roof ridge of the Garden of the Gods Intersection of the Villa Valhalla roof with the Garden of the Gods roofline Northwest corner of Villa Valf�alla {roof) Intersection of the northern line of the window column on the western facade of Villa Valhalla with the roof line Point in space vertically above Point D Backsight: VP6BS(TP2) Instrument: 5.4 feet above monument Point A - Point B - Point C - Point D - Point D1 - Point D2 - Point E - Point F - Point G - Point H - Point on hillside generally left of the chimney on Pepi's rooi lntersection of the right side of chimney with Pepi's roof South end of Pepi's roof Intersection of Pepi's roof with the horizontal line created by the Gorsuch Building North end of Gorsuch roof South end of Gorsuch roof Intersection of the horizontal line created by the ridge of the Gorsuch Building with the north facade of Wall Street Building Intersection of the north wall of Wa11 Street Building with roofline Northemmost edge of the roof eave of Wall Street Building Upper point of the roof of Wall Street 8uilding View Point #1 Instrument: 5.4 feet above monument Backsight: West center 16th corner of Section 8 Point A- intersection of the horizon with the verti al line defined by #he southwest corner of the 6th floor of the Mountain Haus Point B- Southwest corne� of the balcony on the 4th floor of the Mountain Haus Point C- Intersection of Clock Tower with the ro f of the Gallery Buiiding Point D- West side northwest corner of the Cloc Tower where it intersects the roof of the Galiery Building Point E- Peak of the mechanical chase on the P aza Lodge Point F- Intersection of the north elevation of Pe i's buiiding with the northeasterly corner of a chimney at the Lodge at Va I Point G- Horizon located approximately between two large pine trees located between Gore Creek and the Sonnenalp Austria Haus �, . `` � _ . �� #�4 �l �� r ° � � a.��e� z 'zz"a .� �,�,. �i� �-� � r �. � T�T'•°' r .}s � � _.,= r-,� �" s. 5'''� °r� # . i f +� � � �' � t $ t� a` a �.. <?. i � ,v ^'� z� �� f K.i1c �� a. � �3� � r �u'�*. '�a� � � 'F• � tg t.� � ��r7"" >�c��`��'x � t� �t A'' i�Y� +,* � �� '� � �� k ,,.} F � i `Y �t,. .. x ''�' �.� a � �' *� s.a'*. wt '�s`k .t y, x *. ""S` , �,t' � c'�£ ° � 12 ,. '" q �� #^ �` .t'u�� .. 6 "'`'` � � � � .5.. a ,R��` '5.-x �.d� ,r� '� " � " ��'�r s�. '�.� .5„� � ..� �.r r�- r" ' v -� i � k:z �� t � �,.� s ,� ��'- c � v�k -,c' s,�' `� r�_}`' ,� `��- , s:� -�, � aa". .*r� � rS a � �. s�: , �.�� ....a ,z� is�� v� � � ; � �:� ±.�."��`� '�r �' �"� a'. a�`��' „� ��T, �' .. � � �� t "�`i� �� o �� 4 �� a?.. t �:`�. � c � §�s `�s '�'�4 '�� 3� � h..� ,� ,§ ,��.a-.. _ �s a�.�i�=��'� Z, -"�-.� � �� »u"�z� � , �,."`` �'`- "�` - .a" . .. _ ' _� ar.. ,r5 r"= � v."''a �`a.h"�„` -,.�. � ,'4L`�t'3` �` ^� .g.'`r'��a F3.��§�."� 'a�SR�� , a . �' .. " ' - t�. � �. _'��' , C�. . , . . .. 'i , � /,� iJ"', � ��c /;.�,�'I GG. �� , ._ -� v �� StC' � �; �l! ! � �/. ;� . _, � '' ; � :» ;t �o� ",_ � �l � _� � � _ .� � ,,i�� F; � � ; � � - , �- , �:_ _�, . . � �-� '~ti� � , �; o�i r _ '�, �� '-i<,; � �/ � � I lJ P�/ ;�B-'-!t-_SVl /� 4'o-s3� r� �✓�s7' � �' . �_' � 4r i � > e•' ' '_�/ ._s)-33-�1�j ' -i_' _ ! '� M7• , � ' --� �� /J:�:r. �'S3� Jd-51 � . . %G�-- �..., q.: . . . . . _ i/C �. � .. r%�,C'il = p : . i�-:` I _ q_ _�Z� : fX / ,.-.. z: � .. � �� h5'%9-'8� � � � Z�l C^'- T�(E%�S A.a:� . � � f%��J; Llf �� ". . ,. '�. .. . , i �. .. �--;a _� � 7ylL� �.�".,. :O i . „ � , � . . . . z,- � �. � �`¢.. ��'-'� . . . . , � ' j I I i ..:—tir='31� � � ,� i !�4-os�v2 I P/ ; /-a7l j'arrori _ t�, Co✓. � o:.�� /i.�, � � � �. ' ..� � � . r5- y �.C' � �_ .-, i q ' Z /✓ � � .9 L-'o 'i _ =o,C-"r ,�/0 •: � - � � � I . , � . . . � . � r _ � . . u � I �f/ 0 % � / / . . . . . . � . �. � � �F.�} '�. I��. �. _. � '_... . i k�i ' i � � � �. s(�. . . t �. . � . : ' f �-Ld-l'1 � i i� �,.�`i � ';�30>7-„ � :�/, -.. . G LOi.'L _ . i, � / ( d �! v-�- D I � �'1Z�-`73_a,u' ._ iaF : �A� l� ,= � z' .. , . � I ` � � � : ,t � i��: � . . � j I � �:�.Ft�. �l5-aa-15 � �I. � ... . . I� �� ' "�5-aB� . . ! `_ . . � . � 2�-/9'-03 i r{6-'y-/::� G xToP i'l�: .��:' i" cii ��i1,' ,�i �., L% c � '4Y-2B-a7I i17�-n�-�� •'� � Po A. ;7i-iy-r3 �5¢-�ni � � � t, � ;} , �' "'�"" ! i �f � i � ` ` ,�`�-'_ ,., ' ' _..�. _ . _ : i � i ---�—� i 8, j ' i ' ' � - � � �� Z - � �r �� _� ZN v .�, � TF9dc-[Se ! v R 'I __ _ _ y-�a-ss orr{/ F a .rt. l 6-/7-2� BS-3S-�s j ' 7J"� ��'� i 7a-35-`f2. 4-; � _� ' 27 / i � i_ ,9vE c. �5 - /� z� h . � � J ,, -_ � � I' I i g�4c- �j I I .'."�_j3_39_i9 I . . � I ,3g-��-�e i��2J-vz ! _ ��-s -�y� ��_ 193 3 �i-�=L � j A, u E,�. � � I�8-t�-�� _ .� zo-�� 1 \ i _. _.� _ I � ' _ _ _: - _ - �, _ _ -____ _. . _ . . � . _ _ . . -. ._._._ '-_- I _ — -- i� 7� � �' . _ . . - -- ! . .. . . . _ _ I. . .. . ..._ _ _. _ � - —... - .. ._ ----- � .... ._ _. .- - .. -.__..I--.. , ......- - - . . _ .. .. ___ .. � : . -._ . ._.... .. ._.. .... _. i . _. � ... .. . � � i .. _. . . � _._. .. _. .. � _ . .:- I � i } t' I 4 _ i .� ��. A �t t ; _ _ _ _ ____ -- � ;:�- ---- i 7' , i ,�o� ; _ _S��O��E� J � � /OE �ODF C��EK S/OE BLOCr. ,^... �. _ . 5 _ , I _ � _ �_ , i GInIE. •raP Of�_.I�//�IL -:._ . .'.. ...�. . -- �? � ; f.9sr o� . Coi✓6a,L9 ! �`s - owFQ ._ ` - �: � - � i I . ' � . . I -I� . .._. . - , - --' --� - -- - .._... - '-.. �� . . --:_ . . .;_...r ; � ' . . � - . � t_'_ --._.... ��. : - , . . . . . _.._ . . . . . . , . , , �i -T--_—. =--.._ - - . ' ., .' .;....: � f i..:. ' ' : . , . - . . I '... : �... . ... ..- . . . _ - --_ ,. _.� . . , _._ . -. � � _ :_. . , , : , ; . __ ; i I � A I �II�I . i .. �..r��Gri - � ��v._ .. . . II � .. . ' � i � � �_ j I , , ,, , , , ; ,�,s. ; ��__ i_�� f ��-^�Y_ � - - - -- i � I, - - I I I U.P,-- I J P�7f' In t �/5-1Y-4ol � I `l �_ �E�7-3a-os{._ I7�1-35-�0� i , �lit>_ i�� l5-ao-2 I.. � �5i� L_ _ I ._.. i AUt( '<t'- � .. �� .. � . �� ;.,<I i i - j. I , _ + �9�-e4-yg�- . __ i 9o-i7-?? i __. _ �� °-n-:� 3 ; � � /9�/935. I2/9Y2-3� � � Ii ' � __._ .. ' _. � � _ _ /JvE,P a �7- 1-�6 _.. _ _ 4 `/o l v' " � � � _ � � ! _, l I a i _. ._..._ .._. ... ; - i � I299-�/ 37 __ y2-yG-37� � ._ � - 2-Yl-3il . . : Fi._ - -: __:_ r 38=03 --� 267-/3-29 . i z I AvEQ �`l�.oL `�Z�,- �y `��-::�I . _. I� � � I ;. _ __ __ . .r -- -�,5-4v-ve � � I__.. _ o�-5'i �� _.I �y-i�-i� i ' � I2'1�s9 _ I29s-v'f-so� i i __ � _ , � � Av�4 '��L-I! ��. I __ I _ _ 7�-/c-// i _ � ; ( _. j _ , �, I � _ I �! � � - ' -___ _ `_ ' � _ _ __:_ _ I ' �� , j _- L..r� i � _ � � y r: ��.� : � � � _. j I ' I I �f i � i r �-. , / � _ . . S/1�/�� /J� i : : i , , ; i,:_. ;.._:,. i... ,_.. !_ , . : , . �. . � ... _ ._.. . .. . �d�oUF�� nU'?/,'lfi/C-� '=�I.,n..,v �PEP� i°D�:" � � Gd�si ';�icr. .�,�ps, '. .. , . . �. ��. . � . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. I,�� . � . � . . i i � i . r-. SiD _F 6 o Ll�f.V }iFh'�t' GO DC.c � u�ES T: r � � OF�_ ,Sr� tJlx. y/NE _ �,°£E--- , - . , - . - � i _ i _ � DC_. : . �. i . ._._ �:. � .. _E �L!¢nl7L �� - !�� l� , �P'✓,P7.S ; _ '_..i _�� i � � i i i � � I �i, i i '' �. .. ? � . _.. � . .c. . . '.�. , i + , ._ � _ > '�f P�N� Y.Pe�• �.v n�T.r. !,�/�sr . D�?C i�' � O.vE � --- l . . . ; � . , . %�---� � - c_ , ,' � _.. ,_ i -, _. f ._ � . ' .I. ;`1 F '_ } _+ : . _ ._ _ �� i _ . i i !' - �� '%- �>. =- � `� 6� ; � � I. , � __ � � � '�'7._ � i i . _ �,5 � I � � �� F - i i __ � z�/ �- _ � � . � it V. 1�,. . .. _ . 6•35 55�-_ .. _ �r � �� # 5 ' 201-3o-l�E _ _ 8/�24-oSl i - ! i � 93z ''�s3� i 3 0/-!8 � ?7P�?5 yg , --- f -�--� � s - � � � AuEl. iz / % �% z9 � ;j ;� ; i ` /� , � �. �__�� - � _ � i -57 -36�...� _.. _. . I . . ��c6-51-36f - 65"a�-2y�. _.. _ � �J �jf' _ A�f�. �� ; -_ � �, ; ,� � _ ` i _ _ __ ' v=�-yo� �ro z3-�Z I fl5-ia Zc�_ _ __ - __ - - ___.__ __ __ 6o y�s6 27 /-yf-� + _._ i Aur,c. .T - � � � � ' � [Y_ � I . _ _ � �i� sg i � � _. __� s-s� se; � �2I3-o6 YB� 6y-a2-xzl _ ---_ 6� a-rs � . ��sr,-;u I /i✓ER. JZl� -1z _I. _. I _ . . I . _ ._ . , ._--�� _ — i - -- — I F i� �I r� �`- I_ i �..— � . _. ��_p Z S ,.� _ _ . --. - j _______ I ---- J I _ , � ,. � - � � ' _ s ��:� � '°� � : �, _. . . _ .. k-r- ---- c- ' � � '� . � . - .- ,_ . � -L i_ T ,U� �..`%.7 � o�./n � eW O ` � i i _ ' _' C.E_ . , OL� �.�7T70H�,..._ _ �: {I r .-+ �--�_ . � . : _ _ . . . . , ti r, -.. . � . ... �_ . G �' _ _ _ ,. _j_..E G;IRD�.� �" T.t'�, ra�� o�J S�oP,E i -r-. �f_ M.T . ; _-�.-- , - � _ i __ _ - j. �_ _ . . : � T- :_ ; -__• � ' . , , _ ._ : $/Q UILLl3 II1�l�fAU�(�/...�UIrX .��..�%FJ°�! T�9LL . _'._�: �„�jrJE, TiPL � � _ i i i � , - , � f , 1 � � Y:� , � . - 1� ' 1_" ...: . _ � . t i . - - a � � ._ __ BE°'J,w�J S/�1�✓ , nl 4F_c./Ji./�j�didj �; � _ ��N :IJ/4ct9_,�d� i9lL�• � _ ! i !" - . I � i �_T , , , � ' � ' t -' J - ��.- I - . � _ -- . '_ -. . -, . : ;� . � . : : . , , . . ,._.__. _: . . . . . . _ . i _ , , i , _ , T � ._.r � .-._..- �-r,---�. , .�__. � �. � _ ) _ - _ �- � ; � r , : , , , T 1" � , -.....- ._..:. �.__ � � i i� : _ _. . , __ : , : , _ �_. , . , . _,._ . : _: I � � (1 I � i -- - ` I �:` . � i , � � � M.y s� -�� i� i � ' . I 1 r_ � . _ ..._ _. _ . i H .F?��53 � �, � '. i � /�%, i .... .�..� A!,!-_ I j , S , +. . 'fi . I . . .. . I�� l(FOU.�rF � J� 6.ti;356=r�zS.-.3a.1, I Ba 59-3.9. _ .. � _ � .... ... . ..� ' . a 39I ..q3� ,. 53 -sa � � s6� �� 59-29 � F�de�? �„� - � .:� j�l <� . ; � I. . I _ � I i! � ( 6 Y 53: , ss;-3s-�4� !gs iq i� ;' � � I � �55-ai-56� __ ��2-7�--y—o -3-o�i � `� AUeR. �?}} 'z L�„S i�- .-��I , - �f3-?`� .._ I , j '� I I'- I _ - � _ 6-47-�a( j.. � ,Oo-yS-/8 . _ I. 93-ia-Y� . i � - _ .__ ��!-3! 00 _ �7� N7-/2� -- � i __. R d�R �y,: �5 �',�j ��. __.. ..I�l IL' "-{ I . ' � I - - � � ' � �� -/ 33-oG� � io(-59-26 . _ �35 a6-s ; _. _ i 63-s7-`l`/ �'l-3Y-�7� I I i � . _..- __ AuER.__IrL-54 5 aj _ _ ,�, --_ .. j:_ __ �02-v3-2s - 85 26 SY� .. '2S-?6-37 -. 7 -3 -/7i HuER � ,� �� ; ;�f _ �, ��-�- � �� -- , _ I_ -__ _ _ �_ � � , -- , ,� _ �� :, �..��-. ; �/,2✓�5'3.._ "� r_` -/� � � � � _; ..... . . . � .. . . . �. i t� '� S, � � i a., _ .� l _P r'!T. ' /�✓.. SloG _ :7a _ . .. i i i 1_ . , ! � , _1 ; � � . . . � . � i � E i _ _�� oE __ ` � o� RoaF S� �- �5�"7cXi=. srA=K �<p��s 4 � � .., �- - . .. _. ��. �_.. �. .� , . : .{ _ .. . - _ �LOG. .. I � �- � , ; __._ _ _ = i �t i_. ; � , . . _ .. _ . . ...... . . . �NO �E�/� PfPF,�s �G�C-. r . , i .. __ .. � i � i � . I ��- � y� onJ 5,_E� SGaPC �fi PE/�P�s �a4F! ; , , , � . . ; ___ _ i _ . _ __ � , __ . _,._ . _,__ . _._ _ _ i � . . .. `'�i �� L f7 z ��,� �5� _.. . B LOG� � _ , � - ' : , � .. , �_. . , _. , ; __ _ . . ., .: � ` � � _-__ � I ; . � �aw� of �ail i% 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303) 479-2139 � office of community development 't -' ` y'- i. c �� '�i;�� ! ` � i � � ; t'�- `, h tii�` V S � ` �t .Z �� ", -. �: .�� i' f' ? ' r ( t.`}l _..s ' i i� . 4 � i r` . . . ; �. � December 6, 1991 '` y , Mr. Joe Macy and , ; ' Ms. Gerry Arnold `'', i Vail Associates P.O. Box 7 Vail, colorado 81658 RE: Frivolous SaPs View Corridor Legal escription Dear Joe and Gerry: Attached to this letter is the recentiy completed leg description for the Frivolous Sal's View Corridor. This Iegal description is graphically sh wn by the dashed tane on the attached photob aph. Please call me as soon as possible if you have any uestions. As I recall, you requested four weeks to review the proposed corridor. If you need a ditional time, please let me know as soon as possible. We would like to schedule this for final pproval at Town Council for the first part of January. Since�ely, 1 � Anc� Knud sen Town Planner , � ____ _ i 12/06/91 11:03 ^303 845 9504 � V SURVEYING I�j001 ._ ' � � I : - ; - � ; - - ; - - -_--_ _-- -_-__:_-=_ - __--___ =_ - -- �� -_=__= _====== _- - =___-_ -__ ---- - � I i i I � r i E F A X T R A�i S M I T T A T� S H E E T - ��T�, 12.� 5-�'1 NUMB�R OF PAGES � . . `I'O E'OLLOW : . . . . � ��: - � A�� .. � � - -. " FRO? I : . ��-�. `�-� . REG�ItDING � � - _ � � `�`�'c`�uA-�C'c� ��r � `�•-� - - �� Note: I� any of 'these fax•cv�iss are illegibl.s, or vou do no4 receive the same number of pages stated above, please contact us immediate�ly at 303/949-1406_ �,-:_i:�n;:�..�"h•: �'.�a �-�'o:� '- ' - • C�' -:,j: `iic..,......__ i�:ii. Edwards, co � ss� 303-949-14Q6 - _ __._ ; � i 3 -� _ _ _ _ 12/05/91 ll:03 ^[�3D3 845 9504 F. V 5U2VEYING _ (�j002 � VIE4�' POIIVT 4 . Instrument = Vie�; Foint 4- a#F rebar wit 2 1/2" diameter alum�num �ap marked V.F. 4(FLS 16827) set in an aluminum monume�t bo�, in the �rick pavers, approxim tely 8 ieet from t�e entrance io Frivolous Sa?'s Backs��ht = View Point 2- a#6 rebar witl 2 1/2" dia�aeter aluminurn cap marl�ed V.P. 2(PLS 16827) se in an aluminum �onument bo� in Bridge Stree� in front of the Red Lion Building Height of ins�rument abave Vie�a Point 2= 5.4 feet Ho-rizontal angle 343°56'53" 348°37'05" 3�2°55'25" 3�2°31'05" 352°13'�6" 352°13' � 4,� 3�4°30'20" 354°47'22„ 358°21'45" Zenith anc�Ie 62°24`14" 73°05'43" ?3°34`26" 79°24'44„ 79°2�`55" 84°44'25" 8&°13'30„ 86°07'S8" 85°37`48" 3�9�0�'31" 85°30'36" F reszghi point an photo A- south facia board ot 3rd f oor roof o� Plaza L•odg� B ilding B- in-�ersection oi u�per an� 2 d floor roaf li�es of PZaza L dge Building �- south end o� �eak af 2nd f oor gable oi Plaza Lodge B ilding D- eastern edge oi 2nd floor g ble roof a� Pl�za ?�odge B ilding E- intersectian of 2nd floor r of facia and sautheast corner o Plaza Ladge Building F - intersec�iafl of southeast c rner of building and �op edge o lst floor facia o� Plaza L dge Building G- top ot southeasterlt% corner a 1st iloor facia oi P1aza L dge Building h- intersection o� sou�h edge o Red Liorz chimnev and upper R d Lion roof Iine I- peak of upper Re� Lion roof 1'ne � - intersection of uppe_r Red U�ion rooi line and northerly rqof line of_ the Christiania ��ne ^359°0�' 31" 8`�30' 36" J- inte�ctioxl of u�7�er Red Lion rooi line and northerlv roof line of the Christiania 000°lb'S�" $�°36'56" F� - peak of nartherly raaf Iin� of the Christiania 001°�9`47" 84°35`56" L- intersection o� ��rtherl_v ror�f peak and southe�l�v roof line oi the C�.ristiania . tJ03°05'?4" 83°32'42" M- northwesterlv corner o� 2nd floor balcon�% on Hill Suilding 006°23' 31" 83°33' 52'• i� - intersection a� �o�. Qf 2nd floor balconv rail and brick ivall on Hill Build?ng � j o05°32�2��= 67°54'58" O- narthwest Corile� of �Op Of � facia on 3rd fioor roof of AiII. Building ; i I i i , i , ------- - -- -- _ _ _-- _ _-- -_ _ - - I _ _ _ _ _ -- --_ _----- ��I n � 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 479-2138 (303) A79-2139 � r ; �� { � � � �; :� � �� _ S � .��;-�..-.�..,�`'� ^-_° 4-:, +� � } t� � TO: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Bob Buckiey, Town Council Member Jim Shearer, Town Councii Member Tom Steinberg, Town Council Memt FROM DATE Community Development Departm Andy Knudtsen, Town Pianner � November 17, 1991 otfice of community development 1 f — , ,}, ti.! � �1 t'-� , � �-}•'�-- j�' ,�`.. F ; ,_ i ;! ' .. '' �-t,. �� "_ � � _.�� :� ,t��: � - �'� __.-, ;.,� � ��' � .3 ; �`.��`w",,� �. �� i �,_. _ , „ ,.��'�=` _ � � � �. ��;; I. A �: � _'1 4� j ,� �'"�'T�J Attached to this memo are various pisces of back round information regarding requests made by the East Village Home Owner' Association. Staff understands that this information wi{I be discussed at a meeting wit Robert Galvin at 4:30 on Friday, November 29, 1991. Specifically, included are: I Photocopies of the proposed view corridor riginating from the East Village area; Photocopies of the four view corridors curr ntly protected as well as the proposed "Frivolous Sals" corridor; The proposed view corridor ordinance, with a highlighted section discussing the requirements for adopting new corridors; a d A copy of the most recent letter from Robe�t Galvin with the response from Knstan Pritz. I Please note that all of the correspondence from t e Town of Vaii and the East Village Home Owner's Association has been included in he Counci! packet delivered Wednesday, November 27, 1991. �� 75 south frontage road vatl, colorado 81557 (3U3) 479-2138 (303) 479-2139 TO: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Bob Buckley, Town Council Member Jim Shearer, Town Council Member Tom Steinberg, Town Council Member �i1� DATE; Community Developm�nt Department Andy Knudtsen, Town Planner November 17, 1991 � �� ' : � � �+� "'�°".� � office ot community development Attached to this memo are various pieces of background information regarding requests made by the East Village Home Owner's Association. Staff understands that this infiormation will be discussed at a meeting with Robert Galvin at 4:30 on Friday, November 29, 1991. Specifically, included are: Photocopies of the proposed view corridor originating from the East Village area; Photocopies of the four view corridors currently protected as well as the proposed "Frivolous Sals" corridor; The proposed view corridor ordinance, with a highlighted section discussing the requirements for adopting new carridors; and A copy of the most recent letter from Robert Galvin with the response from Kristan Pritz. Please note that all of the correspondence from the Town of Vail and the East Village Home Owner's Associatian has been incfuded in the Councit packet delivered Wednesday, November 27, 1991. i I � � I ` � � C G N i 3 � v I G ti y I �H � � O %� � P � u 3 —� 3 � :� .+ � � s� v O v > n U , O — i N O 3 > w C O Ll L F Z � . � � • � nx - � � N � i � �!��i:5; �. :;y.�r �<i`:�`'' ��r ,�,��P' ,,I ..k-:-7., �,?�U�. G C - O C O 3 a W O ��n Hy -� E o :. O U C O� S � 3 00 �-~i > C �. � � s+ d o m > v� O U E � 0. c W �O 3 > l. O o W P. F Z r , ; �N' �'"��M Y"/J. � '� � � � t �� .�.�� . � J . .� ..c' �?�`��li i �y�gy , �- �..� � �I�,� ,�d'�'��y�...�: b�,:_ _ :i T � , .�.�,� � . 11 S�i � � '� � u !� `_�� [ ` 1 �� „`' ,p�,'f-e'^•!\.�-... ��. � � , �,,� , � . .. �: bt w e 4 ::� -�+ �sA�,.�i� �• - . ;, P - '- �i . ita . �i,i' �A -'s-. ', a � _� �oN 3 v w p .-i :n M Y .fL -+ E O N o U o .- 3 -+ d �� ; - �> � �� > N U � O �+ C G N 0 3 > N H O O 0.1 w F Z V _ „��—Y`:_.. _'�-� _._ � - .. .. �� v �.—T . � � n ^�:� 5 f �� » r, �,.� ¢ � 0 W t1 N C O W 3 v w O ++ v� 1� Y E o o tJ o S 3 3 .+ m m > � c � .a �o � a o cv > �n .. o " � F • N O ; > rJ 4 O O maF. z * � - �f �� 1_.J 1 _ _. _ :. :. .�, _ _ _ �� -�:., �;� ,�, ,�,�., ma d4S�: _�:: .. � ` %: Y ��' �� ^. � }, �� . ¢�� 4; '� . ,ae . +. �c.. , . +.....e.'C _ . � p ° �,, .� �• y j i � y' �� if ° y � � 0 _ 9 : �, , � '' :■ _ : �� a.� 1]v ° �' ° `, � � 'ric , .",-_ c"%3 �� s�,�'iya; � t y1. < , 7 ^F�+,y A � '�H �. °��1,} �� S ,,,�, t �, t jl �1 �, • ,'Y ■ �:' � ;,,�= �, e F .� � �_� �, = � r.s� , - - _ , a� �� ,� . ='�,�, � r� , ._ ��:w,�! Ar� � _•�J - _ l--=�� y�,-�'"t'" �.:�'�,� � ��`� Y� I� � �� _ _ " � . . . . . . . " _ . . . . Ys� �gf • / � � 0 � � � ---.."�L'�` � '`_'-�..�`d�t.'i�' e �,`i1"'�,:T 'rt,�'� i .�._ .. .,� � � � :': �£Yl� '':�: � �. � � �..�� s1�.d'°.,� ,,�„,� - i � ' „ � �� y.� ��_ � �� ,; _ �; � ■�i�i�� '� � q ��.��?�,�"_��,,,�'��, }��;��,�,�}'��'��,�y�' Boundary of View Corridor ;�4 � � o-�.�2�Y�.i `�Y k � � � "� i�`{ ��` _ � � � � � "=� �,�„�� `��.�,y��`.�� <�;�'� �ased or Town Council work , ^� _ �"� �'��`�� .��`� � �� session discussion Nov. 12, 199 � r � ��5 '�� --�"�`. �� ' �� R�ewed for second reading on: rt� � i 11 � ORDINANCE NO. 13 Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION G OF THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN AND SETTItJG FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the preservation of certain existing view corridors is essentiai to the character of Vail as a mountain resort community; and WHEREAS the preservation ot views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views wiil stabilize and enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS the amendment will more clearly identify existing view corridors and development procedures for the public's benefit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Section G of the Urban Desig� Considerations is hereby modified to read as foilows: ParaQraph G Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other naturai features are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain buiiding features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant and obvious view corridors have been adopted as part of Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipai Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public plazas, and inciude views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, or the Clock Tower. The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. 0 � � Development in the Vail Village shali not encroach into an adcpted view corridor. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal ode. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, the impact of proposed development n views from pedestrian ways must be identified and mitigated where needed. Section 2 Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby a ended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as follows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors 18.73.010 - Purpose A. The protection and perpetuation of certain panoramic mountain views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town is in the public interest and will foster civic pride and the general welfare of the people of the Town of Vail; B. It is desirabie to designate, preserve and perpetuate c rtain existing panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of t e citizens and visitors to the Town; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and pre erve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesth tic and economic vitality and values of the Town; E. The preservation of such views will protect and enhanc the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; F. The preservation of such views will promote good de ign and will provide for natural light in the buildings and public spaces in the vicinity of the vie corridors. The photographs on record with the Community Dev following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as v�ews within the Town. A. A view from the south side of the Vaii Transp pedestrian stairway looking toward the ski slopes; 2 nt Department and the view corridors protecting i Center from the main � `� +� i � View Point #1 instrument - View Point #i Backsight - Traverse Point #1 Height of instrument above View Point #1 - 5.4 feet Lens �sed in photograph - 35 mm Legal Descriptions Being Updated B. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski siopes between 228 Bridge street,the Go(den Peak Building, and 311 Bridge Street, the Hiil Building; View Point #2 Instrument - View Point #2 Backsight - View Point #4 Height of Instrument Above View Point #2 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Legal Descriptions Being Updated C. The northeast corner of 244 Wall Street, the One Vail Place Buiiding, looking over the roofs of 30A Bridge Street, the Red Lion, and 356 Hanson Ranch Road, the Christiania, toward the Gore Range. View Point #4 Instrument - View Point #4 Backsight - To Be Determined Height of Instrument Above View Point #4 - 5.4 feet , Lens used in photograph - 50 mm D. View of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Mill Creek Court Building; View Point #5 3 � Instrument - View Point #5 Backsight - Focal Point #1 Height of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Legal Descriptions Being Updated � E. Looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at Vail, and 193 Gore Creek Drive Building. View Point #6 Instrument - View Point #6 Backsight - Traverse Point #2 Height of Instrument Above View Point #6 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Legai Descriptions Being Updated �etween retail shops at the Gore Creek Plaza i 8.73.030 - Limitations on Construction No structure shail be permitted to encroach above the view cor idor boundary identified with the dashed tape set forth on each of the adopted photograph . The boundaries are determined by the legal descriptions listed in Section 18.73.020. Copie of the photographs and Iegal descriptions are on file with the Community Development Depart ent. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term structure shail include, but not be limited to, new buildings, building expansions, decks, remodels, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, ateliite dishes, fences, stoplights, light poles, utility poles, skylights or any similar object. 18.73.040 - Mass and Bulk Controls A. Pro osed Buildin Ex ansions in the Vicinit of Existin ncroachments When any proposed structure infringes upon a Town of Vail vie corridor, but is located in front of or behind another structure which aiready encroaches into the same view corridor, the new structure shall not be permitted. 4 � � • � �' B. View Corridor Heiqht Control I i If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height limitation ; defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height regulation shali apply. ' C. Proposed Remodeis of Buildinqs with Existinq Encroachments Pre-existing encroachments in view corridors shall not be expanded or enlarged to create further encroachment. Any existing encroachments will be encouraged to be removed as part of any major building remodel, except for identified focal points, such as the Clock Tower and Bell Tower. 18.73.050 - Submittal ReQUirements for Additional View Corridors or Modifications to Existinq View Corridors The following information shall be provided by the applicant with any proposed new view corridor or with a Design Review Board application, exterior alteration application, variance appiication, or any other application that may result in an amendment to an existing view corridor, so that the Town staff can properly evaluate the impacts of a proposed view corridor or proposed structure within an existing view corridor: A. A statement addressing the way the proposed view corridor or the amendment to an existing view corridor amendment meets the purpose section of this Chapter of the zoning code. B. Names and addresses of all property owners affected by the proposed view corridor or the amendment to an existing view corridor. C. For a new view corridor proposal, photographs of the view to be established must be submitted. The photographs must be marked to show the boundary of the proposed view corridor. The point used as the origin of the corridor must be identified, as weil as the lens size and the height of the camera above pavement. D. For an amendment to an existing view corridor, existing and proposed elevations of the development must be submitted. In addition, photographs must be submitted which have been taken from the adopted view point. On the photographs, the present improvements in the vicinity of the view corridor must be shown with a graphic representation of how the proposed improvements will appear in relation to existing improvements and view corridor boundaries. 5 _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ! � Photographs to be submitted mus± be taken from the s me point used to define the corridor, with the same lens size, and with the came a set at the same height above the pavement. E. If necessary, the Community Development Departme t may require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittal materials which s ow: 1. For a proposed view corridor, the potential imp ct the new view corridor could have on the development potentiai of the urrounding properties. 2. For an amendment to an existing view corridor, the potential impact the changes could have upon the protected view c rridor if it is changed to accommodate new construction or if it is ch nged to become more restrictive. F. Once the Town gives preliminary approval for either a new view corridor or an amendment to an existing view corridor, legal descript ons written in the same format as those in Section 18.73.020 and any other nec ssary survey information must be provided by the applicant. G. Proposais deemed by the Community Development Dep rtment to have significant implications on the community may require review by rofessionals outside the Town staff. In this event, the applicant shall reimburs the Town for expenses incurred by this review. Any outside consultant select d to review a proposed view corridor or an amendment to an existing view corri or shali be selected and utilized by the Town staff. The Community Develo ment Department shall determine the amount of monies estimated to cover the ost of outside consulting services, and this amount shall be provided to the Town by the applicant prior to any public hearing on the proposal. Any unused portion of these funds shall be returned to the applicant following the review of the p oposed view corridor or amendment to an existing view corridor. Expenses i curred by the Town in excess of the estimated amount shal� be reimbursed to t e Town by the appficant. 18.73.060 - Amendments A eals and Additionai View Corrid r Pro osals A. Amendments No variance shafl be permitted to any provision of this chapter 8.73. The provisions of this chapter, including the legal descriptions and photographs of the d signated view corridors, 0 ; � � � � � shall only be amended in accordance with the rovisions of Sections 18.66.110 throu h 18.66.17D P 9 of this code. B. Appeals If a determination is made by staff that a proposed structure would encroach into an adopted view corridor, the applicant may appeal the determination to the Planning and Environmental Commission, according to Section 18.66.030. C. Additionai View Corridors The Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, Town staff or a member of the public may propose additional view corridors. Any proposal shall be accompanied with the information required in Section 18.73.050. Proposals for new view corridors shall be reviewed by the Town according to Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.170. 18.73.070 - Exemptions A. Destruction Due to Naturai Causes A structure which is presently located in an adopted view corridor may remain and, if destroyed by naturai causes, may be replaced to its current size and height, provided such reconstruction takes place within one year following destruction. However, no structures which are located within a designated view corridor on the effective date of this ordinance shail be permitted to expand or enlarge the area of the structure which is located within the view corridor unless an amendment to the existing view corridor is approved. B. Approved Development Proposais Which Encroach Into View Corridors For development proposats which have received approval from the Town of Vail as of the effective date of this ordinance, and which encroach into an adopted view corridor, the applicant shall be able to renew the approvai, not withstanding the provisions of this ordinance. For Planning and Environmental Commission decisions, the approval can be renewed once. For Design Review Board decisions, the approval can be renewed three times. For Town Council decisions, such as a Special Development District, the approval may be extended one year. if, for one project, the length of time resulting from the extension of PEC or DRB approvals differs, the shorter length of time shail be the maximum allowed. li an approval lapses, the right to construct the development shall become void. Renewals can be made, notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance, providing there is no substantiai change to the structure, and provided there is no increase in the portion of the structure which encroaches into the view corridor. 7 ❑ � Section 3 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of t is ordinance is for any reason heid to be invalid, such decision shail not effect the validity of t e remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby deciares it would have pa sed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regar less of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrase be deciared invalid. Section 4 The Town Councii hereby finds, determines and declares that thi ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vaii and th inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeai or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shail not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecutio commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provisi n repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeai of any provision hereby shall not reviv any provision or any ordinance previousiy repealed or superseded urless expressly stated h rein. Section 6 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, i consistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall no be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore re ealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND RDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hear ng shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of t e Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Kent R. Rose, Mayo ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDER D PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 8 Kent R. Rose, �� . '+. _ _- -__ - _ _ - - ___. _ �. . _ -----_ _ ------- / g / / � � � . �' ��. � �� t�il� 75 south lrontage road vail, cdorado 81657 (303) 479-2138 (303) 479-2139 November 26, 1991 Mr. Robert Gaivin 1303 E. Algonquin Road Schaumberg, IL 60196-1065 �xn nII.zv�r� cv�L AnnxESS) office of community development Re: Response to Letter Dated October 25, 1991, Concerning East Viliage View Corridors Dear Robert: This letter is written in response to your letter, dated October 25, 1991, which outfines the East Village Homeowners' Association request to establish a view corridor for the east Village, as we!! as the sequence of events relating to the view corridor ordinance now under review by the Council. On behalf of the Town of Vail Community Development Department, I am sorry you feel your concems and interests have not been adequately addressed and believe it is necessary to clear up some of the miscommunications related to the view corridor ordinance. I apologize � for the lengthy detail of this Istter; however, I feel the need to point by point address the concerns you have raised. I want you to be aware that our department has continually worked to resp�n� to yo�r interests. With respect to the letter addressed to the Planning and Environmental Commission and delivered to our department on March 11, 1991, I must emphasize that the lette� was given as timely attention as possible_ The document was dropped off at our department during that day's PEC meeting, and was received by me at approximately 6:OOPM. Sy that time, the PEC meeting had adjoumed. As I am sure you understand the PEC meetings are quite hectic and I was unaware that your letter was intended for the Commission's immediate attention. i` � I i � Mr. Robert Gaivin November 26, 1991 Page 3 � corridors in the Village. The Council requested tha the Frivolous Sals view be estabiished following the Red Lion buiiding approval of two yea s ago. During the Christiania review process, the issue of the Frivolous Sais view corrid r also came into play. It was an unusual circumstance, in that we had a desired view corrid r eatled for by Council which had not yet been officiaily established, which had an impact on proposed deveiopment at the Christiania. Needless to say, it has taken some time to deal wit these different elements, but the Fr+volous Sals view corridor has been a goal of the Town's for some time. In our opinion, it seems reasonabie to continue the approval process for the overall view corridor ordinancs. The efforts to develop an agre ment on the East Vilfage proposals between property owners, neighborhood groups, th Council, and the Planning and Environmental Commission, not to mention the act al technica! surveying, would prevent us from including it at this time. perhaps if there are negative impacts from estabiishing the Christiania view corridor, which we are not aware o at this time, Jim Lamont couid call or meet with the staff to identify these concerns. At this time, the siaff believes thers may be some overlap in the corridors; hvwever, we do not ee why th+s wou)d create a conflict with future view corridor efforts. We also discussed this issue with Jim Lamont and the Town Council at the November 12, 1991 work session. in concl�sion, t� � East Village Homeowners' view c an "ill-defined need for a larger view corridor study. outlined in previous letters which were sent to the E 4, 1991, September 17, 1991 and October 10, 199� hear about problems which are being created by th absolutely correct that the proposed East Village vi� Christiania corridor. The question is, should the en proposed view corridors are analyzsd and finalized' with the Councii, who decided at the November 12, ordinance. This ordinance is tentatively schec+uled It is my serious concern that you feel our departmE requests. Attached are each of the letters you hav letters. Whi1e our current workload and budget ha� take on an expanded view corridor analysis, it is nc embark on such long range efforts. The staff thorc the view corridor ordinance and recently approved ccnstraints within the 1992 budget, there are no all additional staff. As you are aware, our department has come under customer service to individuals who bring prcjects tl quality service is a priority, and we are making a co �rridors are not being delayed because of It is being delayed for the reasons ast Village Homeowners, dated September . As stated above, we would be happy to � Christiania view corridor. Ycu are w corridor preserves far more than the ire ordinance be stopFed until these The uit+mate responsibiliiy for this rests 1991 work session to proceed with the or a January approval. �t has not been responsive to your written, and the staff res�onses to these � simply not allowed our department to indicative of our interest or desire to ghiy enjoys working on projects, such as treetscape plan; however, due to cations for new programs, nor for ,riticism for not providing snough rough the development process. Top icerted effort to devote more time and ..�....�,. .; _.,.�...w.::�.,......,:._,�,�:,x�.•.a.�,, ..�.::= _-- ... - . ..::.::,�W--- —�a�,.----��.r --- � .. , .�.,�.. ..._, ,..._ ....... tr...._...._ _. ._ ....�.�.�.._. _ _� i I � ' C�. � : C� ' W. ol < .._„ ---..; ; ` . r,:. � � � �V �[� U \.. �" %!// i ^ ,%/f / �O J . .. . � �,; . s c�(�(.��_� C" 1 l �i�_--�---�`�._ . � �r ` 5`� �,'� "k i �.� Ka i�: t �`"��x„L � � � �€�� `� �}� 75 SOVOWN OF VAIL c� 1` � '�� ' � � �+"�`'�3��" .��"3�,�? "'` �°_ , V H FRONTAGE ROAU � � �'' � *� . * � ' s�. �" �'�3 0 ' t N~"�S��e� _ AIL. COLORADO 81657 �„ �5.��`� d�� ,« � , �a �� .:� i' c,� $'' ` � z� t a �ff y�`t"i^ {�"� �FA"` +� �a r`t� �� ' � �'"d . "``` �,''�� ,xta . j ?x'� ` �� <F �'�-��i�u�� `�: ;W �. �.� r�a'� � t "� � � # x. _�v p�'. ��?ri . 4i � .. .�. ...,. . . ..�. `b':; '.� t. , , � . MR. ROAERT GALVIN aA,�i> *y+.t .: ac �, R _>�� .� � ,, �; �` �,�¢ �� r VAILJOxN FLANNERY, VORLAUFER �E203 �� ;""� � � z , h`�` � �' t �� COLORADp � � �, c �� i` "�'• ��`' ;,�i� �*,.�„ �j` � i� �.a . � i� . � "'" �� - s x [ �. 6 r`'SS',a : "x �i., 'hz;�--�� s�„`� �� r'-e rw.;�K `Li'c�1a�r� r`rv+� � s r NOVEMBER t�� '�� :ir,. � I��e�`i� � a�Qa� �.t�r�uy ,�� F� �'��'er 27, 1991-- ,.�,a s. , v �;' ��,, x � �€°€��.,.�,"��.n, �� 9: 30 AM �_ ��'_ . , ��,. � .��"��.'�;�L.��, �, .. I ...'�' '�?Fy�'" -Q�*.�`Ft `{Y,,.., '_A'S"" 2 w'R5� ��a�� X w�'.w',� '.3-.�t�Y '�i'.iff� � i , . ... . .. ' 3F i . _' . � R�v �% . , '� . �;.� �`2.�i.� . . � � ' � ... . .. . . . .. . �I . . . . ... _.. � � � , � - . . � , .. ��..: . - � : ., �c'.�:.:_ ' . .� . . . . � � �.: , .. ..,..,. . . . - . . . .. . � ... .,: ... . . . . .. . ..��...- ' .. . .. . � .. . ::,� .:, . :./ . .. � . , . . . . . � . . . . - , . . / / . . . , . . . . . . . � CERTIFIED `�IAZL � ROBERT W. GALVIN 1303 EAST P,LGOhOUiN R0.4D SCHAUMBURG. ILUNOIS 6 196-1065 r 25, 1991 � � ;�OBi 5-6-5300 �� 1 1 �^,, �v- ��r��.� '�� ^ �� t � Mayor Keni Rose Town of Vail ��1� 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mayor and Town Council Members: I am most seriously concerned with the pro ress that has been made concerning the East Viilage Homeowners Association requ st to establish a view corridor for the East ViiIage_ On March 11, 1991 the East Village Homeawn rs Association submitted a letter to 1he Town of Vaii, regarding amendments to th View Corridor Ordinance #13, Se- ries 1983 (see attachment). The letter .�.0 _mitted to the Community Develop- ment Dcpartment � in- conjunctic�n__ywith,� a,._Publi heann ' on uct�Ty lthe PJanning and Environmental Co.mmission. The public``hearing°- concerned �mer]�"ments��to�'�the ��View^ �Corridor Ordinar.ce. The Homeowners Association's letter requested that certain view corridors be es- tablished for the East Village neighborhood. The view corridors being requested had a direct bearing and relationship to the rivolous Sals (Christiania) View Corridor under considcration in the Qroposed mendment. To our kno�e the �,l:anning_.,,and..,�n.v,ic�nFnental�Commissio❑ did ot acknowled�e,.��oirespond to our x...� ,._.._.._.,�,. - ,_._.._...... _..__ , . .�,_.___.r...--�--�- r�uests nor did the Communi� Development Department staff� A second pubiic hearing was conducted by the Planning and Environmental Commission on April 22, 1991. At �hai mcetin our March 11, 1991 letier was not presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission in the accompanying staff inemorandum nor was there mention of the conflicts which existed between [iie Iionieowners Association'; requests and th t being made dy the Cnristiania Lodge. To o�ur k�nowledge no acknowledgemen or response to our request was forthc�ming. � On May 7, 1991 at a regular meeting of the V il Town Council the first reading of Ordinance No. 13, Series 1991 was conducted. At that meeting the Homeowners As- sociation's �Ylarch 11, 1991 letter was not prese ted to the Town Counci., nor ��as therc a mention of the let[er by thc planning staff. The accompanying staff memorandum and presentation made no menti n of tl�e conflicts which existed betwcen the Homeowners Association's request and the proposal being made by the Christiania Lodge. In my July and Au�ust 1991 lelters to you and the Town Council I reiterated the o�neowners Associatio�l's request to establish view corridors in the public inter- cst from the public streets of the East Villag� neighborhood. � C� Mayor Kent Rose October 25, 1991 Page Two � A September 4, 1991 letter from the Community Development Director, Kristan Pritz indicated that there were problems with monumentation and budgetary consideration affiliated with the Homcowners Association's request. Subsequent to receint of this letter I authorized an exnenditure that nrovided for the documenta[ion of the East Village View Comdor. The documentation was for- warded to the Town Council on October 1, 1991. The documentation that was sub- mitted conforms to standards set fonh in the View Corridor Ordinance and are the same as those provided by others seeking to adopt or amend a view corridor. As a result of this effort it was found that the monumentation problem referred to in the Director's letter is ihe result of deficiencies in the survey information provided in the 2983 originating ordinance. The ordinance neglecis to provide surveying documentation that allows for the viewpoint, the survey point from which all view alignment sightings are taken, to be located. It is my understand- ing that any par[y wishing to locate the v�__i�ew oint mu�do sQ.—by---a�re Fa��e,nL. ith "i i%si3fv�"t.y�r wii'o"'�o�7�u`c`i`"de "the or��in �urvey. This arranQement does not� � pear to serve tne pubiic interest. r- .��. ...,.s,;�,�-,.,..�.,:>�,�.-�,.x.,.�.?- �, ,>,.::o.n..:..�,.. In an articie regarding view corridors that appeared in the May 9, 1991 Vail Daiiy (see attached), I note that the Town Council urged the town staff to proceed with the necessary studies that would provide for the adoption of additional view corri- dors. In the article I do not note any discussion regarding limitation imposed on the project due to budgetary constraints. In an October 10, 1991 letter from the Community Development Director concern- ing our continuing application to establish the East Village View Corridor, we are told that consideration will be given when funds are available to "study" new view corridors in che 'viilage area. Howcver, the Christiania �rrivoious �aisj wiii � . .�_,n,.... .._.. ........� �...�...._ bro� u�ght�befQ��,.,,th�,,,Tpv�+n�.Caunc'_iT"�ite �ille a�paren R"� con�'Iict�wi � our request. It is the "further study" position of the Community Development Director that give me most serious concern: I am troubled by ihe thought that the Christiania View Corridor can be approved without adequate study of the effects upon the proposed East Vi]lage View Corridor when there is an obvious interrelationship. It is my understanding the scope of study required to evaluate a view corridor falls fully within the professional competency of ihe town's planning siaff. We do not agree that consideration of our proposed view corridor should be delayed bccause of an ill-defined need for a larger view corridor study. It is our position thai interrelated vicw corridors should be considered at the same time, not sepa- rately as is being realized under the present circumstances. (--- _ ------ -- ._ _ -- _ _-- -- .._.. _ — — � ^ * I � i Mayor Kent Rose October 25, 1991 � Page Three The proposed East Village View Corridor pre erves far more than the Christiania Corridor. The East Village View Corridor would preserve views of the Gore Range, Red Standstone Mountain and Vail Village, Golden Peak, and Vail Mountain with the Vista Baun. � I am concerned that [he Town Council has nok been given notice ar adequate in- formation to make an informed judgement wi�h regards to ihe conflicts between these two proposals. Throngh our efforts to provide the Town Co ncil with information regarding the East Village View Corridor, it has been our in ent to demonstrate to the Town Council that there is intrinsic value in the p blic interest, to preserve the pan- oramic views from the Eas[ Village neighborho d. Thus far we do not believe we have been given an opportunity to do so. Again, I ask your timely review of our reque ts prior io your �nal consideration of the Christiania (Privolous Sals) View Corri or. _ Best ishes, �� 1 �Robert W. Galvin President East illage Homeowners Association � RWG:ch Attachment cc: Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney � I � i � MEMORANDUM TO: View Corridor File FROM: Andy Knudtsen DATE: November 18, 1991 SUBJECT: View Points View Point #4 � Backsight: View Point #2 Height of Instrument Above View Point: 5.4 feet (measurement taken from pin itseif) Point A- Uppermost point of ridge on the Piaza Lodge Point B- Where the gabie which extends to the north intersects the main roofline Point C - Point G- End of the facia on the Plaza Lodge Point J- Approximate intersection of the Red Lion roof and the Christiania roof Point K- Ridge of the Christiania on the north end Paint L- lntersection of the north ridge of the Christiania with the slope of the main roaf Point M- Northwest corner of the second story balcony on the Hill Building Point N- Intersection of the balcony railing and the brick northern wall of the Hill Building Point O- Western corner of the third story roof element Revise the peak of the Red Lion Point F- Where the roof of the Red Lion intersects the southern side of the chimney Point A- Ridge of the Plaza Lodge Point B- Gable extending out from Plaza Lodge to north Point C- Peak of gabie Point D- Eastern end of gable roof Point E- Northern wall of Plaza Lodge Point F- Intersection of northern wall of Plaza Lodge with facia Point G- Eastern end of facia Point H- Intersection of Red Lion chimney with Red Lion roof Point I- Peak of Red Lion Building Point J- Approximate intersection of Red Lion roof with Christiania roof Point K- Peak of Christiania ridge, smaller wing Point L- Intersection of small wing of Christiania with main roofline Point M- Balcony of second floor of Hill Building, northwest corner Point N- Balcony rai►ing intersection with north facade of Nill Building Point O- Western end of three story roof element of the Hill Building View Point #2 r� �� Backsight: View Point #4 Instrument: 5.4 feet above pin, not above grade Point B- Midpoint between trunk of a tree and t This point is i.d feet to the east of the Point A- Roof of the third floor balcony, the nor Point C- Southern end of the silver ski holders Building Point D- Southeast corner of second floor deck railing above the balcony railing Point E- Southeasterly corner of the chimney � ; upper planter shown in the picture. �estern edge of the upper retaining waii. east corner ounted on the railing around the Hill �f the Hill Building, upper part of the View Point #5 I Pin and Cap LS2568, approximately in the center of f�anson Ranch Road Instrument: 5.4 feet above monument I Point A - Point B - Point B1 - Point C - Point C1 - Point D - Point E - Lower of two utility poles on the slope orth of the Interstate Intersection of that same slope with the horizontal line created by the ridge at the Garden of the Gods Northemmost ridge of the Garden of th� Gods Intersection of the Villa Valhalla roof wi�h the Garden of the Gods roofline Northwest corner of Vi(la Valha(la ' Northern line of the window column on he western facade of Villa Valhalla where it intersects the roofline Immediately above that . View Point #6 Backsight: VP68S(TP2) Instrument: 5.4 feet above monument Point A - Point B - Point C - Point D - Point E - Point F - Point G - Point H - Point D1 - Point D2 - View Point #1 Point on hillside generally left of the chi ney on Pepi's roof Right side of chimney intersection with epi's roof South end of Pepi's gable , Intersection of Pepi's roof with ridge lin� of Gorsuch Building Ridge line of Gorsuch Building horizont I intersecting north facade of Wall Street Building ' Intersection of Wall Street Building with',roofline Northern point of roof eave of Wall Stre�t Building Upper point of roof of Wall Street Buiidi g North end of Gorsuch roof ! South end of Gorsuch roof instrument: 5.4 feet above monument � � 8acksight: West center 16th corner of Section 8 Point A- Horizon along #he horizontal line defined by the northwest corner of the 6th fioor Point B- Northwest corner of the balcony on the 4th floor of the Mountain Haus Point C- intersection of C1ock Tower with the roof of the Galiery Building Point D- West side northwest corner of the Clock Tower where it intersects the roof of the Gallery Suilding Point E- Peak of the mechanical chase on the Plaza Lodge Point F- Intersection of the north elevation of Pepi's building with the northeas±erly corner of a chimney at the Lodge at Vail Point G- Hor+zon located approximately between two large pine trees � i ; � � I � � � , V1EW #5 Over Garden of the Gods #2 Vai! Mtn. as sesn between Goid Peak House and Hiil Building #4 (A) From Friv. Sals over Red Lion #1 From VTC staircase to Vail Mountain � � SUMMARY OF MEETING WIT DAN CORCRAN, KRISTAN PRITZ AND AN Y KNUDTSEN ON OCT08ER 7, 1991 ��lC��.�L•Z�I[�i�� need valve box need valve box BACK SITE use existing one in center line of r-o-w will use view pant for #4 need valve J will use view t�ox � point for #2 need brass pin ', will use quarter ' section pin on ' Mill Creek Road ' on Vail Mountain #6 need vafve need new valve box From Gore box Creek Dr. over Gorsuch Process Verify that all view point and back site locations are w��ere they should be (particularly #1) Choose location for back site for #6 � � � � Decide how legal description shouid be written over the Christiania Have Mike Brake and the P.W. crews set monument boxes Have Dan Corcoran and his crews set pins within boxes and write specific legal descriptions for each view corridor and back site. Take back to PEC on Oct. 28 to verify language of new ordinace and review proposed legal descriptions Take to Town Counci{ on November 5 for second reading � i ; ; � , _.__ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ � , i . 1y i�111 � 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 479-2138 (303) 479-2139 November 26, 1991 Mr. Robert Galvin 1303 E. Algonquin Road Schaumberg, 1L 60196-1065 Re: Response to Letter Dated October Corridors Dear Fiobert: \J DII.IVERED (YAiL ADDRESS) �� . � office of community development 1991, Concerning East Village View This letter is written in response to your letter, dated October 25, 1991, which outiines the East Village Homeowners' Association request to es zblish a view corridor for the east Village, as well as the sequence of events relating to the vie corridor ordinance now under review by the Council. ! On behalf of the Town of Vail Community Developm�nt Department, I am sorry you feel your concerns and interests have not been adequately ad ressed and believe it is necessary to clear up some of the miscommunications related to t e view corridor ordinance. I apologize for the lengthy detail of this letter, however, I feel thel need to point by point address the concerns you have raised. I want you to be aware tthat our department has continually worked to respond to your interests. With respect to the letter addressed to the Planning delivered to our department on March 11, 1991, I m timely attention as possible. The document was dre day's PEC meeting, and was received by me at apK meeting had adjourned. As 1 am sure you understa 1 was unaware that your letter was intended for the d Environmental Commission and emphasize that the letter was given as ed off at our department during that cimately 6:04PM. By that time, the PEC the PEC meetings are quite hectic and mmission's immediate attention. � Mr. Robert Galvin November 26, 1991 Page 2 � This particular correspondence was passed on to Andy Knudtsen, the planner handling the view corridor ordinance. Soon after receipt, Andy contacted one of the East Viilage Homeowners Association representatives and discussed the content of your letter. Andy explained what happened with the fetter at PEC, and requested more specific information regarding the view corridor request be provided to staff, as it was unclear to staff exactly which view corridors you were proposing. During the tefephone conversation, between Andy and the East Village Homeowners Association representative, it was agreed the Association would submit more specific infarmation abaut the parameters for the proposed view corridor. At that time, Andy suggested the Homeowners submit a photograph to help explain the specific corridor fa be proposed. It was Andy's impression that this approach was agreeable and there was no apparent "conflict" between the East Village view corridor and what the staff was trying to accomplish with the overall view corridor ordinance. I feel these are important points to relate to you, as in your letter you twice made reference to the lack of response from aur department regarding your concern. I regret you believed the staff was unresponsive, or intentionally prevented the Planning and Environmental Commission from hearing your concerns. Andy sincerely felt an understanding had been reached and was awaiting the follow-up information, as discussed with yaur representative. Perhaps his impression was incorrect, but his memory is that the conversation was positive, and it seemed that both parties were working in the spirit of cooperation. I must emphasize that we saw no reason to stop work on the view corridor ordinance which was already underway. We saw the new ordinance as a positive step for the community and, after a preliminary review of your corridor request, the staff did not see a"conffict" between the proposed view corridor ordinance and the East Village proposed corridors. We would certainly be happy to discuss the issue of potential conflicts with you or Jim Lamant. An additional point I would like to address includes your statement that "any party wishing to locate the view point must do so by agreement with the surveyor who conducted the original survey. This arrangement does not appear to serve the public interest." Please rest assured that we agree with you wholeheartedly on this point, and if this was the way we were handling the project, it would not meet the public interest. Instead, what we are trying to do is place markers into the pavement where the designated view corridors originate. We also intend to provide al! the survey information necessary within the ordinance so that other parties may re- establish the view corridor if necessary. The surveyor who created the original views, Dan Corcoran of Eagle Valley Engineering, is assisting us in a very professional and hefpful manner to snsure that the Town will have a11 the necessary information to help future persons working with these view corridors. I understand why, at first glance, you may have felt it was unfair to proceed with the Ghristiania (Frivolous Sals) view corridor prior to including the East Village view corridor. Nowever, this view carridor was part of discussions initiated in 1991 to re-establish view � .,' � � Mr. Robert Galvin November 26, 1991 Page 3 corridors in the Village. The Council requested that following the Red Lion building approval of two year process, the issue of the Frivolous Sais view corrido circumstance, in that we had a desired view corridor been officially established, which had an impact on Needless to say, +t has taken some time to deal with Frivolous Sals view corridor has been a goai of the , u he Frivolous Sals view be established ago. During the Christiania review also came into play. !t was an unusual cailed for by Council which had not yet roposed development at the Christiania. these different elements, but the �own's for some time. In our opinion, it seems reasonable to continue the pproval process for the overall view corridor ordinance. The efforts to develop an agree ent on the East Village proposals between property owners, neighborhood groups, the Council, and the Planning and. Environmental Commission, not to mention the actu I technical surveying, would prevent us from including it at this time. Perhaps if there are n gative impacts from estab{ishing the Christiania view corridor, which we are not aware of at this time, Jim Lamont could call or meet with the staff to identify these concerns. At thi time, the staff believes there may be some overlap in the corridors; however, we do not s e why this would create a conflict with future view corridor efforts. We also discussed this �ssue with Jim Lamont and the Town Council at the November 12, 1991 work session. I In conclusion, the East Village Homeowners' view c� an "ill-defined need for a larger view corridor study." outlined in previous letters which were sent to the E 4, 1991, September 17, 1991 and October 10, 1991 hear about problems which are being created by thE absolutely correct that the proposed East Village vie Christiania corridor. The question is, should the ent proposed view corridors are analyzed and finalized % with the Council, who decided at the November 12, ordinance. This ordinance is tentatively scheduled 1 it is my serious concern that you feel our departmE requests. Attached are each of the letters you ha� letters. While our current workload and budget ha take on an expanded view corridor analysis, it is n embark on such long range efforts. The staff thor� the view corridor ordinance and recently approved constraints within the 1992 budget, there are no al additional staff. rridors are not being delayed because of It is being delayed for the reasons st Village Homeowners, dated September As stated above, we would be happy to Christiania view corridor. You are v corridor preserves far more than the �s ordinance be stopped until these The ultimate responsibility for this rests 991 work session to proceed with the �r a January approval. : has not been responsive to your wrihen, and the staff responses to these simply not allowed our department to indicative of our interest or desire to �hly enjoys working on projects, such as reetscape plan; however, due to :ations for new programs, nor for As you are aware, our department has come under criticism for not providing enough customer service to individuals who bring projects t rough the development process. Top quality service is a priority, and we are making a co�►certed effart to devote more t+me and � Mr. Robert Gaivin November 26, 1991 Page 4 personal attention to each individual who deals with the Town of Vai{ Community Development Department. To accomplish this, we are trying to set more realistic goals for our long-range planning projects and to more realistically budget the time spent on special reguests from the community. i would like to emphasize that all your letters addressed to the Town Council are copied and received by each Council member. We always make sure the Council receives copies of our responses to your tetters, as well. I hope this letter has been helpful to you in clarifying the miscommunications which have occurred. I hope you understand our sincere concern that communication channels remain apen, friendly, and constructive with the East Village Homeowners' Association. As I have mentioned in previous letters, next time you are in town, I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with you in person, introduce myself, and discuss the way our department functions, deveiopment issues in the community, or concerns the East Vilfage Homeowners' Association may have. Otherwise, please just give me a call and we can discuss the issues of concern at greater length. Sincerely, �� i Kristan Pritz Community Development Director /ab Enclosures cc: Vail Town Council Ron Phillips Larry Eskwith Dan Corcoran Andy Knudtsen Peter Rudy Jim Lamont aUC rismnlLenerslGatvin. no4 i i , w i i ►� i �OW� Ot V�III% 75 souih frontage road valt, cdorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303)479-2139 October 10, i 991 �� '�� office of community deveiopment Mr. Jim Lamont P.O. Box 73 � Red Cliff, CO $1649 , Re: Letter Dated October 1, 1991, Con rnJng Vail V!llage Views Dear Jim: Thank you for your letter conceming additional vie s in the Vail Village area. At this time, no additional money has been allocated to study new iew corridors in Vai{ Village. Our department is in ttie process of re-establishing the onumentation for the existing view corridors. Our hope is to adopt the view corridor o dinance which relates primarily to existing views, as well as the new view from Frivolous Sals looking up to the Gore Range in November/December of this year. Our department appreciates the suggestions you have made for new views in the Village, and when funds are allocated to study new views in the Village area, we will be happy to work with you on our suggestions for view corridors. If you have any further questions, please do not he itate to contact me at 479-2138. Sincerely, �. ,, ' + � � i, �`,�� }. ,.. Kristan Pritz Community Development Director /ab I cc: Robert Galvin Vail Town Council Ron Phiflips � � To: Mayor Kent Rose and Town Council Member� From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Date_ October 1, 1991 RE: East Village Homeowners Association �C y �; u �:. , ., _ , The East Village Homeowners Association, in its August 2Q, 1991 letter to the Vail Town Council, requested the designation of view corridore for the East Village neighborhood. In the September 4, 1991 letter from Director of Community Development Kristan Pritz, regarding the status of designating view corridors, it was indicated that the Town of Vail lacka sufficient funds to provide for the protection of additional view corridors in Vail Village. It is the strong concern of the East Village Homeowners Association that view corridors be established, in the public interest, throughout the EaBt Village neighborhood for the benefit and enjoyment of the Vail community and its visitors. It is the desire of the Homeowners Association for the Vail Town Council to proceed expeditious with review and adoption of East Village view corridora_ The East Village Homeowners Association commisaioned a eurvey to.provide documentation for the East Village View Corridor. The scope of the East Village View Corridor was choose for 3t ability to provide, in the public intereet, the preservation of one of the la8t remaining panoramic vistae in Vail Village_ The preservation of the East Village View Corridor will create the opportunity to accompliah improvements of significant benefit to the public. The viewpoint is located on the center line of Gore Creek Drive between the Villa Valhalla and the Mill Creek Court Buildings. The foresight pointa define a vista atarting with the Gore Range on the Fast; sweeping South along Vail Mountain following the ridge lines of.the Garden of Gods, Villa Valhalla, Whitehead Residence, Chateau Christian, Chrietiania Lodge, Golden Peak House; continuing to the Weat over the Mill Creek Court Building, Schober Building (West of the Children"a Fountain), Gasthof Gramshammer, Gorsuch Building and ending on the South facade of the Clock Tower. The East Village Homeownere Association reaffirms its request that the East Village View Corridor be amended to the View Corridor Ordinance. Attached are photographic and survey exhibite necessary for the designation of the East Village View Corridor. ��f' �� ! � ., East Village Homeowners As�ociatio East Viilage View Corridor October 1, 1991 Page 2 It is requested that the Eaat Village View Corridor be considered prior to the adoption o view corridora pending before the Town Council, eo that p ssible conflicts and ambiguities can be resolved. Would you please advise Bob G lvin and myself as to the echedule for the review of the Eas Village View Corridor. cc: Bob Galvin Kristan Pritz m . i► ��:�- i -x,�G,,_;-��:.�ti .., , �� . � { -__� ,y;� tow� �f uaii � 75 souih irontage road vail, colorado 81657 {303}479-2138 (303)479-2139 Septembe� 17, 1991 Mr. Robert W. Galvin 1303 E. Algonquin Road Schaumburg, IL 60196-1065 Dear Fiobe�t: office of community development On 5eptember 10, 1991, the Town Councii reviewed your letter, received September 10, 1991, concerning the proposed addition to the Red Lion Building. At thai time, the Councii reviewed the approved drawings for the 3.3 sq. ft. expansion. It was the consensus of the group that the DRB decision was apQropriate and that they would not "call up" the item. Attached are copies of the original proposal and the approved proposai at the Red lion that you were concerned with. The original had dimensions of 9 feet-6 inches x 2 feet for a total of 19 sq. ft., not 200 sq. ft. The approved design is 40 inches x 12 inches, for a total of 3.33 sq. ft., not 40 sq. ft. The approved expansion is below the eave line and does not affect the view corridor. I appreciate your concern and response to the original submittal. The Town staff shared your concems with the original submittai regarding the subsequent distance between the Red Lion and the Rucksack Building. However, our concems were addressed with the revision that reduced the area of the expansion from 19 sq. ft. to 3.33 sq. ft. In response to your concem regarding the compliance of the building with the Town of Vail zoning code, the building is in compliance with its approved plan. On November 8, 1991, an Improvement Location Certificate (LL.C.} was a{�proved by the Town. L�.C.s are required for a majori#y of construction projects in the Town. An I.LC. provides info+�nation regarding building and ridge locations. It also gives the height of the ridge. At that time, staff verified the built ridge height with the proposed ridge height. The maximum ridge height was 8,214 ft. U.S.G.S. The building ridge at the time of the I.L.C. was 8,214 ft. U.S.G.S. Reestablishment of the view corridor is currenily taking place. Because the original view point was destroyed when the Village parlcing structure was renovated, and the Red Lion exterior renovation is complete, it is now necessary for a surveyor to reestablish this point . , � � Mr. Robert 1N. Galvin September 17, 1991 Page 2 Please contact me at 303/479-2138 shouid you have ny further concerns. i hope this information adciresses your concems. Sincerely, i" � ��, l�r�s�� Sheify Meilo Town Planner i /ab Enclosures cc: Town Co�ncii Ron Phillips ' Kristan Pritz Jim Lamont Jim Morter Morter Architects I � i � .. . . . _ . _ _. _. _. _ .. _. __.__..__ .__ _'-__. ._ .______._._ ..__ ___..___. _ _ . ___--_—_—.___—_—___—_— I �.. . � i� I � \ I. . __. _......_.�-_— � � M � , � N .�____- _ � d^ � P IId " "____v_.Y---,.�__��--.-__`__". _..._..�__ �C . I -- .__ ---- __ .'"'_ . "-- ___ _ � � fl '1 — _--- �LK ----- � � ! _ --- - — � _ . _. _ �._._ -. _- .`._- =---'-'_-. _.. -- 2 � � � � _- ; � _,I zg! ,L (-� �— ---� • ' �° p � LJ --- --�____-- v ' i � i - �j , `� � 0 I .~ � � � __1N� I � - l.M1K �F �tST' �, � : W-1�.L To P�'F�tl'� , ��J 1.1aLL � U rf 't 1— ' 1�- y.� � uul��.L_� � � � � �- ��'r�s� � �� a'�� Tv . � � s�! fluE n� I � � ; _ �uR�rr'�ftE � � . . � :'i . . � . . . I� ~�r?` N o.a d �� 'a Q� " PLAN - SECUND FLOUR �, v4• : i:o• � � O 1 o n i � � �y O wy J I.i O O `� � J � � � > r+�W WALL � ' ,� �Ct� M C(� � I --- -- ..- - ---- -- _--_ __. --__-- - DEG UN� �F �x�sr W1LL To R�-f'�ll't L►v�t�ic� R��M OPEhIN6 A5 - I P.�a' �D FoK T�/ � P�Ece a� �uRPi t"rU fZE PLAN - SECOND FLOOR 1/4' : 1:0' � ❑ . c ____-1� � 12 ---, � NvK � n CLG Y/'1 ��v� � 1/8' : 1:0' . � `� C�.T„t �� _ ' " • ' � • ' ' EAST ELEVATION � � O ! u � o I �¢ I'' �� '� o � v _ _ � J ��ii ¢ ac � ;� r � s �1�.E 75 south frontage road va31, cdorsdo 81657 (303)4Tg-2138 (303) 479-2139 September 4, 1991 , oHice of communiiy development Mr. Robert W. Gaivin 1303 E. Algonquin Road Schaumburg, fL 60196-1065 ', Dear Robert: ' Thank you for your letters, dated July 16 and August 20, 1991. This letter is written in an effort to respond to some of the concems you have addressed in these letters. Our department is very happy to send public notices to th�e P.O. Box in Vail as you have requested. Public notices for the Planning and Envir�nmentai Commission meetings will give you an idea of the number and types of projects curr�ntly under review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. If there are other speciflc projects you wish to keep track of, we will do our best to try and inform you of important da�es related to those planning projects. However, I cannot make a commitment to you that o�r staff will be able to discern every development issue which may be of interest to your roup and notify you of upcoming meetings. f know that the East Village Homeowners Association is particufarly interested in the Master Transportation Plan, Streetscape Plan, a d View Corridor adoption. I will try to give you a b�ief update on these projects. At this tim , no final adoption dates have been scheduled. With respec# to the Transportation Plan, the planning process has occurred over the past two years. The plan is presently being ediied for final re iew. The Plan calls for a possible loading facility on the Christiania parking lot. The int nt would be to landscape and to berm around the structure so that it would have as little im ct on the surrounding neighborhood as possible. Enclosed is a copy of the draft for your re iew. Please cail me or Greg Ha11, Town of Vail Engineer if you have any questions. You ma reach him at 303/479-2158, and my number is 303/479-2138. � Mr. Robert W. Galvin September 4, 1991 Page 2 __ __ _.__ __ _ � The Streetscape Plan is also in the final stage of ed+ting. I am surprised to hear that it is your understanding that the East Viilage neighborhood has not been adequately studisd as part of the Streetscape Plan. We have had representatives from this area of the community at many of our meetings. One of the goais of the Plan is to improve the Miil Creek coRidor. In addition, drainage, s'rdewaiks, planters and landscaping are proposed for the generai area. Mike Mollica, Assistant Director of Planning, and 1 are working on this project. We would be happy to set up a conference call with you to go over improvements in the plan, or actually meet with you the next time you are in Vaif. It wouid be very positive if we could discuss the project with you. A new sec6on of the code has been drafted concerning the view corridors in the Town of Vail. We thought this was a much more comprehensive approach to the issue. We had intended to adopt this section of the code several months ago. However, because of summer vegetation, the view over the Christiania Lodge was impossible to survey. We intend to establish this view this fall as soon as the vegetation allows for the surveying. In addition, we are working with the owners of the Red Lion Building in order to re-establish the view corridor extending from the Village parking lot overlooking Vail Village up to the ski mountain. The Town �ouncil also requested that the planning staff look at additional view corridors. The staff indicated to the Council that the earliest this project could begin would be Fall, 1991. Since that time, we discovered some monumentation problems with the existing view corridors. The staff work program wilf first address the monumentation problems with existing view corridors before addressing new view corridors. We requested additional money for surveying for 1992 to establish new view corridors. However, at this time, that request has been cut from the budget. The Community Development budget is still under review, and has not been reviewed by Council, so this situation is not final at this time. Lastly, I encourage you to call me if you have questions about projects or planning efforts which may affec# your neighborhoad area. I must also emphasize that our department will be happy to work with people from your neighbofiood when we address the new view corridors which will affect the Village. Thank you for your interest in the community. Sincerely, �ri�n�fi� � Kristan Pritr Community Devslopment Director /ab Enclosure cc: Jim Lamont Vail Town Council Ron Phiilips Greg Hall Mike Mollica �-- - - -- -- --: - - --- -- _,.__ _ � , , �� % �: 1`�i,t) �Y`�' ��Y' , � �° � � __ `� , � � � �` - j,1 1 i '' � € € Iv� ,� �� I �' � �� = � ; ,:� �� , `,�� ' .� _ , =..M.�� - b �c�i� r � SSi� �� .c�2�� -�idi'<< � � �' l � � lnu� , j 31� � V 1� (t�(`(1 � � �i M�� '� ��' �� ^ OV� � � ( a � � � � �� u,U -� � a �� - �-�� , �- �I � � �_ , � �� . ' � � j �� I ��c�u�+-P/ SS�C_ 1��_ _ _ �� c aQ C��n-i� a� � � f � _ � � .; ; _ +�1,u � camA-� v�' �} C�(1' t�'V. Ul�� (�0 D�� b�� 't�) �-�11�.t�J �� 2-�-- t� ic� 1�.��• j � � � �� 1S �� l M�_ �1�� L J i�(,� _ � � I : ` ;. ` _ , , ;; _ _ _ _ _ i _ � ; � �, _ , __ � � ` f ; _ _ i ; .: _ ; _ _ __ _ � � f ; ; � � G N M N F o 3 'd v C +i � c�i.x� E o w o+ OU O O� S 3 —� 3 0o N .�+ c� m> u C ~ .~i 9 7 Y� > vdi V A E o. C v 3 > m i. o W P. F Z • G O G o 3 v m O �+ �n J H .Y -1 E o O U O o+ 5 3 -� 3 m�+~+ � > u G ~ a ] �. w O > m V A o E .+ a � w o 3 > N t+ o 0 c�a[� z ,, �r .i '�' �. • .� , �;;' i' � = � �!�. {;-�;r'�''��Oi� N -.:-�-„�. _ .x :� ►J �� N II ¢ : c I 0 v s, � I G o w 3 o w � o . � �n N H Y -� E o N � O U OO� 5 33 -� m > u c � z � w a o w 7 �+U p o E .. a G w mc 3 > u o 0 w a F z � .�+ � � -- 3 `� � _ � � � *ti v � ` �� ' ... K��, .:�� ::r ��_ v T a ¢ c c a w 3 ^J a O -+ �i � i� x E O 1. C U O S 3 vi m -� i I N > c� C � O ] Y O N > tn U .+ O •+ 4 G � m0 3 > r. o 0 W W H Z I I � � ��,R: . r 2. c.�� . c�'2.-1 •t.�: z<ti e. �--�� -- _________-� ` t �r C�, r � � �=; � � �;--�---- �..,-- __-------T____ �/{f - �ZCl:(�PiC_.. � .r , l r",'r � � � r� 'Y . ,', _... _..,.1...f-- Y. � c.a__�..�:-,�� I�r-.:-t;f . ,u;a / r � �;. . � ,-,:z,., , _ .,.� � . � �.� . � �...«� � `� � - � �_ ��-� � � �zxz,,� �..1�-..�.�_ . - __ ___ _ u !I � �Vall �. �: �a�1 A�socia� Crca;r.'� a»�I C)pera3t.x; c�f V�ail anu P�� Nis. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail 175 South Frontage Road VJest Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: View Corridor Ordinance Dear Kristan, �� # - � 3 {�f��s �\ ��,�� r�� fr � ,s, Ix�c. ��` iv,:r (�:eel:" Re.c��ts November 15, 1991 Vail Associates is opposed to th� view corridor ordinance as currently written. Our concerns a e: o The ordinance does not providelfor a variance process. o Legal descriptions for the pre iously adopted view corridors are not provided. o No legal description is provid d for the proposed Frivolous Sals view corridor. �de are u able to determine what the impact of the view corrid r would be on the Christiana lot. 6�7e believe that the ordinance should ot go to second reading until the affected property owners ha e the information needed to determine exactly what the impacts would be. G��e ask that the town table the ordinance until th needed information can be supplied to us. In May we were le to believe that legal descriptions would be provided as par of the process. The ordinance appears to require them. T date, none have been provided. �lease call if you have an� questions. Sincerely, --, f ,,: �-�-� �r��.� ,�3oe Macy , I�4anager Mountain Planning JM/km cc: Gerry Arnold Nola Dyal Larry Eskwith Larry Lichliter Ron Phillips Post Office �3ox 7• Vaii, Colorado 81658 '� USA -(303) 476-SbGI 0 � �� ti� �O�Y� Ol V�1� �yt 75 south frontage road vaii, colorado 81657 (303j 479-2138 (303)479-2139 November 18, i 991 Mr. Joe Macy Manager, Mountain Planning Vail Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 Re: View Corridor Ordinance Dear Joe: �J office of community development Thank you for your letter, dated Novembe� 15, 1991, which was dropped off at our office on Friday aftemoon. in response to your letter, the staff asked Ron to remove the ordinance from the agenda ior November 19. i would also like to respond to the points made in your letter. You are correct that the ordinance does not provide for a variance process. We believe that a change to a view corridor warrants more public review than what the variance process requires. Instead, the ordinance provides for an amendment process, which requires one PEC hearing and two Town Council readings. This is the same review process currently used in the ordinance when any changes are proposed to view corridors. With respect to the issue of legal descriptions, this information was finalized on Friday, November 15, 1991 with the surveyors. Legal descriptions were to be completed by Dan Corcoran's office and then delivered to the Council on Tuesday. You may stop by our office on Tuesday and pick up these legal descriptions for your review. Andy Knudtsen and I had understood that, by organizing the on-site demonstration which you and other representatives from Vail Assaciates attended, the impacts on the Christiania parking lot site could be ciearly identifiied. If this approach has not provided the information necessary to anafyze the view corridors fo Vail Associates' satisfaction, staff would ask that the legal descriptions be reviewed in a timely manner so we can proceed with the review process. From Andy's conversation with you and Gerry Arnold on Monday morning, it is our understanding that you need a month to review the legal descriptions. We would tentatively like to scheduie the second reading ior the evening Town Council meeting on January 9, 1992. We hope you still find the on-site analysis benefiicial, as it �as conducted in an effort to #ry and explain to interested parties the impacts of the new "Frivolous Sals" view corridor. With respect to the other existing view corridors, no changes are proposed. � � Mr. Joe Macy Novernber i 8, i 991 Page 2 Piease let us know if we can be of any further help t Vaii Associates in understanding the new view corridor ordinance. Sincerely, �r ' r� ; �:x r� r; �fi Kristan Pritr ` Community Development Director lab � cc: Town Council ', Ron Phillips I Larry Lichiiter �I Gerry Amold ', Dan Corcoran ' Paul Johnston Jay Peterson Andy Knudtsen Mike Brake I __... _ . _ _ _ ► �., ., - � �; � :,��'-` ,� "� � � 0 `,L �� s��,� ' d� ' ` \ i p� 1 �� , �q�. � .. }��: l�t. - , .1 s,.:� i4, � � x 7� .� �:��`�+Y; �� * 4Y�}f ��t. � .�,..ryr�+� � �: : *.:. n�_:_, ._,� �, k ��x � `��.:,,-Fr.�..:.. �= �a : g�� } � �`'r� C� �� '�y��+:� -Z ✓ , 54 �b ��rmes�e�a�� r` . � �»,:...,� . ^ E' _ � 5oundary of View C;orridor �f4 '� 3ased o�: Town Council work session discussion Nov. 12, 199 Kevieweci for second reading on: k � Christiania Lodge Proposed Expansion as estimated by Pierce, Segerberg, Spaeh. ii,�".11� 1y9� �+�7q z _ __--_ _ - �-- � I ; � �I. 1 } � — A E •� � ` : ��:� �-. _ ��- -..� �_ ; .. _ � �� ^'-�s. ut F : � �:� � .�'F'i � �' i -�::_'r"� ' y�y��.w"S.ai� � ,..�F �hY-' ,_ ".. y'. i�� Tt ,ti; _ � 5-=_<�.- "{�. i� ��Y':.P . 's ,. i � � � c' �'•?��r�_S�,lt��( �;..; .'/-1� �C�� Ce'� � Cj %� l iG(.IXi-- y �//�/i� V /�,rii�J%`� _y '� Sc!-'C� � l.cL� /�1-L�- „/�-t [� crL-C..c<.�j'LZ� �J�c-1 ''7 �rc/ / / � / / V � �` �.1C �e�-CK�<' c�( GC..�Lc.ci �'�: S< i c,.��,.�;C i"`�- . ,1-�-t.�� r Fu. �:rr s�a-t_ � .� f�`� u % �t.�7 ��rcr; � 7i`nt �'�--rz �� /� «�.s� �.f �J �� L) , /' / //, .✓�t�'7t � //-.^.�rC�K!! � .�cC, � �i,4��'Y� IZ�Z.�'� �-C�<, � <1�ac/ / " �'c/ �Ji;<� L� � C/ i 1. / ✓ u �,. �:.� < <r ��{ l� � �a� �lti� �; �� , ��f � �a.� a � �� f � . r. „�-t-�:S <�7 ) � � )�l C�� /' ^c L �u�. ti�. C� � '7iU �Y , � c�c�� / . //�t�`f / . � ., �'lE (%� �� 2�. j o- 3 � �-,-,� �C«.�, �,/�s, I �� Y � (; ,,i-, �f �.� c��-�',� �C�s� � c `f� � �� Z /LC.�'� � �7 1/ Gv� �� %Y ti 2. c, l �_ � � 1�/ p f / -S I/L�-rJ Gc� �ta..� �tiE �E V Y�,r' /t-�Y��d -f�� '� �. . , �Jti'�'l ' . �II d V V "a-/ . . �J . ... iL2. c c.ti.�'-f . . /-� �`.. f � G�.�x.. � GcJc2/J . .. . ��-�� , �'�� % � �.� , / �tic �� 77�u .� �� . � � �e �� ,�,-,,, •� ��-,� �`�' � ��.�� `1��- ,. ` � �. �✓ � � 1�,� r-�� ✓-�c c � l /�.�. ,c,e �. c _ � �Vai �1'ail Associa# Creators a�d Operators of Vail ,�nd C Ms. Kristan Pritz Town of Vail 175 South Frontage Road 47est Vail, Cclorado 81657 RE: View Corridor Ordinance Dear Kristan, l. -- � � \ � , ^��-� �'��-.y` �. � . � , Inc. Creel.-� Resores November 15, 1991 Vail Associates is opposed to th� view corridor ordinance as currently written. Our concerns a e: o The ordinance does not providelfor a variance process. o Legal descriptions for the pre�iously adopted view corridors are not provided. , o No legal description is provid d for the proposed Frivolous Sals view corridor. 4�e are u able to determine what the impact of the view corrid r would be on the Christiana lot. ��7e believe that the ordinance should ot go to second reading until the affected property owners ha e the information ne2ded to determine exactly what tne impacts would be. We ask that the town table the ordinance until th needed information can' be supplied to us. In May we were le to believe that legal descriptions would be provided as par of the process. The ordinance appears to require them. T date, none nave been provided. Please call if you have any questions. - Sincerely, --� ,� � - ,�oe Macy v�� Manager � Mountain Planning JM/km cc: Gerry Arnold Nola Dyal Larry Eskwith Larry Lichliter Ron Phillips Pos� Office Box ;• Vail, Colorado 816�3 + USA —�303) 476-560( i � View Corridor Notification List Frivilous Sals --�--� Dan Corcor�n 949-1405 � Paul Johnston L`' =''t` �' � �� -� Jay Peterson 476-0092 r—�; Kristan Pritz ---� Ron Phillips `� - �'` � ....� Joe Macy � -� �� " ' �`'� 476-5601 �'�'� Gerri Arnold 476-Sb01 ---�' Jack Curtain 476-5542 ,a ,�� _ ,---�, /i��Rosenquist (Red Lion) �;:,�,tr _ �,��c, s — .. �,C�- �` � a�.c:..�,..��:__� ;�.... e s� . F ,,:�.�.�. . v v ��o.�a �a� �:w��w��9c � �1�. �--��.-�� , � ,. � �-� �� ► � �� ° � � 5 �-_ j, �� rU � , �� ,. , ; , ,. � t��:.� �. `,�a,..:��`.�;'�. � � �j� r` � '' �� u�� ; � � � +� �^4 � ��v, � � . �' -�-� �� t ,��.`�: ..� f? `i i , � km�. �",w„�. � , ; . � ��'�`�- �f ��,,, � � r �.a� � f x'� �. �� 4� ; �,� � J _� ._��"��- : �� . `� � � �t� �� '� ,, � r�� ,,� � � , �. , � - ;�,,.:. �� ,�.A. , t1 �V� � i j �J 12:00 p.m 1:00 p.m. Jill Kammerer 2:00 p.m. Mike Mollica 2:20 p.m. 2:30 p.m. 2:35 p.m. Andy Knudtsen � � VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1991 12:OQ PM EXPANDED AGENDA 1. Executive Session: Personnel 2 � Presentation of Draft of Vail Housing f�uthority Business Plan. Action Requested of Council: Review draft document prior to work session. Backqround Rationale: Following sev�ral months of studying the issues surrounding and the methods df providing affordable housing, the Authority has developed its business plan. This pian sets forth the Authority's Mission Statement, goals, objectives, and strategies for approaching the lack of affordable housing problem over the next five (5) years. Foilowing review and discussion of the draft VNA busin ss plan document by Council, the Housing Authority will pr�ent the draft document to the community. � White River National Forest Service -'Oii and gas leasing U.S.F.S. Representatives: Bill Wood �nd Rick Phelps. Action Requested of Councii: Listen to the U.S.F.S. presentation and, if necessary, direct staff to draft � position letter to the Forest Service. (Please review the e closed U.S.F.S. information packe2.) Backqround Rationale: The Pianning and Environmental Commission's review of this program as on Monday, October 28, 1991. 4. PEC Report. 5. DRB Report. 6 View Corridors - Discussion of the pr�posed chapter in the zoning code regulating view corridors'` discussion of the proposed view corridor over the Red Lion and hristiania roofs, and discussion of an East Village Home �wners Association proposai for additional new view corridors. I Action Requested of Council: Staff r�quests Council discuss the three topics listed above and give fe dback to staff. Backqround Rationale: On May 7, 1 91, Council passed Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, o first reading. This ordinance adds a fifth corridor to the our already adopted by the Town. The new one starts next to F ivolous Sals and extends over the Red Lion and Christiania ro�fs to the Gore Range. The 1 � 3:15 p.m. Mike Mollica 3:45 p.m. Jiil Kammerer 3:55 p.m. Betsy Rosolack 4:00 p.m. Larry Eskwith � � ordinance also creates a new chapter of the zoning code for view corridor regulations. Presentiy, the regulations are iocated in the Urban Design Guidelines. Staff postponed the second reading of the ordinance until the leaves on the aspen trees adjacent to the Christiania had fallen. Now that a legai description over the Red Lion and Christiania roofs can be written, staff is prepa�ing to bring Ordinance No. 13., Series of 1991 to the November 19, 1991 evening meeting for second reading. The ordinance addresses the new section of the code and the new view corridor over the Red Lion, but does not address the East Viilage Homeowners Association proposal. Piease see the attached memo for more background information. Further Discussion of Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. Action Requested of Council: Provide staff with further direction on a few key areas of the Plan. Formai adoption of the Plan is scheduled for the November 19, 1991 evening meeting. Backqround Rationale: The Planning and Environmental Commission, at their October 28, 1991 public hearing, unanimously recommended approval of the adoption of the Streetscape Master Pian. Review of procedures for the notification of the expiration of conditionai use permit and variance approvals. Action Requested of Council: Review the three (3) alternatives presented and give direction to staff regarding procedure to be used in notifying applicants of the expiration of conditionai use permit and variance approvals. Backqround Rationale: Following discussion of this issue by Council at the October 8, 1991 work session, the Community Development Department staff has summarized the three alternatives discussed for final deliberation. If Council's recommended action requires changes to the zoning code, the staff will then proceed with impiementing the required modifications. Staff Recommendation: The staff recommendation is that the approval for a variance or conditional use wili be in effect for two (2) years. Please see attached memo. Request for The Chart House to proceed through the planning process with a sign variance request. Action Requested of Council: Grant or deny the request. Backqround Rationale: The Chart House would like to place a menu board on TOV land. The applicant would like permission to proceed through the planning process. The sign code requires signs be on the premises of the appiicant. Therefore, a sign variance wiil be necessary. Staff Recommendation: Grant request. 10. Renewal of The Wren Association Limited License Agreement. Action Requested of Council: Approve or deny the third renewal L_ _ --._ . TO: FROM: DATE: �J MEMORANDUM Town Council Community Development Depa�tment November t2, 1991 � SUBJECT: View Corridors - discussion of the proposed chapter i� regulating view corridors, discussion of the proposed Lion and Christiania roofs, a discussion of an East Vil Association proposal for a new view corridor. 1� m;�..,� �- � �'�; i �',�"";::� . v� �.�'� _ %��. �� r'–Cl 1 t the zoning code iew corridor over the Red age Homeowners _..., ... . _ . ,.,. , . , . . . �:> . . _ ,... ...» ,... The purpose of this •.=ession is to discuss the proposed view co�ridor ordinance prior to second reading, wr,'c' :�lanned for Tuesday, November 19, 1991.i Staff or'�ginally brought the ordinance (Orc ::•...:, No. t3, Series of 1991) to Council on Ma�j 7, 1991, which was adopted at first reading. This ordinance creates a new chapter in thle zoning code regulating view corridors and adopts a new view corridor which originates at th�e Frivolous Sals shop and extends east over the Christiania and Red Lion roofs to the Gore R�nge. During the discussion of the ordinance at first reading, the Council a�mended it in several locations. Staff has incorporated ail those changes into the text of the proposed ordinance. Before bringing it back to Councii for second reading, staff committe� to having a legai description written for the Christiania addition in the ordinance. Bec use aspen trees around the Christiania had leafed out at the time, surveyors were not abie t see the Christiania roof to write the legal description. Now that the leaves have fallen (and � few snowflakes, too), the boundaries of the proposed view corridor can be clearly seen and c n be measured by a surveyor. , In addition to having the survey work done for the proposed corrido improving the monumentation for the four existing view corridors. p being instalied for each of the view corridors at this time. Once the in the streets, a survey crew will update the meets and bounds des views. In some cases, the back sights used in the view corridors h vegetation. (A back sight point is used by a surveyor as a referenc legal description of the view.) Staff has chosen new back sights in should aiways be visible from the view point. The modifications to 1 technical and have no eflect on the actual views which are preservE the photographs for each corridor when they were adopted will rem staff has worked on monument survey box is nonument boxes are set riptions for each of the ve been obscured by point for determining the �cations where they ie legai descriptions are i. The views shown in in the same. During the discussion at first reading, Council directed staff to write legal description for the Christiania which would accommodate the proposed adtlition. Staff had originaily stated in the ordinance that the legai description would be written after the Christania expansion was completed. Around the time of first reading, it became apparent th�t the Christiania expansion �j,: �\' �. i; . %� -a- ��,�, `'�+-.^�' . i /`f_ t,y�, 1 i i- . ----�'_``..._ � � ! >,` i.� �`.: ��'=1:� � � � ��_ /� ,' ,�; `- Y.0 , `f'' ��.�� .C- .._f ,f�`i' �'+ . �' � > z �R � f,�="",� e �. .� s�_, i-�c_. .f J ��?9 ��i.-!1'f.i. . _.... . .. ... .!¢.'f.r lLC._c� � _ _ f 4 . C'�'c, d! yr l_ e`%`'_ A /! � a . _ .�� _ , _ ;: �.s,;, , ...:.f� Y �� i ` :. � �.�.. . . .� � �,,,-�:;1� , i ' s � . � �,f,' `� � f < <.t.., �� r �<,� r,,'� � A r'`� ', \ "CL ) ,r - ;,,,�. /,` \ _� _, , c....., t l�u.__, ' L � .:� .. .. / 9 ��/ . 1 � —� 1 ___ I �� mA�Y � . � would not occur during the summer of 1991. As a result, Couna{ directed the staff to wrlte a legal description in such a way that it would ailow the addition to be buiit in the future. Staff has discussed this idea with Kurt Segerberg, the architect who designed the expansion, and Dan Corcoran, the surveyor doing the view corridor work. When staff walked the site (and roof} with both gentlemen, it was determined that it would be extremely difficuit to write a legal description based on a hypothetical ridge line. It would require up to a dozen individuals standing on the existing Christian+a roof holding poles at certain heights, at certain locations, representing the proposed roof. The fact that the proposed ridges do not line up with the existing ridges complicates the situation. Furthermore, the exisGng roof is a standard shed while the proposed roof is a combination of shed, 8at and parapet. it is highiy uniikely that the proposed legaf description would be accurate based on these dozen ar so points refiecting different kinds of roofs eievated certain distances above the exis6ng roof. Staff is proposing, instead, that Council adopt the new view corridor based on the existing ridges of the , i Christiania, with the understanding that the addition may be built per the approved plans. _—_ ;:` � -- �� The language in the proposed ordinance for second reading specifically states that ' development proposals which have been approved at the time of the second reading of this ordinance may be built. Paul Johnston, the applicant on the already-approved Christiania expansion, would be responsible for keeping this approval current. DRB approvals expire one year after the date of the approval. Similarly, a variance approval expires one year after the date of the PEC approval. Applicants may request, in writing, extensions of these approvais, and the Town, in most cases, has granted the extensions. Paul would have to take the , responsibility for extending the approvals until construction. After construction, the Town would have to re-write the legal description for this corridor. �- �-- -•, Staff believes this is a m�ch simpler way to adopt the corridor and, at the same time, ailow , the Ghristiania addition. It is staff's understanding that there is Council support for aliowing ! the Christiania expansion to take place. It is just a matter of identitying a process for adopting ; a view corridor which ailows the expansion. The issue of the Christiania roof is, in staff's opinion, the only policy decis+on on which staff needs input from the Council. All of the other changes which Council directed staff to make have been incorporated into the ordinance. 5taff would appreciate a review of the ordinance to ensure that it reads as Council wou{d like it to. The last issue which staff wouid like to receive input regarding a proposal made by the East Viilage Homeowners Association. Staff has included the photographs showing what areas would be restricted and what views would be preserved. Jim Lamont, the Association's representative, will be present at the worksession to answer any questions the Council may have. The photographs, which are attached, were submitted to the Town with a letter from Robert Gaivin dated October 25, 1991. Staff believes it is important to point out that this Council packet includes information addressing some of the specific points in his letter. The March 11, 1991 letter from Peter Rudy is included for the Council's information. Soon after the Town received the letter, staff requested photographs be submitted to accompany the written descriptions of the proposed views in order to better understand what the Association was proposing. E� i � • • It +s important to point out that the Frivolous Sals view corridor was dpcumented as a potential view corridor in some of the originai work done by the 7own. Discus�ion of adopting this view corridor was re-initiated when the Red Lion remodel was approved. �taff has been.working on this view corridor based on the direction given by ihe Planning an¢! Environmental Commission and Town Council during the reviews of the Red Lion. here is no intention to dedicate staff time to one view corridor over another arbitrari(y. We �re following up on a view corridor thai was proposed during the Red Lion review process. � Now that photographs have been submitted, staff has some general reliminary comments on the proposed view corridor. Staft believes that the East Village Hom owners /Lssociation proposal does not necessarily conflict with the Frivolous Sals view c rridor proposal. Both corridors are related, and both corridors preserve views over some o� the same buildings. Staff believes that view corridors do an excellent job of preserving th� presence of Vail's beautifui, natural environment in the core areas. The East village co rrdor essentiaily limits any additionai expansion for most buildings in the East Village area �(ong Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. In order to adopt these view corridors,';affected property owners need to be involved in the process. There is always a balance to be�, struck between the public good and private development potential. In the future, when s�aff can accommodate additional projects, we would like to work on view corridors in Lionshi ad and the Village, and will certainly analyze this proposed view. , 3 � � � �- , � � � ; ;� : �.� ��,' �, . I ��I .. -�--__ --- � _ . ; Horizontai Anqle ; 356°O8'35" ; 1 I I •w��r.r]^�_: f i 000°31'36" 001 °48'10" 003°14'A2" 007°56'03" 013°30'31' 013°38'14' 012°55'17" 014°44'21" 0 Zenith Anqle $1°02'17" $3°Q2�:}'i" 82°5�'27'. 85° 17'34" 85° 17'40" 85° 11 '32" 85°11'32" 78°48'35" 78°14'51" 73° 13'39" I � � Foresiqht Point on Photo A- point on horizon left o the chimney on Pepi's roof B- m :ion of sc � st ed��e c`' ,_ � �� Pepi � � c iiir:e C- so!�thern end of gable n Pepi's roof �1 - intarsection of rarthe�l ext2nsien of G;::such's roof line and Peoi's roof D2 - north end of Gorsuch' roof D3 - south end of Gorsuch s roof E- intersection of southerl extension of gorsuch's root line and brick pi{{ar onlLazier Arcade Building / Wail Street Building , F- intersection of face of stucco and eve line on Lazier Arcade Building / WI II Street Building G- top of facia on northeas corner of roof on Lazier Arcade Building / Wall Street Building H- top of roof on Lazier Arcade Building / Wail Street Building 18.73.030 - Limitations on Construction �, No structure shali be permitted to encroach above the view corridor boundary identified with thelegal descriptions in Section 18J3.020 which are graphicaily re resented by the dashed �--�- �-- "��_-_� "� �_ tape on each of the adopted photographs. p es of the photographs a d legai descriptions are on file with the Community Development Department. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term , structure shail include, but not be limited to, new buildings, building expai�sions, decks, remodels, ��f �� ' mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, sateilite dishes, fences, stoplights� light poles, utility poles, <f- ,,skylights or any similar object. �' �r 18J3.040 - Mass and Bulk Controls ' A. Pro osed Buiidin Ex ansions in the Vicini of Existin �Encroachments When any proposed structure would infringe upon a Town of aii view corridor, but is tocated in front of or behind another structure which already encroaches into the same view corridor, the new structure shafi not be permitted. II B. Heiqht Control Within an Adopted View Corridor ' If the maximum height ailowed by the zoning code exceeds the esulting height fimitation defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height regulation shall appfy. iV:n t- ,>- � , : ;`s�' � ,,� �i, ,. ,� �' � i��' � � � . C. Proposed Remodels of Buildinqs with Existinq Encroachment_s_ , Pre-existing encroachments in view corridors shail not be expanded or enlarged to create further e�croachment. Any existing encroachments wili be encouraged to be removed as part afi any ma;�r bui,di�g r€_m��et, bxre�,! scr identified focal points, su::h es the Cf^c;i< Tovr�r 2,r�d Rucksack Tower. 18 73 050 - Submi�tal Requirements for Additional View Corridors or Amendments to Existing View Corridors The following information shall be provided by the applicant with any proposed view corridor or with a Design Review Board application, exterior alteration application, variance application, or any other application that may result in an amendment to an existing view corridor, so that the Community Development Department can properly evaluate the impacts of a proposed view corridor or proposed structure within an existing view corridor. A. A written statement addressing the criteria shown below. Specifically, the applicant must show how the proposed view corridor or the amendment to an existing view corridor: 1. Protects and perpetuates certain panoramic mountain views from various pedestrian/pubiic ways within the Town, and that this protection is in the public interest and wiil foster civic pride and the general weifare of the people of the Town of Vail; 2. Preserves the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; 3. Enhances the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; 4. Protects and enhances the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors, 5. Promotes good design and wiil provide for natural light in the buildings and pub(ic spaces in the vicinity of the view corridor, 6. Protects a view which is commonly recognized and has inherent qualities which make it more valuable to the Town than other more common views. 7. For an amendment to an existing view corrfdor, the applicant must � �.,;:r . !�' ` , ` i fG.t , Fx-ll�: t h-L:1 st �tv� ;S v ) c.f. S`�-�-,1""�1? show: , G�.r::,y , _ - �� . P' � ; f � . 7 +l � �,�1/`� �� a• r7")a�i �f'�;p��s�e ch � g�� rrtl'��ot ;dr etical�y��lmici,istr�� 2 f�� /'. f ',,�i�/r�,�� - � , i° v�e�ty�hf�h i+�-�7ro � nd � �,,.��.4<ti,�/ b. That the public will benefit from the modifications. � y�.,�; 8 � A. A view from the south side of the Vail T pedestrian stairway looking toward the ski slopes; View Point #1 Instrument - View Point #1 Backsight - Traverse Point #1 Height of instrument above View Point #1 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Legal Descriptfons Being Updated a B. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski s street,the Golden Peak Building, and 311 Bridge Street, the Hill Build View Point #2 Instrument - View Point #2 Backsight - View Point #4 Height of Instrument Above View Point #2 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Legai Descriptions Being Updated Center from ihe main �:n between 228 Bridge C. The northeast corner of 244 Wall Street, the One Vail Place �uilding, looking over the roofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Lion, and 356 Hanson Ranch Ro�d, the Christiania, towar the Gore Ra�ge.� description shown below is based on the e isti� ction shown __ _ „- - - _ ._ _.. _.._�----' in the photograph. The adoption ' view corridor shal! eclu e the construction of any `. � �� ;,_ �:� . � Idevelopment proposal which has receiv e view Board �pproval as of the effective i date of the ordinance,,.l#�rf'appr� pses, the right to const uct tN� o ment shall be void. A _ ' ` `=4 , � "' � j -' n. � '� � � �t '{ ` �,. � f � . �. li u , +,!i.l� "� 1 � �, ; � ��; s i -�'yL �� ; � 3 - i � �� L/ Y.i � �'� � t,��'^ 1,:� `� 1 ��-� � ��t,•�� . � l �*�'`' ��:� r� �. l � ,�,�. ., . , �� .�� I � ,�C' ' �;_� Y� - ,,, j ��' �� lt�ti ��til�. �_ �rr��„ . . ,a ,o�'�. f t _ _ _ � � View Point #4 Instrument - View Point #4 Backsight - To Be Determined Height of Instrument Above View Point #4 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 50 mm D. View of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Mill Creek Court Building; View Point #5 Instrument - View Point #5 Backsight - Focal Point #1 Height of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Legal Descriptions Being Updated E. Looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between retail shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at Vail, and 193 Gore Creek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza Buiiding. View Point #6 Instrument - View Point #6 Backsight - Traverse Point #2 Height of Instrument Above View Point #6 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Legai Descriptions Being Updated 18.73.030 - Limitations on Construction No structure shall be permitted to encroach above the view corridor boundary identified with the dashed tape set forth on each of the adopted photographs. The boundaries are determined by the legal descriptions listed in Section 18.73A20. Copies of the photographs and � I legaf descriptions are on file with the Community Development Department. For the purposes i 4 � �r s of this Chapter, the term structure shall include, but not be limited t, new buiidings, building expansions, decks, remodeis, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts sateilite dishes, lences, stoplights, light poles, utility poles, skylights or any similar object, 18J3.040 - Mass and Bulk Controis �� A. Pro osed Buiidin Ex ansions in the Vicini of Existin Encroachments When any proposed structure infringes upon a Town of Vail viiew corridor, but is located in front of or behind another structure which already encroaches into t e same view corridor, the new structure shali not be permitted. B. View Corridor Height Control If the maximum height aliowed by the zoning code exceeds th resulting height limitation defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height regulation sh II apply. C. Pro osed Remodels oi Buildin s with Existin Encroa hments Pre-existing encroachments in view corridors shall not be exp nded or enlarged to create further encroachment. Any existing encroachments will be encoura ed to be removed as part of any major building remodel, except for identified focal points, such s the Clock Tower and Bell Tower. I 18.73.050 - Submittal Requirements The following information shall be submitted along with appiication, exterior alteration application, any variance application, o may pertain to view corridors, so that the Town staff can properly e� compiies with this view corridor chapter: A. Existing and proposed elevations of the development; B. Photographs taken from the adopted view point v� improvements which protrude into, or are in the vicinity of the vie representation on the photographs of how the proposed improvemei to existing impr e rridor boundaries. Photograpt taken fr the me point used to define � e corridor, with the sa � � camer�et at a- of-5.4-feet above pavement. C. cess ommunity Development Departr overlays, sketches, or other submittal materials which show the po could have upon the protected view corridor if constructed. : a Design Review Board r any other application that aluate whether a structure ch indicate the present corrid , and a„grap ; will ear,�iE#;relatio to be submi e must be ; lens size, and with fhe may require models, a! impact the structure � � i; . 18.73.060 - Amendments and Appeals `"� " <.i> • �� F .( I 40. {: . A. Amendments f '- -t,,.� �.i No variance shali be permitted to any provis+on of this chapter 18.73. The provisions of this chapter, including the fegal descriptions and photographs of the designated view corridors, shail oniy be amended in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66. i 70 of this code. B. Appeais If a determination is made by staff that a proposed structure would encroach into an adopted view corridor, the appiicant may appeal the determination to the Planning and _.....z�'��. Environmental Commission, accordin ,�i8,66.030. �d�� , .w.._�..a..,..,,_ �,.�.,x W> __ ....�_...... .....:.: ..,_, ---�-�«.,��.�,:>:��,�..:,.�.:...m. ,.,:,..>.�,.�,�...�. �,;° " A structure which is presently located in an adopted view corridor may remain and, ii � ` destroyed by naturai causes, may be replaced to its current size and height, provided such reconstruction takes place within one year following destruction. However, no structures which are located within a designated view corridor on the effective date of this ordinance shall be � per 'Ste lar e the area of the structure which is located within the vi,��rr?�Yor. �' , � . _ �.._....�- � �"' . _.�.,._a.______ ..�._. . f / � � _,.e,�^^�'�'`� jz Jj-t<_>%,� � ,.. � ..u;.�:.._-,.:.._._..._._.....,.._._e.-. _, �,.� � t� .+ ..1 � i/ i.v�..��i— Q `'' . ,� ��> t�.i , I � , `:q� ' �,3'..t- °-' � '___.—_" I a � � ff � t ��+ '� �� S(,.t�� _ �?_,.; . r ti . -��^ �'` Section 3 � ° =-��*-` L-�=~ ` ;� i ... ` ---- - ;' r"' if any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any .: '� �:�i��`�9 reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of - _ <( this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordi�ance, and - each part, section, subsection, sentence> clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and deciares that this ordinance is necessary � '� and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. i Section 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipai Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any 6 � � other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressiy st sion repealed or repealed ve any provision or any herein. Section 6 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,li inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall �hot be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore epealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AN ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public he ring shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Coloradq in the Municipal Building of the Town. I ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Cterk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND RE� this day o ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 7 i� Kent R. Rose, May�or I, �- * � �Ew'D NOV G 1 i y 91 �]CBi 5�6�5300 ROBERT W. GALVIN IS�3 EAS' ��GCNGU�N RO<O SCHAUMBURG. ILLINOIS 60�96-�065 October 25, 1991 Nlayor Kent Rose Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mayor and Town Council Members: I am most seriousiy concemed with the progress that has been made concerning the East Village Homeowners Association request to establish a view corridor for the East Village. On March I1, 1991 the East Village Homeowners Association submitted a letter to the Town of Vail, regarding amendments to the View Corridor Ordinance #13, Se- ries 1983 (see attachment). The letter was submitted to the Community Develop- ment Department in conjunction with a public hearing being conducted by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The public hearing concerned amendments to the View Corridor Ordinance. The Homeowners Association's letter requested that cenain view corridors be es- tablished for the Easi Village neiohborhood. 7'he view corridors bcing requesled had a direct bearing and re)ationship to the Frivolous Sals (Christiania) View Corridor under consideration in the proposed amendment. To ouc knowledgc the Plannino and Environmental Commission did not acknowledge or respond to our requcst nor did the Community Development DepaRment staff. A second public hearing was conducted by the Planning and Environmental Commission on April 22, 1991. At that meeting our March 11, 199] letter was not presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission in the accompanying staff inemorandum nor was therc mcntion of the conflicts which existed betwecn the Homeowners Association's rcques�s and that being made by the Chris[iania Lod�e. Te eu: i:nc�:��cdge ne ackno�:�ledgem�.^.: or .�spense te ^�_r reqeest ��'s forthcoming. On May 7, 1991 at a rcoular mceting of the Vail Town Council the First rcading of Ordir.ance No. 13, Series 1941 tiv�s cenducted. At that meeting the Horr.:�wners As- sociation's March 11, 1991 ]etter was not presented ro the Town Council, nor was there a mention of the letter by the planning slaff. The accompanying s[aff memorandum and presentation made no mention of the con}licts which existed betwecn the Homcowncrs Association's requests and the proposal bcing made by the Christiania Lodgc. In my July and August ]991 lettcrs to you and the Town Council I reiterated the Homcowners Associatinn's request �o estab)ish view corridors in the public inter- est from the public streets of the East Village neighborhood. ❑ Mayor Kent Rose October 25, l99] Page Two � A Scptember 4, 1991 Ictter from the Community Developm nt Director, Kristan Pritz indicated that there wcre problems with monumenta ion and budgetary consideration affiliated with the Homeowners Association' request. Subsequent to receipt of this letter I authorized an expend ture that provided for the documen[ation of the East Villa�e View Corridor. The documentation �.t�as for- warded to the Town Council on October 1, 1991. The docu entation that was sub- mitted conforms to standards set forth in the View Cerrido Ordinance and are the same as those provided by others sceking to adopt or amen a view corridor. As a result of this eflort it was found that the monumenta ion problem referred to in the Director's letter is the result of deficiencies in the survey information providcd in the 1933 originating ordinance. The ordinanc neglects to provide surveying documentation that atlows for the viewpoin�, th survey point from which all view alignment sightings aro taken, to be located ]t is my understand- ing that any party wishing ro locate the viewpoint must do so by agreement with the s�rve}or who conducted the original survey. This �rr ngement does not ap- pear to serve the public interest. In an article rcgarding view corridors that appeared in the ay 9, 1941 Vail Daily (see attached), I note that the Town Council urged the tow staff to proceed with the necessary studies that would provide for thc adoption f additional view corri- dors. In the anicle I do no[ notc any discussion re�ardin limitation imposed on the project due to budoctary constraints. In an October 10, 1991 letter from the Communiiy Development Director concern- ing our continuing application to establish the East Village View Corridor, we are told that considcration will be gi�en when fur,ds are a�•ai] ble to "study" new view corridors in the Villa�e area. Howevcr, thc Christiania (F ivolous Sals) will be brouehc before the Town Council des�ite the apparent co flic[ with our request. It is the "further swdy" position of the Community Devcl pment Director that give me most serious conccrn. 1 am troubled by the thought t at the Christiania View Corridor can be approved without adequate study of the c fects upon thc proposed East Villa^_c View Corridor when there is an obvious int rrclationship. It is my urderstanding the scope of study required to eva falls fully witfiin the professional competency of the towr do not a�ree thae consideration of our proposed view corr because of an i11-defined need for a larger vicw corridor s that interrelated view corridors should be considered at th rately as is bcing realized undcr thc present circumstanc uate a view cor:idor s planning staff. We dor should be delayed udy. It is our position : same timc, not sepa- °s. • � M�vor Kent Rose Octobcr 25, 1991 Paoc Three The proposed East Village View Corridor preserves far more than the Christiania Corridor. Thc East Village Vicw Corridor would preserve views of the Gore Range, Red Star.dstone Mountain and Vail Vitlage, Golden Peak, and Vail Mountain with the Vista Bahn. 1 am concerned that the Town Cour.ci! h�s not been given noti�e or adequate in- formation to make an informed judgement with regards to the conflicts between these two proposals. Through our efforts to provide the Town Council with information regarding the East Village View Corridor, it has bcen our intent to demonstrate to the Town I Councii that there is intrinsic value in the public interest, to preserve the pan- oramic views from the East Village neighborhood. Thus far we do not believe we I have been givcn an opponunity to do so. I Again, I ask your timely revicw of our requcsts prior [o your final consideration , � of the Christiania (Frivolous Sa1s) View Corridor. Best 'wishes, /^ � i � i�. "�.[ :/�% �-�i. � Roben W. Galvin President E�st Village Nomeowners Association RWG:ch Attachment cc: Larry Eskwith, Town Attorncy Town Council Mcmbcrs ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - .rt L:.rtO��T__- 0 93d275g�� . _ � � ' � � . r \ �. �... . �' Peter Harn.s Rudy .taomry and Cowcutlor rst Law Su:te 214, Vaii NaLoaai Ban:ti ]08 Sou�'� Pronrage Road Vail, Colorado 8165; t303) 4; b-88b5 FAX (303) 476-1645 March 11, 1991 Planninq and �nvironr�ental Commission Town of Vail 75 Scutn Frontaqe Road West Vdil, CO 81657 RE: Request for Additional View Cor:idors, A�,�endment to ozdinance 13� 1983 I� Dear Planning and Environmental Co:n�ission Me ers: Z represent the East Viliage Homeow2iers ssociation, a newly fcr�ed association of homeowners in the Gore reek Drive neigh- barhood. The East Village Homeowners Association equests that the �own council and the Planning and Er.vironment 1 Commission ir.ciude :`:e following additional view corrido s in the amendment o: Ordir,ance No. 13, 1983 now under considerakion by the Town of Vail. ' 1. The view to be protected extends to the South from the North right-of-way line of Gare Creek Drive. 2. The vieW to be protected extends��to the West from the Ncrth right-oS-way line of Gore Creek Drive and the South right-of-way line oi Hansen anch Road. i�;rt::er, we request that the terms of t e Amendment provide t:at this anendmer.t to Ordinance Nc. 13, 198 become effective upon signature by the Mayor or the soonest d te as provided fo: in the Vail Towr. Charter. �� Since y, / � er _ris Rudy cc: East village Ho:.*,eowners Association ' � MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 12, 1991 � SUBJECT: View Corridors - discussion of the proposed chapter in the zoning code regulating view corridors, discussion of the proposed view corridor over the Red Lion and Christiania roofs, a discussion of an East Village Homeowners Association proposal for a new view corridor. -- - - - -- - - - - -- ;�:;:;<�::::::•<:::>:::��:��<_:>::;;_::::::::;»'::�=�<;:;1:��.i<:<`<;:;;;>«>:::;>��5::><::>:f:<:>:;>:�<':>?::::`:;':;<:::;;;:>; The purpose of this worksession is to discuss the proposed view corridor ordinance prior to second reading, which is planned for Tuesday, November 19, 1991. Staff originally brought the ordinance {Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991} to Council on May 7, 1991, which was adopted at first reading. This ordinance creates a new chapter in the zoning code regulating view corridors and adopts a new view corridor which originates at the Frivolous Sals shop and extends east over the Christiania and Red Lion roofs to the Gore Range. During the discussion of the ordinance at first reading, the Council amended it in several locations. Staff has incorporated all those changes into the text of the proposed ordinance. Before bringing it back to Council for second reading, staff committed to having a legal description written for the Christiania addition in the ordinance. Because aspen trees around the Christiania had leafed out at the time, surveyors were not able to see the Christiania roof to write the legal description. Now that the leaves have fallen (and a few snowflakes, too}, the boundaries of the proposed view corridor can be clearly seen and can be measured by a surveyor. In addition to having the survey work done for the proposed corridor, staff has worked on improving the monumentation for the tour existing view corridors. A monument sunrey box is being installed for each of the view corridors at this time. Once the monument boxes are set in the streets, a survey crew will update the meets and bounds descriptions for each of the views. In some cases, the back sights used in the view corridors have been obscured by vegetation. (A back sight point is used by a surveyor as a reference point for determining the legal description of the view.) Staff has chosen new back sights in locations where they should always be visible from the view point. The modifications to the legal desc�iptions are technicaf and have no effect on the actual views which are preserved. The views shown in the photographs for each corridor when they were adopted will remain the same. During the discussion at first reading, Council directed staff to write a legal description for the Christiania which would accommodate the proposed addition. Staff had originally stated in the ordinance that the legal description would be written after the Christiania expansion was completed. Around the time of first reading, it became apparent that the Christiania expansion � �� would not occur during the summer of 199i. As a res�lt, Council directed the staff to write a legal description in such a way that it would allow the ddition to be built in tne future. Staff has discussed this idea with Kurt Segerberg, the archi ect who designed the expansion, and Dan Corcoran, the surveyor doing the view corridor w rk. When staff walked the site (and roof) with both gentlemen, it was determined that it w uld be extremely difficult to write a legal description based on a hypothetical ridge line. It woul require up to a dozen individuals standing on the existing Christiania roof holding poies t certain heights, at certain locations, representing the proposed roof. The fact that the pro osed ridges do not line up with the existing ridges complicates the situation. Furthermore� the existing roof is a standard shed while the proposed roof is a combina#ion of shed, flat nd parapet. It is highly unlikely that the proposed legal description would be accurate based o� these dozen or so points reflecting different kinds of roofs elevated certain distances abov�e the existing roof. Staff is proposing, instead, that Council adopt the new view corridor base!d on the existing ridges of the Christiania, with the understanding that the addition m�y be built per the approved plans. The language in the proposed ordinance for second r ading specifically states that development proposals which have been approved at�he time of the second reading of this ordinance may be built. Paul Johnston, the applicant pn the already-approved Christiania expansion, would be responsible for keeping this apprmval current. DRB approvals expire one year after the date of the approval. Similarly, a varianee approval expires one year after the date of the PEC approval. Applicants may request, in writing, extensions of these approvals, and the Town, in most cases, has granted the extensi�ns. Paul would have to take the responsibility for extending the approvals until constru�tion. After construction, the Town would have to re-write the legal description for this cor�idor. Staff believes this is a much simpler way to adopt the the Christiania addition. It is staff's understanding th� the Christiania expansion to take place. It is just a m a view corridor which allows the expansion. The issu opinion, the only policy decision on which staff needs changes which Council directed staff to make have bE Staff would appreciate a review of the ordinance to er it to. :orridor and, at the same time, allow there is Council support for allowing ter of identifying a process for adopting of the Christiania roof is, in staff's �put from the Council. All of the other n incorporated into the ordinance. ure that it reads as Council would like The (ast issue which staff wauld like to receive input r garding a proposal made by the East Village Homeowners Association. Staff has included t e photographs showing what areas would be restricted and what views would be preserve . Jim Lamont, the Association's representative, will be present at the worksession to aMSwer any questions the Council may have. The photographs, which are attached, were su mitted to the Town with a letter from Robert Galvin dated October 25, 1991. Staff believes�it is important to point out that this Council packet includes iniormation addressing some pf the specific points in his letter. The March 11, 1991 letter from Peter Rudy is includec after the Town received the letter, staff requested phoi the written descriptions of the proposed views in order Association was proposing. 2 for the Council's information. Soon �graphs be submitted to accompany to better understand what the 0 � � It is important to point out that the Frivolous Sals view corridor was documented as a potential view corridor in some of the original work done by the Town. D'+scussion of adop#ing this vie�N corridor was re-initiated when the Red �ion remodel was approved. Staff has been working on this view corridor based on the direction given by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council during the reviews of the Red Lion. There is no intention to dedicate staff time to one view corridor over another arbitrarily. We are following up on a view corridor that was proposed during the Red Lion review process. Now that photographs have been submitted, staff has some gen�ral preliminary comments on the proposed view corridor. Staff believes that the East ViNage Homeowners Association proposal does not necessarily conflict with the Frivolous Sals view corridor proposal. Both corridors are related, and both corridors preserve views over some of the same buildings. Staff believes that view corridors do an excellent job of preserving the presence of Vail's beautifui, natural environment in the core areas. The East village corridor essentially limits any additional expansion for most buildings in the East Village area along Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. In order to adopt these view corridors, affected property owners need to be involved in the process. There is always a balance to be struck between the public good and private development potential. In the future, when staff can accommodate additional projects, we would like to work on view corridors in Lionshead and the Village, and will certainly analyze this proposed view. 3 � � ORDINANCE NO. 13 Series of 1991 AN ORDiNANCE AMENDING SECTION G OF THE VAI�VILLAGE URBAN DE51GN CONSIDERATIONS RELATING T THE PROTECTiON OF VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN OF V IL AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MUNICIPAL; CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PRaITECTiON OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN AND SEtfTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERET� WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the prese�vation of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of Vail as a mountain resor� community; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect and enhancel the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enh,ance the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS the amendment will more ciearly identify exis�ing view corridors and development procedures for the public's benefit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COU�JCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modif�ed to read as follows: Paraqraph G Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity� Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain buil�li�g features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. ', � The most significant and obvious view corridors have been ado ted as part of the Design Review standards in Chapter 18.73 of the Vaii Municipal Code. Th view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a developmen proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views. Views hat should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public plazas, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, or the Clock Tower. The views of the sk� slopes and of the Clock Tower, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to t�eir significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points �or pedestrians. a � � Development in the Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vaii Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways must be identified and mitigated where needed. Section 2 Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as follows: Chapter 18J3 - View Corridors 18.73.010 - Purpose A. The protection and perpetuation of certain panoramic mountain views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town is required in the interests of posterity, civic pride and the general welfare of the people of the Town of Vail; i B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain existing panoramic � mountain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the citizens and visitors to ', the Town; ; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique I ! environmental heritage and attributes; ; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality i � and values of the Town; i E. The preservation of such views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; F. The preservation of such views will promote good design and will provide for i natural light in the buildings and public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors. 18.73.020 - Adoqtion of View Corridor Leqal Descriptions and Photoqraphs The photographs on record with the Community Development Department and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. 2 � A. A view from the souih side of the Vail T pedestrian stairway looking toward the ski slopes; View Point #1 Instrument - View Point #1 Backsight - Traverse Point #1 Height of instrument above View Point #1 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm legal Descriptions Being Updated C� B. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski s street,the Golden Peak Building, and 311 Bridge Street, the Hill Buildl View Point #2 Instrument - View Point #2 Backsight - View Point #4 Height of Instrument Above View Point #2 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Legal Descriptions Being Updated C. The northeast corner of 244 Wall Street, the One Vaif Place ! roofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Lion, and 356 Hanson Ranch Roa the Gore Range. The legal description shown below is based on the ex in the photograph. The adoption of this view corridor shall not precluc development proposal which has received final Design Review Board a date of the ordinance. If an approval lapses, the right to construct the d 3 _ I i Center from the main between 228 Bridge �� tuilding, looking over the �, the Christiania, toward isting construction shown e the construction of any �provai as of the effective �velopment shall be void. � � View Point #4 Instrument - View Point #4 Backsight - To Be Determined Height of Instrument Above View Point #4 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 50 mm D. View of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Mill Creek Court Building; View Point #5 Instrument - View Point #5 Backsight - Focal Point #1 Height of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Legal Descrlptions Being Updated E. Looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between retail shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at Vail, and 193 Gore Creek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza Building. View Point #6 Instrument - View Point #6 Backsight - Traverse Point #2 ' Height of Instrument Above View Point #6 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm , Legal Descriptions Being Updated 18.73.030 - Limitations on Construction No structure shall be permitted to encroach above the view corridor boundary identified with the dashed tape set forth on each of the adopted photographs. The boundaries are determined by the legal descriptions listed in Section 18.73.020. Copies of the photographs and legal descriptions are on file with the Community Development Department. For the purposes 4 A� ! of this Chapter, the term structure shall include, but not be limited tc expansions, decks, remodels, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, stoplights, light poles, utility poles, skylights or any similar object. 18.73.040 - Mass and Buik Controls A. Pro�osed Buildina Exnansions in the Vicinitv of Ex When any proposed structure infringes upon a Town of Vaii in front of or behind another structure which already encroaches into new structure shall not be permitted. B. View Corridor Heiqht Control If the maximum height aliowed by the zoning code exceeds the new buildings, building dishes, fences, corridor, but is located same view corridor, the ng height limitation defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height regulation sha�l apply. C. Pre-existing encroachments in view corridors shall not be expan�ied or enlarged to create further encroachment. Any existing encroachments wili be encouraged to be removed as part of any major building remodel, except for identified focal points, such as the Clock Tower and Bell Tower. 18.73.050 - Submittal Requirements The following information shall be submitted along with � application, exterior alteration application, any variance application, or may pertain to view corridors, so that the Town staff can properfy complies with this view corridor chapter: A. Existing and proposed eleva6ons of the development B. Photographs taken from the adopted view point wh improvements which protrude into, or are in the vicinity of the vie� representation on the photographs of how the proposed improvement; to existing improvements and view corridor boundaries. Photographs Design Review Board iy other application that ate whether a structure ;h indicate the present corridor, and a graphic wifl appear with relation o be submitted must be taken from the same point used to define the corridor, with the sam$ lens size, and with the camera set at a height of 5.4 feet above the pavement. �I C. If necessary, the Community Development Departme t may require modeis, overlays, sketches, or other submittal materials which show the pote tial impact the structure could have upon the protected view corridor if constructed. 5 !, • � 18.73.060 - Amendments and Appeals A. Amendments No variance shall be permitted to any provision of this chapter i8.73. The provisions of this chapter, including the legal descriptions and photographs of the designated view corridors, shall only be amended in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.170 of this code. B. Appeals If a determination is made by staff that a proposed structure would encroach into an adopted view corridor, the appiicant may appeal the determination to the Pianning and Environmental Commission, according to Section 18.66.030. 18.73.070 - Exemptions A structure which is presently located in an adopted view corridor may rema+n and, if destroyed by natural causes, may be replaced to its current size and height, provided such reconstruction takes place within one year following destruction. However, no structures which are located within a designated view corridor on the effective date of this ordinance shall be permitted to expand or enlarge the area of the structure which is located within the view corridor. Section 3 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, a�d each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeai or the repeai and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any dury imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any , � � other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provi ion repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revi e any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated erein. Section 6 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, , nconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall npt be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore r�pealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public he ring shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of',the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Buiiding of the Town. �I Kent R. Rose, ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk I READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDE�iED PUBLISHED this day of , 199�. ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 7 Kent R. Rose, u ROBERT W. GALViN . f3U3 EA`iT AL'�+�'ir1CUIN RGAD SCHAUMBURG. I�LINOIS 60196-1065 October Z5, 1991 Mayor Kent Rose Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mayor and Town Co�ncil Members: � ?If�'D N�+✓ ��; ; ;.;,�a �. t.y,�: i7Ci3i 572-5300 I am most seriously concerned with the pragress that has been made concerning the EasC Village Homeowners Association request to cstablish a vicw corridor for the East Village. On March 11, 1991 the East Village Homeowners Association submitted a lctter to the Town of Vail, regarding amendments to the View Corridor Ordinance #13, Se- ries 1983 (see attachment). The letter was submitted to the Community Develop- ment Department in conjunction with a public hearin� being conducted by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The public hearing concerned amendments to the View Corridor Ordinar,ce. The Homeowners Association's letter requested that certain view corridors be es- tablished for the East Village neighborhood. The view corridors being requested had a direct bearing and relationship to the �rivolous Sals (Christiania) View Corridor undcr consideration in the proposed amendment. To our knowledge the Planning and Environmental Commission did not acknowledge or respand to our request nor did the Community Development Department staff. A second public hearing was conducted by the Planning and Environmental Commission on April 22, 1991. At that meeting our March I1, 1991 letter was not presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission in the accompanying staff inemarandum nor was there mcntion of the conflicts which existed between the Homeowners Associa[ion'� ;equ�sts and that being made by the Christiania Z..iG�o�. TC C:1; i:TIC�:'ii.C�aC 710 S�,Ci�P.O�Y1��C:P.°.^.! OI ;�°rORSP �.0 O'.tI iP7�,_'?C� l��?$ . forthcoming. On May 7, 1991 at a rc;ular meeting of the Vail Town Council ihe first reading of Ordinance No. 13, Series 1991 �v:;s cenducted. At tha[ meeting the Hon.;:�wners As- sociation's March 11, 1991 letter was not presented to the Town Council, nor was there a mention of thc letter by the planning staff. The accompanying staff memorandum and prescntation made no mention of the conflicts which existed between the Homeowners Association's requests and the proposal bcing madc by the Christiania Lodgc. In my July and August 1991 Icttcrs to you and the Town Council I reiterate� t4?c Homeowners Association's reyucst to establish view corridors in �he public inter- cs� from the public streets of the East Village neighborhood. � Mayor Kent Rose October 25, 1991 Page Two A September 4, 1991 letter from the Commur Pritz indicated that there wcre problems wit consideration affiliated with the Homeowners ! � ty Development Director, Kristan monumentation and bud�etary Association's request. Subsequen[ to receipt of this letter I authoriz�d an expenditure that provided for the documentation of the East Villa�e View C rridor. The documentation �:�as far- warded to the Town Council on Ocrober 1, 199�. The documentation that was sub- mitted conforms to standards set forth in the 'View Corridor Ordinance and are thc same as those provided by othcrs sceking to a�opt or amend a view corridor. As a result of this effort it was found that in the Director's letter is the result of defic provided in the 1983 originating ordinance. surveying documentation that allows for the which all view alignment sightings are taken, ing tha[ any party wishing to locatc the vieu the sLrveyor who conducted the original sur� pear to serve the public interest. e monumentation problem refcrred to ncies in the survev information The ordinance neglects to provide �iewpoint, the survey point from o be located. It is my understand- oint must do so by agreement with y. This arrangement does not ap- In an article regarding view corridors that app ared in the May 9, 1991 VaiI Daily (see attached), I note that the Town Council u ged the town staff to proceed with the necessary studies that would provide for t:e adoption of additional view corri- dors. In the article I do not note any discus ion regarding limitation imposed on the project due to budgetary constraints. , In an October 10, 1991 letter from the Com unity Development Director concern- ing our continuing application to establish the�East Village View Corridor, we are told that consideration will be �iven whcn fun�ds are available to "study" new view corridors in the Village area. However, the C�hristiania (Frivolous Sals) will be brought before the To�vn Council despite the, '' apparen� conflict with our request. It is the "further study" position of the Com unity Development Director that give me most serious conccrn. I am troubled by t e thought that [he Christiania View Corridar can be approved without adequate stu y of the effects upon the proposed East Village View Corridor when there is an obvious interrelationship. It is my understanding the scope of study req ired to evatuate a vicw corridor falls fuliy within the profcssional compctcncy of the town's planning staff. We do not a;ree that consideration of our pro�ose view corridor should be delayed because of an ill-de�ned need for a larger vic corridor study. It is ouc position that interrelated view corridors should bc cons dered at the same time, not sepa- ratcly as is bcing realizcd under the present I circumstances. � � � �iayor Kent Rose October 25, 1991 Page Three The proposed East Village View Corridor preserves far more than the Christiania Corridor. The East Village View Corridor would preserve views of the Gore Range, Red Standstane Mountain and Vail Village, Golden Peak, and Vail Ntountain with the Vista Bahn. I am concerned that the Town Cour.cil has r.ot been biver, notice or adequate in- formation to make an informcd judgement w;th regards to the conflicis between these two proposals. Through our efforts to provide the Town Council with information regarding the East Village View Corridor, it has becn our intent to demonstrate to the Town Council that there is intrinsic value in the public interest, to preserve the pan- oramic views from the East Village neighborhood. Thus far we do not bclieve we have been given an opportunity to do so. Again, I ask your timely revicw of our requests prior to your final consideration of the Christiania (Frivolous Sals) View Corridor. Best "wishes, , r~ '� �„'�� %� � � �'r'�------ ; ., �i � Robert W. Galvin President East Village Homeowners Association RWG:c}r Attachment cc: Larry Eskwith, Town Auorney Town Council Mcmbers M �Hrior+r � � 938�,5:��5 �r �. � h "1�, �'�•' � Peter Harris Rudy Attomry and Courc7dl r nt Law Suite 214, Vai3 NdL' riai Bank 108 South Frorra e Road Vail, Culora�o 8 657 (303) 476-8 5 F.A.Y (303) 476- 645 March 11, �.991 Planning and �nvironmenta� Commissia Town or Vail 75 South Fron�age Road West Vail, Co 81657 RE: Request for Additianal View Cor�i.dors, Arnendment to Ox'dinanC� 13, 1983 �'�, Dear P].anning and �nvironmental Comm�.ssion Members: � represent the �ast Village Ho eowners Association, a r.ewly formed association of homeowners in he Gore Creek 27rive neigh- bax'hood . Tne East Vi�lage Homeawners Ass cia�ion requests that the Town Council and the Plann3.ng and En ironmenta� Commissian includa t::e f�llowing additiona� vie corridors in the amendment af �rdi.nance No. 13, 1983 now under �onsideration by the Town of Vail. ' 1. The view to be pratacted extends to the Sou�h frorn the North right-of-way line of Gore Creek Drive. 2. The view to be protecte�i extends to the West from the North �ight-oP-way 2in of Gare Craek Dzzve and the 5outh right-of--way line of�Hansen xanch Road. �'��rther, we raquest that the tel s af the Amendment provide that this amendment to Ordinan�e :�o. �3, 1983 become e�fective upon signature by the Mayor or the s onest date as provid�d for in tne Vai� Towr, Charter. � / _�_ cc: East Village Hor.':eowrers Associa!ta.on F _ .i � �' � C - O M vq N w 3 v w o -+ v� s� v w �E-. � o u rn 00 orn x 33-+ w a-a - Op+i rl N N ,'� U -+ r+ F �� o � M NN v y U .n O K u P. G N w O 3 > wwE°-�z N • � ; , ;ti. ,� , Q�. h � 31 O 6 0 4a M N H W C O w 3 'e v o � � H N 5+ � -+ � O H O� O V O O� x 3 -. 3 N N .� • W H �i N .T � u� �. ri V � H N O N � o � fi u a p N m o 3 > m s+ o 0 W W H Z • U O W 6 G O H +1 WC la M 3 'O W O +l tn N 4 .fG � O N O V O S 3 3 v N .-� N > � G rn �-1 9 a + .i N O [� 7 N U.r O u p. C . m o 3 > ro �. o 0 � w H Z Srrninp Ea4ie CAnn[y Tu sduy [A�auyli Sunday T � � � � \• VoWme XI, Number 110 May 9. 1991 \ � ♦ Council considers adding carridors more view in Vail Hy SoottTaylw . a.a.:�rt.a.� A ncw riew cexiiiau in tke Yail Yalagc gu tLe Rr.li^�i�ur7 nod 7Wcsd+Y. but 7oww Comcfl (flCU1bCIS BSkLd �Of m014 71w camcit �ded w add a v�cv of tlie 6ae R�nge fmm Friwlous Sat's to Wc mwn's ku o[ protcco:d ric+vs �+ 4rst mad• iag. 4'ow�cil ncmbus said �hcY wu'^a io see �owo viewe d' tho awnwu�ns addod m �he liA, Mwcvcx PoWad vicw Ca- +id�Yi ioclude dorras atready iduuiCrd io 1hc Vail Vitlage and oncs 7ct �midcntsd n l�shrad- Thc a++n firsl idr.ntiGed mom mm a po�mi.a .�cv oorctao.s a �w�cr o( ycars ago. OW oF lhosc, lk couwc.il cAosc b prqat fouc Aocading b thc wwo's vicw caiiJ[u ovdinaecc, huildas and building owxers art rot attowcd m build ina one of the corriJnrs w��l»w aznrnAas �lu. ad�aaace. "Iliccziscmg cortidwa are: • F�pm �tu Vail Yillagc Tnnspattim Ccaar SaMh �o �he sti s)op� • From �hc icurlsection o( Gu�c Cmck Drive anf Bridp�e Suux south wwarifs �c ski slopc; • from flaawn Ry�ch Ro�d F�sf rr+varJs thc Gore Range, ovc� �kc Vifla Vdv�lla: • Ro�n G�xc Cmk Drivc iowa��.s il�c Gorc Rangc, ovcr �I GevAof Gtamshammcr :u�d Itic ca�r s��. 'ILe p,npoecd caridor 6rst tamc ap b.uing tic czpanion o[ drc Red Lioa buifding ]att sum- mcr. Ptt�pk rve conamcd tba[ ilie rillage vwould Le losn; aeol6Cf riCw o( IlC NOU.a,t�IYmn,�7 Of10L IfITI WOf� lY�i COi��w.++. The new owidor wiY take IAu eapomion iwo accanL at we71 u �he paposed trpoaoo nF iia CM'id�= Lndge. accwdu�6 �o Town Pfainer Mdy K�udteu. Cantilman )im Gibwo said 1�c w�ould like tu see die sWI hrisg enac riov cortiMrs in fraeu of �he cwncil. [f [he sW[ sww nriaa �he conidars �hou� one ac a ti�c, tlw co�u�cil would Wvc o 6cum oQ� P�°u710 cniddu rec6 owe. Community Devtlopmcn[ Di�ecw Krislan Prin said sAe wWa w praktt l6c vcw lcnk- iag down NGII Geelc C'vcle and tAe riew uf the Sel[ Towv iran Uc Gat Cretk Romcnadc s6ould riw bc pastni. "1'd litt w tx ytw M wAat yac di6 wi[h t�is one." Gihson sa�d. "Cakt ILe toro you JuS bcoug6t up, and i thiic you oa}�t a ge� gaag m i��• Cauncilman Mm [�piw stid `c would raJicr tk lown staCf 6egin work�eg aa ner lial ui vrws. "Ihe cauacit wouLi dwi tuvc a lis� u� chonsc from. R�a said thc town don nud 10 i�L:nti(y new ComJors in the Yllage ywl in Lipnshcrd i`kre of �hc vicws in Liowsheail a'e currcndY P�a4cwd. ahc sdiA. Vail's most popu�ar ��aw wrridor looks easl down Gore Creek Drive towarcfs the Gore Rarge The Town Gouncii is considering chaiges lo existlnp ortlmances. � r n 3 O Z -i � m v! m r� UI U� CA J� � �U�� 75 south froniage road vail, colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303) 479-2139 November 5, 199i ,�� -� '� �' � � office of community development Mr. J+m Lamont P.O. Box 73 Red Cliff, CO 81649 , Re: Proposed View Corridor in the East 1Village Area �� Dear Jim: ' � The Town Council received Robert Galvin's letter, da�ed October 25, 1991, and briefiy discussed it during their worksession on October 29, 991. Staff would like to schedule a formai worksession on November 12, 1991 to discus� the proposal with Council. You will probably want to be there to explain the proposal in rhore detail during the worksession. � Thank you for your interest in this part of the Town's �ommunity development standards. I look forward to working with you more on this. I , Since.rely, �' +'�� ` / '� �!� � ,� ,:�� Andy Knud�sen � Town Planner .. � iry'�� - t:(I�'a ��"� ' �" � [ � :... f. . � .� j � � � - - L � � MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 7, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 7, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT; Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was the ten-year employment anniversary award for Kurt Gordon, who is the Fleet Service Technician in the PubliC Works Department. Ron Phillips, Todd Scholl, and Kent Rose made positive remarks concerning Kurt's tenure with the Town. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item No. 3 was approval of the minutes of the April 2 and April 16, 1991, meetings. Merv Lapin moved to approve these minutes; Rob LeVine seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 9 was the Consent Agenda. Following a brief discussion, Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1991, second reading, until a final plat is recorded at the County. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Continuing Item No. 4 was the reading of Ordinances No. 10 and 12. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, also known as the Dauphanais-Mosely Subdivision to provide changes to Special Development District No. 22, that certain lot size and corresponding GRFA, employee dwelling units and architectural guidelines, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1991, second reading. Modifications to deed restrictions on Manor Vail property located between Vail Valley Drive and Ford Park, immediately north of the main Manor vail building (Applicants: Town of Vail and Manor Vail). Mayor Rose read the titles in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinances No. 1Q and No. 12, with a second by Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, first reading, adopting a fifth view corridor and revising the current language regulating view corridors. (Applicant: Town of Vail). Mayor Rose read the title in full. Andy Knudtsen stated the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 6-0 on March 11, 1991, to recommend approval of a fifth view corridor. The view corridor would extend from Frivolous Sals looking east to the Gore Range over the Red Lion and Christiania roofs. Discussion of adopting this corridor was reinitiated recently when the Red Lion redevelopment was reviewed. Since that time, staff has been working with the property owners in the area to define this corridor. Discussion followed among Town Council members, Jay Peterson, and Paul Johnston, regarding the roof line for the Christiania. Photographs were produced showing the corridor as it exists today and as it � � will be after the Christiania expansion is buil . Andy also stated the staff had reorganized the l.anguage regula inq view corridors and had created a new chapter in the zon'ng code for this regulation. Lynn Fritzlen made remarks about th legal description on page 5, 18.73.030 Limitations on Constru tion, and it was suggested that "decks" be included as one of t e structures. Jim Gibson requested Kristan Pritz look at protect ng important views with a view analysis on the Village ar.d Lion head. Merv Lapin moved approval of Ordinance No. 13, wi h the following clarifications and changes: 1) addresses of pro erties referred to by building name be included; 2) changes in the physical descrip*ion of the corridor be made including the line along the P1aza Lodge and the line representing the proposed Christiania building; 3) Page 4 Section C reading "tdorthwes corner of 244 Wall Street" be changed to Northeast corner; 4) Section 18.73.070, Page 7 Exemptions, paragraph one be reworded; S) a tatement regarding natural light be added to the purpose sec ion; 6) language describing the effective date of the view corr dor be deleted and that the legal description be revised to allig with the proposed Christiania expansing. Jim Gibson seconded t at motion. A vote �..a� t�tio„ �,,,� +,,,, m„�:,... �,.._..a .----------�-- -, ,. 8:30 � i i i I � I I .— .-- — -- - —� `: � .. _ _ � will be after the Christiania expansion is built. Andy also stated the staff had reorganized the langizage requlating view corridors and had created a new chapter in the zoning code for this regulation. Lynn Fritzlen made remarks about t}ie legal description on page 5, 18.73.030 Limitations on Construction, and it was suggested that "decks" be included as one of the structures. Jim Gibson requested Kristan Pritz look at protecting important views with a view analysis on the Village and Lionshead. Merv Lapin moved approval of Ordinance No. 13, with the following clarifications and changes; 1) addresses of properties referred to by btiilding name be included; 2) changes in the physical descri.ption of the corridor be made including the line along the Plaza Lodge and the line representing the proposed Christiania building; 3) Page 9 Section C reading "Northwest corner of 294 Wall Street" be changed to Northeast corner; 4) Section 18.73.070, Page "l Exemptions, paragraph one be reworded; 5) a statement regarding natuxal light be added to the purpose section; 6) language descr.lbing the e£fective date of the view corridor be deleted and that the legal description be revised to allign with the proposed Christiania expansing. Jim Gibson seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, '1-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk MSnutes taken by Margaret Stevens c:\mSn57 I � � ; I j � ; . � <, _1i �`, y ' , `� , `� _ + ), l a� �� 75 south frontage i vail, colorado 8165 (303) 476-7000 , �' I °� � ' �?,� c� �.; � ; i r' _ ,� i . ., . ° .�,. � `�� < ;.;� v x. l � _ s _ fc- �r,% .,' . �' % �,` � / � � L�/:, . ' �/,�' C4. E.. Y � f � . /� .. . -` � ,; .. .. �>; .i:_f � fr°rf� �, rt r% T�i 1.. 1 f� f., r 1-� 1f ��'; � �'�. .: ;�'-y T0: ✓//h L �t/Ii�tt/i� COMPANY tJAME: ' FAX PNONE N0. : �� s�' � � �ROM: �� I ` DATE: /G -� �' 9i' TIMEI�� - �� 1 N0. OF PAGES IN DOCUMENT (NOT INCLUDING COUER SHEET7: � RESPONSE REQUIRED?: �' � SENT BY: � U'�=�*��'� I EXT. NO.: �l�'� • � VAZL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1991 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Ten Year Employment Anniversary Award to Kurt Gordon. 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 3. Approval of Minutes of April 2 and April 16, 1991. 4. Consent Agenda A. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, also known as the Dauphanais-Mosely Subdivision to provide changes to Special Uevelopment District No. 22, that certain lot size and corresponding GRFA, employee dwelling units and architectural guidelznes, and setting forth details in regard thereto. B. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1991, second reading an ordinance rezoning three tracts from hillside residential zoning, Section 18.09 to greenbelt and natural open space zoning, Section 18.38 within a parcel, commonly referred to as Spraddle CreeY., an approximately 40 square parcel located north and east of the main Vail interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery. C. Ordinance No. 12, Series 1991, second reading. Modi£ications to deed restrictions on Manor tiail property located between Vail Valley Drive ar�d Ford Park, immediately north of the main Manor Vail building. (Applicants: Town of vail and Manor Vail). i /� � 5.) Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, first �`;' reading, adopting a fifth view corridor and revising the current language regulating view corridors. (Applicarit: Town of Vail). 6. Adjournment A:\TCagenda � �� `,� `t=i « 4 � _ .,.�, - ,M,a,�w„� : y ; r•'►3�� q.�y+� , � X � -r� S . �; � �� ` i ! � � �,� f . .� �� . �, �t: ti� rK � 4 � F `�. , � s � :�_ �: E �i �;~.. - � � r, • - V. � �� ..'`�,��iER � .. �-- Y i _ :' . .. 7,+,��3 �y 7, � � �, y - =<t ;�r' '' _ M } 1 .. S s ll / �' , ! "r � . . - . %s �ti . � + _ � . ` ' �� -- -.. ... � .:� '� �� X ; �►�,, � � � V K' � �'-"' !.j � ' " '�.= • - � �. a . - � . �t i � . � . . . ..: � U '�r",�+� �• � t T � � . .� � x '� '`M - �� , � � � ; . t ; �-� ':: � � � =.j ,� �,ia� .► , � .._ .� � �. , k� �' � � � . •- , ;� i� �.�� : .. � iF�:i ! � °� - , �• ��_• .,-..��e�.::s '�� " ;* . ; ��, '�tJrJ�= ' � . � _ �t ' � ; ` ; �'�'`- z-�'.' ,_ +--�"' ty��r�+�i�:' , ^ s ; ►� * �� t{� � �' , �4 _ _ • � ,�---• - - �,�` �1 � - r' - __ � � �„�� L • a . : � : t ,�T � ` .r.r �* �, �'t� � y : * � `'�'�C, r ,h .(;- ,` +. .f ,.�'t �'� n & ss-„"" +rr♦ ��.. :1' � • ��;�j� t t 'Y .r. c . . � ` � � � � � ��' ..- 3 s . ��,�.. i . ._ ._ _ _ ' ^".3� . f• ' �,,.�,�." � . i�, - - :.n r ..;; ' j-.�: ._ ,y�-H.".` � '•t'. . �y ,� - ' � : .- - ��.�i�� •.�' 1 �• I � � .+� `� : _ . . r 't` ": '++ r� : � 1 ,'ii.:•: .�+�� ... .ti r ".. r � �,.. � � ��" ••;,;. a' Y!!.�.� � �,y x.. - �� - • P�• � �+"�.S- ��yys�� ir . r �� I �� ► w4�.�,�. .r r. '� � . �a . � ' •�-�. .'��ig� � :f►f r. '�w'4.��,�` �^'" :�::r�.�.� ^- ' �'s,r"l. �y`iC`�. . . .. ' . . ' � •.I�^�yrwk�� t� r .'�4ii�i � _.. ` ^.�`� , .. - . ... �:�...j,.-- �•`�!' .— _ _- -- �.vv....� � ;i �: � � �• �~ _ n i: �t•`� �� lM; �� ",' r j �� . �F� � ��: I -_'�'" _"""'�r ._ '� . t .� f :,;,# > ,; ` .�� ` � :� ! N�� - � =1 f "`• � ��"� � t� a . J �I •�� M.� .�a � ��" �`� ��i � 3 } I � � f�,. ; �' - }+k �r � ! � �°� � 4' � , I�� ;� � � �• 1 � j >: j I �~ :�� , �i � . , : :_ ; . : ��; � i�!:r • ~ � �S` ; ♦ �� s, �� r ; A; , , � < , :�� _ �,` ,� � ,�rd ,��'. � . F ' . �� .ly� �� 3 � ..� A�+q1� . , � 'i�� i. � -!f r ,1 •�i�� .. . �. .. .� ! _ i� � ,;,;,,,�r��►r w� r• �� _ i0: FRGM: DATE: � Planning and Environmental Com Community Development Department Aprii 22, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to amend the zoning code, view corridors and to set forth detaiis Applicant: Town of Vail � ng a section to identify ai! approved regard thereto. The staff proposal is to create a separate sectior of �he zoning code, where the regulations fior view corridors will be located. Staff believes that �n appropriate location for these standards is in the Design Review seciion. At this time, the view corridors are referenced only in the Vai1 Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff b�iieves that development outside Vai! Village can impacf esta�lis7ed view corridors, and ih�t there shauld be a section of ihe cods applicable to all development areas. Staff also be!ieyes that locating the standard in the Design Review section in the zoning code will bring ore attention io the fact that the iown does have established view corriders which all devel�pment must comply with. Staff is not proposing to modify any of the recently p oposed view corridor ordinance changes. The proposed view carridor over the Red Lion and C risiiania has not changed and is included in the recommendations to Council. ', The new section is proposed to have subsections de�cribing the views individually. Following those general descriptions, staff is planning to incorporate the fegal descriptions for each view. Administrative responsibilities wiif be defined, descri�'ing who will regulate the view corridors, when new construction should be checked to ensurel ii does not enctoach into view corridors, and a general siatement establishing ihe legal basis for protecting the carridors and prohibiiing new construction from encrcaching into the view corridors. As discussed in previous PEC hearings, the new standards will prohibit encroachments, inclu�ing mechanica( equipment. The new ordinance will also clarify that t�e more restrictive height appiies when comparing zoning district standards to the of the view corriaor standards. The ordinance #�at v+rill go to Council establishing this new section will also modify "Section G of the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations" so that it is consistent with the new section of the zoning code. . 8ecause of the major c�anges in the organization of the proposed view corridor ordinance, staff thaught ii was appropriate to bring it to the PEG for preliminary review. At this time, the PEC wi!! be voiing on the proposal, giving a recommendation to the Council for their fina! approval. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to Town Council that the proposed changes be approved. Staff believes that the clarity of the new ordinance, and the relocation of ii in the zoning code, ins#ead of the Urban Design Considerations, will increase the awareness of #he regulations and ciarifyr the standards icr development. c:lpeclviewcorrlviewcorr. d22 a � CERTIFIED MAIL Mayor Kent Rose Town of Vail 75 South FronTage Road Vail, CO 81657 ROBERT W. GALVIN f303 EAST ALGGNOUiN ROAD SCHAUMBURG, ILlJN015 60t96-1065 October 25, 1991 Dear Mayor and Town Council Members: � i?O3i 5�6-5300 �1 1 _ ; `; n', ! n J ';F; '``- . �,� t , � Y) �Y -:�' �j,:.. � f� � ��'�� t � , :� ;,:� -;� I am most seriously concerned with the progress that has been made concerning the East Village Homeowners Association request to establish a view corridor for the East Village. On March 11, 1991 the East Vitlage Homeowners Association submitted a letter to the Town of Vail, regarding amendmcnts to ihe View Corridor Ordinance #13, Se- ries 1983 (see attachment). The lette��S...s.u.bmitted to the Community Develop- ment Department-- in, conjunction__with_._a public hearing`�be'rng on ucte e _ _._ _ - Planning and Environmental, Commission. T6e public"fie�ring' concerned .. __ . am�n6"riieiit`s to the View Corridor Ordinance. The Homeowners Association's letter requested that certain view corridors be cs- tablished for the East Village ncighborhood. The view corridors being reques[ed had a direct bearing and relationship to the Frivolous Sals (Christiania) View Corridor under consideration in the proposed amendment. To oar knowledge . t.he ,..�•.T-.�--°--- �lanning_,.,and . Enviranmental __Commission, did .not acknowledge"�oi' :`respond to our re�ucst�,,,nor .did, the .Community Devel�pment_Department _stJ�aff. - A second public hearing was conducted by the Planning and Environmental Commission on Aprii 22, 1991. At that meeting our March 11, 1941 letier was not : presented to the Planning and Environmentai Commission in the accompanying staff inemorandum nor was there mention of the conflicts which existed between tiie i-iomeowners Association's requests ana that being made hy the Christiania Lodge. To�our knowl d e n acknowledgement or response to our request was forthcomi�. ,.-----�—^^ On May 7, 199I at a regular meeting of the Vail Town Council the first reading of Ordinance No. 13, Series 1991 was conducted. At that meeting the Homeowners As- sociation's March 11, 1991 letter was not presented to the Town Council, nor was there a mention of the letter by the planning staff. The accompanying staff memorandum and presentation made no mention of the conflicts which existcd between the Nomeow»ers Association's requests and the proposal being made by the Christiania Ladge. In my July and August 1991 letters to you and the Town Council I reiterated the �Ffoincowners Association's request [o establish vicw corridors in the public inter- cst from the pubiic streets of thc East Village neighborhoc�d. � Mayor Kent Rose October 25, 1991 Page Two u A September 4, 1991 letter from the Commur�ity Development Director, Kristan Pritz indicated that there were probiems wit� monumentation and badgetary consideration affitiated with the Homeowners'�� Association's request. Subsequent to receint of this letter I authoriz d an expenditure that provided for the documentation of the East Village View C rridor. The documentation was for- warded to the Town Council on October 1, 199 . The documentation that was sub- mitted conforms to standards set forth in the �iew Corridor Ordinance and are the same as those provided by others seeking to adopt or amend a view corridor. As a result of this effort it was found that t in the Director's letter is the result of defici provided in the 1983 originating ordinance. surveying documentation thai allows for the which all view alignment sightings are taken, ing that any party wishing ro locate the view _ ._�... _ ..._ ...�.-.--- 'Ti e"��'"y"�5r w�fio�-`�'ori�ucted'� the or�g►n�1`� surv "'�pearf to� `seive the public interest. �' � � ie monumentation problem referred to ncies in the survey information The ordinance neglects to provide riewpoint, the survey point from o be located. It is my undersiand- _.-------�--�---° oint__mus[_ do so _by- agreec-�enl.....�.vith y,. This arrangement does _ not��= : . ,_ __ . _:.: ____.-�- ,. _ _�,.._.,-�- In an article regarding view corridors that app�ared in the May 9, 1991 Vail Daily (see attached), I note that the Town Council u ged the town staff to proceed with the necessary studies that would provide for he adoption of additional view corri- dors: In the article I do not note any discus ion regarding limitation imposed on the project due to budgecary constraints. In an October 1Q, 199I letter from ihe Com�unity Development Director concern- ing our continuing application to establish the', East Village View Corridor, we are told that consideration will be given when fur�ds are available to "study" new view corridors in the Viilage area. Howcver, the Christiania (Frivo3ous Sals) wiil b� brou ht b,�fo�.e__th�,.=,Tt�_yrn__Council"�es��te t1ie: appa"r"en� c`on�[�c w� our requesl. It is the "funher study" position of the Com � vnity DeveIopment Director ihat give me most serious concern. I am troubled by he thought that the Christiania View Corridor can be approved withoui adequate st dy of the effects upon the proposed East Village View Corridor when there is a obvious interrelationship. It is my understanding the scope of study rec�uired to evaluate a view corridor falis fully within the professional competency '' of the town's planning staff. We do not agree that consideration of our proposed view corridor should be delayed because of an ill-defined need for a larger view corridor study. It is our position that interretated view corridors should be con idered at the same time, not sepa- rately as is being realized under the present� circumstances. e Mayor Kent Rose October 25, 1991 Page Three � � IThe proposed East Vitiage View Corridor preserves far more than the Christiania � Corridor. The East Village View Corridor would preserve views of the Gore Range, � Red Standstone Mountain and Vail Village, Golden Peak, and Vail Mountain with the Vista Baun. � I am concerned thai the Town Council has not been given notice or adequate in- ' formation to make an informed judgement with regards to the conflicts between ' these two proposals. Through our efforts ta provide the Town Council with information regarding the East Village View Corridor, it has been our intent to demonstrate to the Town Council ihat there is intrinsic value in the public interest, to preserve the pan- oramic views from the East Village neighborhood. Thus far we do not believe we have been given an opportunity to do so. Again, I ask your timely review of our requests prior to your final consideration of the Christiania (Frivolous Sals) View Corridor. Best�ishes, � / / /j, , � ,t� ` ��`� .�G� � /Robert W. Galvin . President East Village Homeowners Association RWG:ch Attachment cc: Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney ` �IM LAMONi �I �3038275856 I �, ` R �`� A . . �f1 �ill:.', ' ' S i; 1 i Peter Hams Rudy �taamry and Cawue! at Lnw Suite 214, Vaii Natt�nal Bank 108 South Fronta�t Road Vaii, Cotorado 1657 - (303) 47b-8�65 FAX (303) 476r1b45 March 11, ',1991 �i Pianning and �:tvirann:�ntal Ccm.�zssic�n Town af Vail , 75 South Frontage Road West ' Vail, CO 81657 RE: Requ�st �or Additional View GaaCr9.dors, Amendment to Oxdinance 13, 1983 P.05 Dear Planning and Environmental Commissian Members: i repr�sent the East Village Hd�meowners Assnciation, a newly formed assOCiation o� homeowners in'the Goxe Creek Drive neigh- borhood. The East Village Homeowners As aciatian requests that the Town Council and the Pl�nni.ng and E�ivironmental Commission include the following additional vi�w corridars in the amendznent of Ordinance No. 13, 1983 now under'�,consideration by the Town of Vail. 1. The view to be pratec�Ced extends to the souCh from the North xight-af-way line of Gore Creek Drive. 2. The 'vieW t0 be prQtected extends to the West from the North right-o�-way line of Gora Creek Ari.ve and the South right-of-way line alf Hansen Ranch Road. Further, we request that the t�erms o� the Amendment provide that this amendmen� to Ordinance No. �.3, 1983 become ef�ective upon signature by the Mayor or the soonest date as provided for in the Vail Town Chartar. � �� _ +'�► cc; East village Homeowners Assaciation ,. . . `�, '��J ~ �.,.. sr.vtny enyl� cew.cy VoUme x�, Nurnte.9si TucsQny tAra�gh SunQay I �\ Cvuncil consid�rs adding mare view carridors in Vail i� � k . sy sowc7aylor ca.c�,cf e�:i&wy �� r ile p�opoeed cmida irx �'�. .. f� . ,•.'� . e.tis�r+r.. : .� �.�- e�merpSruq�ecapn�siwof �,--. :. - t� +• . lq1 A IICY Y1C�1' CO�Ildllf 1� IAC �E REd �JO� 6111�M1a �fI 91A- " /.� " I Yy� Y�IL'�C a(# IbG �[CJ�I�V) /v'J. AC� `��CIC COKd�CC Uy( _ t � ;� �a -n�a.r, n� to,+ c.�.�a ,r� .;n� .+a,w x to� - r:f_ , •�,::. CltmbUi LSitA �Q mOfG �OIYOf YICY OI IM lO(%MIYR1 l y'� �� . .` A 71c carcil votd to dd a oorc dmt ratk wr carpkac4 � .. ..s`' ." vic�.r d 1Ae 6a'E Raw�e fmm T6c ncw cmidof tiY ntt Wt ' y"ti:'_. . Fivo7ou! Sal's b t6e lorn's YY q�pemidl idD rcwr. Y w[.Y o( paeard vie+n m 4rs1 nead� ai �lm popwoC ea�r�ou oF die f,�. � i�_ Carcil ncmbvs aid t4y mit+iria ind8s. �ccadu�q b - war'•� �o see iaac vievs of t6a Tow� Pfaae� A�dy Kiuduea. aac � .. . wouaUw addtd w Ne lat. �.. � 7nvcvec Pdc+Iial vitv wr- Ca�orilrm Tin Gibsa� said ve . � ��don iocMide daaas a�eady Le �odd 1'te tu see �k sLII � � i�iGcd io �Me Vail Vi[ype awd hiy ewm riev rnriAqrs io . � ones yq voidcetille/ b fwn of ic carocil. If t6e m1F Lo��lr�d. co�ld ari�t �he co�r�ivs 7Tic b�rn fira ideniied mae Ihougi o� at s �in4 /�e Own 40 por+vial �iew oafiAOrs wuwc0 would htK a Mfv ap- .� � -� � �rnbcr uf 7ears s�ca Ou1 of pvuwit7bcoadrleiachaw. ��'�� . lhosc. 1Mt co�rc] [bse b � �� prdccA fo�r. Comnrniry Develop[xnt �q . . Dicectaf ICristan PriR suid elie �1 � Aacadi� b the nwv's vicr yv�rvs n paeci the view tadc- . i,��i . . ca�i�lor adinsce. 6rildcn arl i� doxn M'iH Creek Ci�c3e asd bril.Mtg owan3 ue not a11�wrA �Ae .iew uf the Bdt Towv fiom - . . oo build ino o■a d tht corrubrs Uw Gore CJert Romenade . . . viJwrl a�i+�d�tL the ndivance sbouW aiw be p.a:sfed. .. 71�coistinQoovidpsae: i'd like b sa yoa do wi�[ C�� , if ,�. a;a .� u,�, «K - c;�. • - i . .� F',om rhe Wil vflase ad `rake ae �.�o yw jua � �� - P� � Tunspa�caiion Ca�u SowA a hougAt W. +ud f Jrct yor � . �Me sti tbpy ou�[ e 8n 6aiB �+ �' �. � From ILe olerseclioe of Cawr�liaan Msr. I�po� s�iQ -. .� Go�c 4eck Ihive ad 8ridg ie wafd nJxr 14 lwm sratf - Sucst rouh wwatds �he �ri 6c6in wortr6 a� ncv list oi -� L:� �- 4 -,� � . sloyc; vicwi 71e tuu�x:iE wdsld Wea � �v ,.. � ' � ` . • fro.n Fiaason Ranc► Rnad A�vc a liv tn chonsc from. v . � �. � Fas� rowards the � Gorc R�ngc. Pri�z said tbc 4nn� Aaca ecW " - - . � . . .� mu �Mc V�4 �tahaYa: m idcnWy arnv cunders M 1IIC • �" W OMMSmA Fbo� a . . • From Gae Cmrk � Ikiro Yd1a6t rW in 1_iu�s6crd. t�liwe � �� towanLt iqe Goac RunKc. ov« ot ihc vicwa io� Liw.s6rat a1c Va0's most popular v�ew ewridor looks easl Mwn Gore Creek Drive towards tha Gore ftange. 7M Gesdid Cayn+�ti»rtvf and Ihe turraulY P�ai:ttcd. A�c said_ Torm Courxa is eo�sideri�g chau9es b ex�sfuro adinances. l � D 3 O Z � � , a ; m �J U � m U 0� I O . 6 S �---- i f i To: Vail Town Council ?1�Iemorandu From: George Ruther, Senioi Special Projects Planner Date: December 21, 1999 � # �� _ Rc: Vail Plaza Hotcl — Foilo�v Up to the December 7& 14 Va�l "I'own Council Meetings 'il�e purpose of this meri.oran�luzn is to provide follow-up information to the To�vn Council. On both Tucsday, Deceinber 7 and December 14 the staff and tlae applicant presented infi>m�ation on th�; 5tahis of il�e developmcnt review process of ti.e Vail Plaza Ho�el to tl�e Vail To��n Councii. � response to the two presentations, many meri�bers of the Council raiseci soecific questions or concems with e�ard to the hotel lxopos<z( lhat needed further clarit7cation. Enclosed in the To1vn Council packets was a memorandwn fr�m J<y Peterson to George Rnther, dated December 16, 1999. The purpose of the memor<indum trom the applicant is tc respond to tl�e specific issues raised by the Council at the December 7;�orksessi:�n meelin�. In addition to th memorandum, the consulting vafflc engineers �vill be at the meetin; to discuss t1�e conclusiot�s of tl�e traffic iinpa t analysis prepared for iLe proposed hotel. Several o; t�e questions raised by Council �vere directed to staff. ese questious focused o� the adoption of view corridors in Vail and the development history of ti�e Vai1 Gatc�vay laza builciing and the Vail Villa�e Inn Special Development District. I ADOPTIOIV OF VIEW C In 1981, the Town of Vaii began a process to identify and adopt vi w corridors in Vail. Vie�� orridors wcre adopted to protect critical views of Vaii Mountain and The Uore � sge to act as constant reminders and visuai orientation reference points for our ;niests and visitars. Tl�e follotiv ng timeline eutlines the view corridor adoption process: !� Octoher 26, 1981— Staff iden[ifies and submits 39 majcr/minor vi �ws and focal points [o the Planning & Environrrental Cornmission for review and consideration. An ide tified vie�v includes a view to the southeast overtop l.he gas station to Vail Mountain from the four-way interse tion. � November 11,1982 —After more than a year of discussion and ev luation [he P!anning & Environmental Commission recorrLmends nine view corridors and one focal point e established in Vail. A view corridor from ihe iour-�vay intersection overtop the gas station (now the Gateway) w s not recommended. June 21, 1983 — Following six months of deliberations the Vail Tc 1983, An Ordinance Amendin�� The �'ail Villa<�e Urban De�i� Gi and View Corridor Map To Reducc The Number Of Maiur Views designated view to be pre�erved ori�inated from either major pede were pre�erved were of the ski slope5 from areas in the Village, of views were preserved in the Vai1 Villa��e Urban De�i�Tn Guide Plat ovei�top the ;a5 station �vas not a�le�pted. n Council adopted Ordinance No. 13, Series of e Plan —Desion Co�siderations: View Scction i�]'1'o Eliminate Minor View Corridors. "I`�e ian areas or public plazas. Tl�e four views thai e Clock Tower �md of the Gore Range. These A view eorride�r from the four-way intersection Juiy 27,19y2--Followin� the denial of a previous an�l simil«r t>r�n�mce in 1991, the Vail To«�u Cow�cii adopted Ordinance Na. i 8, Se:ies of 1992, An Ordinance Amer,din� Sectin G Of The Vaii Villa��e C7rban Desi�n The Relatin�=To 11ze O'r Within The 7'a��n Of Vail ,and Geatin� A hew Chapter Of 1 ain Vi This ordin�mce rcmoved thc vie�v corri�or preservaiion rroi�l ihe V<ill Vil?a�e Urban Desi�.� Cruide Plan and piaced t!iern �.vithin a ne�x� chapte� of the�blunicip�i Coc�e. 'I1ie oruinance fiirther a�lopted cne new view corri,ior bringin� the tutal��nuiiiber�in the °Town of �ail to five. A�aiii, the view o�v�e.top the �as stafion �vas n�,�t adonte�l. � `flav 20.� 1993 — T[ie Town iilitiated an e,fart to auopt t�>ur nc�v vie�v cor, idors. To move the efiort forwazd a View Con�i �or Task Force was created. T�ie information in the fiie indicates that no ne�.v view corridors we: e esta6lisl�ed. V�LL VlLL�GE 1NIV SPECiAL DE'✓ELOPIYiEN'I` DI�T1iiC7' llEVELOP?bt�`IT H15TORY Mai-ch ifi,19?6 - The Vail Town Council adopted flrdinance No. 7. Series of 197b, An Ordinance Establishitig Special Development District Na. 6 And Amending 11�e Zoning Ordinancc And T1ie Official Zoning Map. The purpose of the or�linance was to �lesi�atc th�; 3.455 acre �levelopment site as a Special Develonmen� District. Each subscquent ph�:se of thc District required Plamung & Environinei�tal Coinnussion, Desi� Review Board an� Town Cotmcil approvai. A Recc>mmc.zded Heighi Limitations Plan, and Rccommended Landscape, Land Use & 13uilding Niassing Plan, prepare�l by Royston, Hanamoto, Be�k � Abbey was adopted. 'Che plan identified limitaCions resuiting in tE;c steppinb-l�p of buildinbs from East Meadow Drive to th� South Frontage Road. The m�iximum recornmended heitrht was 60 feet. T1�e rnaximum heif?li± �vas later amen�led to 63 feet. October 23. 1984 —The Vail Town Council and the Planning & Environmcntal Comnussion held a joint- tivoi-lcsession to discuss an ar_ticipaCed redeveluprnent proposal for Phase IV, Vail Village �in. Dtuing the discussion, staff higbli�bted the cbanges in the anticipated proposal to the previous proposal. T`he previous proposai ha�l been rejectcd by the Town Counci; in Pebrua�y of i 984. According to the staff inemorandum the rea�ons for dei�ial of the project include: � "tlze i�npuct �/�the �nulti-stnry b�uilcling on vietivs to Vuil l'�Ioi�y�tairr� f�om tlae foz�r-tivay irltersectian, the bi�ilk, mass arzc! scale of tl�e proposed ba�ildijTg �tiver-e too lar�e, tlze loss of the gas station on the corne��•, the proposecf ti�ni��,; o��the conzpletion aJ�t1�e pruject, tl�e pote�rtial negative impacts to trrzffic circulation anct coti�estion ori Vail Roacl afxt the Soutlr F� �nrage Roacl, and the use oTthe Phase III r�amp for• aecess to t)ze pm�king straictaire. " � October 29, 1984— An amended application for a maior amcndrnent �o Special Development District No. 6 is sLibmitted to the T�wn of Vail Community Development Department on behaif of IVtr. Tany Ge�zth. The amended al�plication was in response to a major amene�nent proposat (Picci�illy propasal) for redeveloping Phases 1V & V of Speeial development District No. 6, whieh was denicd by the Vail Town Council in February of 1934. The amended �roposal-reduced t6e nurnber of hotel rooms from 182 to 164; eliminated Phase V so that �he proiect ��onId be completed in one phase; eliininated the nse of tL�e ramp to Pl�ase III �s access to the parking sCructure; ��emoved t'ne redevefopment of the gas station as p��rt of the proposal; and reduced the amount of I�u�dscape area. In adciressing the review process for the amenc3ed agplication, staff states, "...close consideration tivill be;iverz to the st»actua�e's inipact art the Frnnta�e Road as tivell as the view con�idor� from t�ie f�u�=ivay.stop. "� November 1?,1984—The Plaunin� & Environmental �ommission held a worksession to discuss t1�e amended application. Aceording to the analysis provided by the appiicant: "TF�el�roposerl WlPhase IV.>aabmittal of�Oct�ner29, 1984, »zeets the intef��tqfthe,L£arc1� 16, 1976, scl�ien�Tatic. In par•ticzilar•, Arc�a B tit�oatl�l L�e��rmittec'! bv or�i�ir�ial dociamer�t to {�uve a�t elevatiun of 144'-0". Tlte �ro�osed is 138'-0 ". �11t1�oug1� u portion qf'tlte Ar•ea A is over t71e hei�kt lin�ait, as it tivcts irt f.he 1983 sufintittal, it is,felt that � st fficientporti��r� of'tlae ntoa�ntain artd ski ra�ns catt be seert fi-orri tlie nzain ti1l('I'SPCIl01l. �� Januarv i,198_5—T[ie Plannine & Envirtanmeatal Cor.lmiasion he:d a nublic he�-inQ to make aimal recommei�c�ltion to the Vai� To��n Coun�il on the propo�ed and �ncnded major amendment to Special Development Disu-ict No. 6., Vail VillaLe Inn, Phase �I�J. Accordi��g to �I;e staff T�.en.or�n�ium; �-tafi 3tated that, "...the intent uf the. hei;ht /i��ritution on tlre SDD tvus to ensa�re a viel�v trom the foa�r-way stop to ti�e naozin. tain c�r�ct ...tivliile rhe l�ic�1� cor-�-idor• Oias ber�n s�lifted siightly, the {ieigy�t of the bi�ildzn�s in this nreli arn. iri cori�.�liarrce ��itjt the m�zximurn Itei;ht� oi�tiirae�L " Following discu�sion on t�e requeat by the Cominission�rs; the �oiz�rnission ��oted unanimousiy to recommend �. �nrovai of ;�e inajor amenciment, �s pr�}pose�, to the Vail Town Council. � � � r �'ehruarv 19, 1945—The Vail Town Cour.cii acIopted C)rdinance v'o. ?K_ Series of 19%fi, To Provitlz Far The Spccial De:-eluprr.�nt Dislrict No. �i; :�rnendinQ Tlie P� Adoptin� An Amended Development P1an Por Phasc IV O�� Spc Certain Requirerr,ents Rclatin�� To The Dist<iace T3etween Buildi N�. 6: Ci�an�in�* The F�ei�ht ReGUirements A�nd Aicnvabie Uses 6_ inc;ea�iu� T'he Allowablc i�en5ity.ancl �vtoditvint�T"he Ruiidi Devetopment Distr-ict No. 6: �And Providia�= Dif�erent Parkin4 A Development I�i�trict No. 6. In adoptin�> Ordin<u�ce No. 1, the 7 that the a»iendn�ents provi��e an even ma�e i+t�i/iecl a»d more aes tivithin the Totivn r�ricl thaisa�ch an�en�trrierits a��e of beirefit to the � Town oj Yail. " � , Series of 1t�Y5, :�n Ordinance .Ainen T}�e �? t�nroveci i)e�: eio[�meni Plan For �il Uf Special Deveioprnent District N�. 6; 1 Developme�t Di;h_ict No. fi; E]iminatin� ; For Phase 1V Of Spec�a( Developr:�eni l�isirict �r Phase IV Of Speci<:1 De��elopment District ;��c�. Rulk Standarcls �nr t'hasc IV Of .5 �t ecial l.oactin<_= Reauircrnents For Phase IV Of Special n Cotmci] found that, "...the Cocutci! consi�lers �ticallv pleasin� �leti�elnpnze�it qf a cr-itical site lt/t. sc{Je.ry, and tivel/ure of itie initabitants of the � November 24,1996—An�application t�as submitted to the To�un f Vail Conmlimfty Development Department by Joseph Staufe: requesting an I 8 �nonth extension of to the approva of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1985. The Vail Town Council subsequently approved the 13-month exiension. T`h � approved extcnsion has sincc lapsed resultin� in a null and void projeci appi•oval. Any r,ew Sevelopment on the Ph• se IV site would require approvals from the Town of Vaii. VAIL GATE�VAY PL.�.ZA DEVELC�PIYIENT HISTORY Januarv 3,1988—An application is stibn�itied to the Town of Vail!, Com;nunity Developrnent Departrnent on behalf of NIr. L�o Palmer proposing the establishment of Special Develop�nenl District No2 L T}�ie establishment of the District wouid require a rezoninb of the property from Heavy Servi�e (�as station) to Commercial Core I. Februarv 16, 1988—Tt�e staff sends a letter to Ivir. Peter Jamar, th applicani's representative. The purpose of the letter is to inform the applicant of sta:�'� initial concerns with the p oposal. Tlie stafi, °....feels sll•ortgly that tyiis biiildingshoulct preserit nn encroachment into the vie-�v corr-idor tA t is e,stahlished by the appr�ove�� Yail ViZla;e Irtrt develo��ment. The existir�,� desi�;n tivill reguire substantiUl revisfon, to mairitain the vielv purameters establishect by the WI. „ Februarv 22, 1988—The Plauning & Environmental Commission proposal and the rezoning. In tbeir memorandum to the Corunissi� bulk and mass of the building and it5 eirects on views to Vail Ylo�u the staff states, "Wliile the vietiv eorric�or• tlu�ough tl�e approved Yail Yilln, desionated vietiv corr-idor by or•dinance, �ve %eel it is n ve�1 The i�tril Yilla�e Inn project resportded ta staff concerns a fi•om the jour-tivay stop. tiYe feel str�ongly tha! the yrzil Ga; defineci by the Yail Yillage Inn Builclino- (Phc�se IV). " ld a public hearin� to discuss flie SDD staff expressed a concem with the proposed in. In the memorandum to the Comtnission, �e hin project.jrom the four-ivay stop is r�ot a importarTt vieiv upon entering the community. rd attemptecl to maintain rz�z acceptable vieti�� tivay prnject mi�s1 respect the view corridor crs The staff fiarther expresses to the Comrnission lbat aecording to the initial work done by Eldon Beck on building heights for the gas station, "The F_Idon Beck study cloes sh,otiv thuz b tilding heightsfor• tlte develvpment of�this��arcel of7and should reach one to two stor•ies. " The applicant was reques ing a maximum builciing height of 62 feet. NIarch 9,1988 — Jeff Winston, the Town's LTrban Desic� Consult presentation, Jeff offered a brief history on the development �f the AccordinQ to the meeting minutes, Jeff states, °Origirrrrll v, a master plan jor the entire YVI area �vas rlE stati�n size was not part oJ�the originul concept. He (Elr�� concc�pt" was an inzportarn part of the VVI Special Devel� the i�ui? Yillr��e Iym plaia ��vas �iased as a guide �la�rirzg t{te � Developr,ient District. " , adciresses the Commission. In his ;w corridor for the Vail Villabe Inn area. loped hy Eldon Beck c� .9s.sociates. The gas Beck) emphasi_ed that tl�e "view corridor �nerrt District eoncept. He ('JeJ�) explai�iecl that � rty rel�isions ta t{le Yail Vilinge Inn Special The follo��in�> is the staff recommendation on the request to establi�h SDD No. 21, ; 3 � � I "Si..1f �e��er:�llv satpporls tFae ,nired a�se concet�t �roposed iri [fri.s redevelopmerrl �lar1 urrci :he corzcept of the re_canirrg ro C`C;'I. .�iltl,o�aaj� ii may be cor�si��ered spot �orairag, tive J��el th.at tlze �ases are cc�rrapatib�e ��vith t�tc «djacerrt 6'tril �iilcz,�r� Inrt Special develop»tenl �i��tr'ict �crrd ure apprnnriaie fo�� t�tis loc��iori tivitf�iirt the cor�tntur7iay. flotivever, tiv�e m-e rtot sitpportive uf�the z�ses prt�posed ti�vitho!at the left turrt latTe axd eliniirtcztiort o/�lhe sir� jace parkin� cts tivell us a�leytiale pnrkirtg pr•ovisinr�s. 6�e,feel t1�at !he general concept of deve!opnter2t pr-opo.serl �Y tj�e ap�licurzt is a.pp�•npriate and l�elieve tha! there is an oppor•tttm�ry ��er-e to provi�le w� etcitiri; and riestlretically��leusing entrarrce into Vail. �� Tire Cv»irri��ni ry Deveio�rir.ent I?epart»�ent staff l2as, {i�tivevef�, �7iajol- concerns with the project as pr•oposed. We feel th� isstaes of Gt�lk aracl �nass, lteight, setbc�cks, vietis� con•idor elaa�oach�rterrt ar�d paf-king are all im�or�ant is.sues lhat mi�st be a�ld��essed. Tlie staff reco��u�aerrctcztiorz for this project it�ould be for the PlurariirTg Co�nmission to table il�is and allotiv the staff�an�l tlre applicant to tivork logether to try to resolve so�7ze o/ these issues. YVe feel tliat wiih r�cteyz�ate resola.�tion of the aforenlention�ed issi�es, we coczld szsp�o��t this project. H� �vever. as preser�led, we feel t1�er-e ar�e muior issa�es that fteed tn he a.dctressed and canfzot saeppor�t tlzisproject u.spresented. Alt/7oaegh mctny of the uses oj the Heav,v Service District tivoccld certairaly noi be r�cceptable in tj�is locntion, we fee( tliat the existing se�vice station is appropriate to this location. ti�e betieve tJTat SI�D #21 as pf•opose�f pt•esertts im�acts thczt ar�e ri�ot accepa�zble. If the applicant lvishes io moveJo��ti>>ard �vi[17 tliis projecl as proposed, stc�%��recom»�teridation is for det7ial. " The followin« is a surnrr��ry of the Conunissioner's commenfs: � Pam Hopkins—"�..curice��necl about the vicnv." � Sid Schultz— "...the encroachmer�t above the Wlwas fzot a si�ni�icant prablerri. " Diana Douavan — Di�l not comment on the view. 7im Viele —°... tivheri the vietiti�s were es�ablished und discussecl, tTzis foarr-wa,p stop vietiv con-idor tivas exclicded f�oni the cepprovals. " Peter 'Pat�en (Planning Director) —".._the Town Council itirectecl stafjt�l ad�t�°ess the jour-tivay stop corriclor•, and then t�1e Yuil Villa,,e Irtn �roject cc�me througJt the plannirt�g procc�ss, artcl at that poinl it �vas decided to l�se tke views esl�blishe�i by the YVI SDD instead �/�doing a sec�nd Jou�=way stop viE�a� cor•rirlol' �ttrrlv. " Bryan Hobbs — Did not cumment on tlie view. Peg�-; Osterfos, —"...!he VVI vieti� con�idof� 7a�as appropriatc: to n�Qint¢in a�id slTe was not in_fin�or of any aclditiorral ifin-usion irrto t/ze corridor•. " Gr�u.t Riva —"...the vieKS fr-om the four-way stop are i�raportant, but hopefully peo�le tivoa�lct not sperid too miacyt tiryle at the (oi�r-tivay sto�. " � The Comrr.issioners ��oted 3-A agai�st a recorrnnen�ation of approval to the To��n Council. Tt�e dissentiug votes �arere Hopkin5, Schul�r, Donovan and Osterfoss. Of the four ciiyserlting Cornmissioners, only Osterfoss indieatcci tliat her reason far denial �.vas, in part, based upon impacts on views. April �,1988—The Vaii Town C��w�cil approved Ordinanee No. 9 Serics of 19RS An Ordinr�;ce Rezonin� Lot N Ai�d A Portion Of Lot O. Block SI�. Vail Villa�c First FilinL From Heavy Service Tistrict To Commercial Core I An Esttiolisllin�r Special Developmeut District No. 21 _ In part, t1�e ordinance. ailowed a makimum ]�ei�ht of 54 ieet. for the Vail Uate«�y Pla�.a buildii�g and the further encroachment of a buildin� into the vie�� of Vail Nlauntain from tl�e four-way intersection. Julv 29.1946 —An application i� subir,i[ted to tbe T�wn of Vaii Commtmity Devclopme�zt Depa��tment, on behalf of Charles P.. i.:pcon, proposing a major amendment to Special Development District N�. 2�. Ti�e purpose of the �unendrnent is to enclose an existii�g �eek (460 sq_ ±C.) on Lhe east side of the upper levei of Condominium U�it No. 5. A��rUSt 2b,1996—`�'he I'lanninn & Em�iron:nental Commission held a public hearinb to evaluate the major ame:�ej nent rec�uest. in ?he mernora�ldum to ihe Corrunission staff identified two main issues; impact5 of the pro��sed <<�ldition on vi�ws of Vai] Nioun[ain from the roundabout area anci tl��e eompalibiliry of ihe proposcd addiCion wi'tv the architecTure of the; e:ci�ting Gatcway T3uiiding. The ?oilo�✓in�, text �vas taken dircctly from thc staff inemorandui� to the P'.anning & EnviroiL�nental Commission, Augttst2fi, 1y96: � i � "The vielv isstie u��zs .liscu��.�ecl diirrn,n [{�e Ph;i� rm�l Cuir�n� prnp�sal irr t%ie late 79210's. T/re irra��act,s oJthe /�uildi�zg's ori;ir�al (%�car-way-stvp tii�ere the sr�6ject uJ�nriicii discesssio pi-ovicted by the cleveloper-. T�iat analys�s conl�ct�•ed the i❑ Builclin; tivit{� tite appro�•ecl �ievel�prnertt plurt Jor Phase I, ar,alysi.s, the ro<�I7ine n1 �he Gateti��ay Bti�i/�fing titi�as moc�i�i t/�ie gap or '�iotcl� "hetia�eerr the easte�•ri �•i�lge an�l the ;ve,st :-icige had a�ositive e�ect o�1 i�iews, nr�d the notch he�wee� Vuil _bfoi�rit�rir�Ji�tirre ?heJ�ia��-tivaystop. ,�1 copy uf tlte vietiti Tlte Totvn recentiv completed the con,stlzr,crion ofri mo�ler. roundabo��t effectii�el�� replacert the 4-wa�� stvp. The geon tlramatically differ-ent tiia�� the 4-way stop. Thus. stciJ��re- rela�ecl to tlie proposed additi��i. TFie additio�i tivill ericroc lines or� tiie bitildi�ng. Sta1J did both a d1-ive-by and a��valk ro�mda6oi.�t ar-ea. YYe cnnclucjed that although the a�lditia liries. t�ie r.�rzpacts oi2 vielvs to Yuil �Lfr»�ntain r�re relntivell remains visible over� the to� of �iie Gntetivay Building. i/ rei�ie��vs o/�ihe i�titial Gateiti'ay Bt.rilclirt,; �oo/�line or� the vi�,v o/'i'ai! �L1v�rrrtain /i�vm tlte. �. .�1 vie�v unalrsi,s tivas �•eqa�E�sted bystuJfand nacts nf ake rovf lines pj-��posed at tire Catetiti�ay � oJ�the ltr�il Villuge Irtn. .�?s a reszclt of the l�ic�v r�l The easterry�-naost ridge lin� wc�s lotivereil arrd �n ri�l�e i:�us �vide�ierl. Loiverin; the ea.ster�z the ttitio mai�? riclges also ir��prnvec� tfte vie�� of a�T�clysis is attached to this rne»ior-an�l�G,�z. rot�ndaboa�t at thc: main T�ail intercfiari�e_ The �ny ancl fi�r�ctior� of �he Your�dabout is isitec'1 tlie vieiv inzpacts ofdhe Gatetiva,yBeiil�irrg �y� i�ito the rtotct� benveen the two mai�i ricl,�e ng ar.al>>sis ui�l�iew impacts fi�onz tl�e .roict/i z e�7crr�acytec! intn the fzotch het�veen zlie ridge irtsionifeUnt Tlie majorit�, of the ski ntvatntain Tl�e view throz��h tjte notch is very srricrll and is visrble oal � for a Jew secor2ds ��vhen cfrivir.g arotznd the tivester-n half of the roundaboa�t. Given tlEe fact that cars iy the 1•our?rLabout are conti��a�ously 1m m�tinn, staff feels that visito�s to tl7e Towrr of yail will be mor�e intent o� watchifig tivhat is iiappening tivith otj�er cars. or t�ying zo rletermine which exit to take, ruther than attempt ng to look throuoyt td�e notch on the Galewny Baiilding to see Yail ��touritain. � With re;ard to con;ormity to the Vail �Village Iviaster Plan, staff st� "As discusse%1 in Criteria A aLove, stc�Jfha.e revietived t1tY eompares the approved Gatetivay rooJ7ine tivith tJie approv feels that tj�e corlstruction of the r•oi�ridahout has c�ia�tged fro�cindabout has cr•erzted a more ej�cie�zt tra�c f1ow. Sta/ is not conducive to pedesZriarzs lingering artd vierving tfie tltroitgh the iiotch in the Gatew¢y Bz.iilrlirta r�re not as inil, Plan tivas originally approtie�l. Staff helieves that signific, e_riszing Gatelvay Builrlir�� anrl that the��roposed actditio� view. le a��d �ittached a eopy of a t'iew Arialvsis thnt � Yail I�illuge Inra PFtr�se Ii�c�rpan,sion,. Str�ff he ur-en of the 4-way dramaticnlly ancl that ahe feels tjial the area in and around the rounctc�l�out i.ountairi and feels that views of Yail Motiirttair7, rrtani as tlrey may have been when the Land Use �it views m-e still avuilab/e over the top of'th� tivotsld have little, or- rio impact on the overall 7'he Ba�ilding Hei�iit Plan s{iolvs the Gc�teway Ba�ilrling at stories, and i�2dicates tliut it does not conTorni io tlie plan (story height at 9Jeet). The elevation of the �r sting ridge is �4 Jeet above grade along th� soutlz elevntion. The applicant tivi,shes to exten�t this rid�e line approximately 2S feet to the east. This will raise the height pf the building in the noteh area. StaJf be 'eves that the additior�al hei�ht is not detrimental given the mass. bulk and jteight of the entire ba�ilding. " Last.ly, in rei�iewing the criteria for a major amendment to an exist "During tlie discussion af tlTe or•i�iraul SDD, u�i.�mcco St sttiry htaildir�g tlzat nllntived for signijicunt vieivs o>>er its r the ti'ail Village Inn hacl not been const�z�cted,. and views , The PFC ancl Coia�rci! mefnbers tivere r�eacting sh'on�ly to approval ��fPhr�se IV �%the Yail G'illage Inrr. The Tnwn c the moa�ntairi vielv ji•om rhe 4-tit�ay sar�p. TTtus, it is under•: on vie;l�s• tivas th�roaa,;hly di.rca�ssed at that tim.e. Stajffeels that tlie change i�t conditions Ut the nrain yail ir � combineil �i>ith tJte elisting locatiori of�the Gutetiva�� Buildi clem�er•. St�fffeels t/tat tlie notch betiti�een tlre eustern air�l no longer as important a vielv as it �tivus consicler•er� di�u•ing that (he propose�l adciitiort �loes not ��i�ni�cuntl�� alter the � Yail �Yfountairi %rnnz the entr}�vay to Totivn. " ; SDD, staff states, �'on was present on tke siie. This was a one- /�Jr-nm ihe a��ea of the 4-wny scop. Phase Ii�nf the lotiti�el• po��tiari of the mn�rnlain still exist�d. e signiJiearit loss of views resultino fror,i the cials simpl;� did riod want to loose any more of rrdable tnat the biiilcfing hei�ht and its impacls terchartae {i.e. roun�labout constr-��etion) �gan;1 irs roojline have marfe th,e vie~v isst.ce the 1ve,ster-n rid�es vn the Gateway B�uildiri�; is tFie nrigir�al SI�D ctisc�assio�as. Thus, strifJJeels �a�ilc'lin,; ��lesign or significatitly i�npede vie�vs of Fall�nvin� di.c.cussi�n of the re�ue�t, ii�e Pl<annin� & Er.vironr_iental Cornmi5sion voted unanimou�ly (7-0) to recommend appr�val o'r the ma}or amendment request to the Vail 'Iown C�uncil. Iu making the recommeodatio�, the Commissiotl fuund lhat, � "T{�GZ tlre requestect major a�nendn�ent to Speciul Devc:lopnzent District #21, has heera �•evie��vert in �� rcco��dar;ce with Chapter 18.�0 of the Tu;vn oj Yuil ,Lfa�nicipul Code, aircl t{iat, t�ie proposed a»ierctnient is irz cort%o�'rnarrce lvitlt ilte r-e��ietiv criter�ia c�valtr�alr��f i;t .Section I!I (,S�e�'ial Developn�tent I)t�tric� �'tzter-ia) oj � ihis rnernorandu��i, dated Au��st 26, �996. " . � � � � � � Octt�ber 1. 1995 —Tbe Vaii Town Co��cil adopie�l Ordi��ance No. 17, Series oti 1997, An Ordinance Providing For The A�ajor Arnendment Of Special Development District No. 21, VaiI Gate�uay; Arnending An Approved � Development Plan For Special Development Disrrict'No. 21 In Accordance With Cl�apter 18.40 Of The Vail 1Vluiucip�l Co�e. In adopting il�e ordi�ance, the Councii found, in part, that, "... urrd nieets the Desig�z Startdar�ts as set Jort�� in Section 18.40 of the �l�lz�nicipal Corle.._ and that the major SDD arrtenctntent regzaest is in campliance with tlre goals anct objectives of [he Vail Cw»pr�eherisive Pla.ri, as well as the pu��ose sectiori oJ"the SDI� Overla�y Zorte l�istrict. " F:\everyonelcouncil\memosl99\wi 1207 I 4 �i� � �� , � � � '� �� ,,, ,� TOI� OF �AIL �' 75 South Fr�nta�e Roaci V"nil, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138/ 479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT ----I MEMORANDUIIJ! Distribution I Depa�tment of Community Devel pment August 9, 1993 View Corridor Task Force �� De/�Elrtrrienz of Co��znrunity Develop�nPnt We would like to let you know about what progress has been made on the View Corridor Project. The Community Development staff has had a chance to take photographs of viev+�s from Vail Village and Lionshead. These photographs have beer developed, a�d we plan on getting back together with the View Corridor Task Forqe this fail to prioritize and establish four new view corridors this year. Because of a change in staff, the project timeline has been extended. We will be notifying you in the future of the date and time of our next meeting. Please f�el free to give the Department of Community Development a call at 479-2138, if you have any questions or comments. Thanks! xc: View Corndor Task Force Members: Michael Arnett, Design Review 8oard I Gerry Amold, Vail Associates , Dave Corbin Jack Curkin ' Diana Donovan, Planning and Environmental Commission Jim Lamont Joe Macy, Vail Associates Tom Steinberg, Town Council ', Packy Walker, Lionshead Merchant's A�sociation Daiton Williams, Planning and Environrrlentai Commission 1 ; �� , , �, � , , -: `,! ♦I ��] �� TO��V OF vAIL � 75 South Fror�tr�ge Rr�ad Vail, Colorarlo 81657 303-479-2138/ 479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 TC7: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Distribution Departrnent of�Cornmi�nity Develo�mertt Town of Vaii Office of Community Development May 20, 1993 View Corridor Task Force Although we did get a little wet, the View Corridor Task Force meeting held on Monday May 17, 1993 was very helpful in initiating this year's effort to establish four new view corridors. Whils walking through Lionshead with the group, several potential vistas were identified and photographed. Present for the meeting were: Kristan Pritz, Tim Devlin, Andy Knudtsen, Jim Curnutte (Community Development); Michael Arnett (Design Review Board); Diana Donovan, Dalton Williams (Pianning and Environmentai Commission); Joe Macy, Gerry Arnold, Dave Corbin (Vail Associates); Tom Steinberg (Town Council}; and Packy Walker (Lionshead Merchant's Association). Absent were Jack Curtin and Jim Lamont. Our next View Corridor Task Force meeting is scheduled for Wednesday May 26th at 8:30 a.m., and we will be meeting at the east end of Lionshead Mall. At this meeting (weather permitting), we will finish up Lionshead and move on to the Village to identify more potential views and take more photographs. Please call Tim or Jim in Community Development at 479-2138 if you cannot attend this meeting. Thanks! xc: View Corridor Task Force Members: Michael Arnett, Design Review Board �Jack Curtin � Diana Donovan, Planning and Environmental Commission ��Jim Lamont �°'Joe Macy, Vail Associates Tom Steinberg, Town Council Packy Walker, Lionshead MerchanYs Association Dalton Williams, Planning and Environmental Commission � ;� �; �.�,�, , ;j�c�. � v LUV \��, � � . , „�,r ' � � � �� -� � ' �y�� ►'� TOWN OF vA1L � i5 South Frnnta�e Rn�d Vail, Coloradc� 81657 303-479-2138/ 479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM View Corridor Task Force Departrnent nf Cornnu��ity Develnpinent Town of Vaii Community Development Department May 13, 1993 View Corridor Meeting Agenda The agenda for our first View Corridor Task Force Meeting at 2:00 p.m. on Monday May 17, 1993, is as foilows: 1. Purpose Discuss the strategy for establishing up to four new view corridors in the Village and Lionshead during 1993. I1. Review Existing View Corridor Ordinance (attached) Enclosed please see Ordinance No. 18 of i 992, which created a new chapter of the Municipal Code to provide for the protection of certain views within the town. 111, Lionshead Walking Tour (weather permitting) We plan to do a walking tour of Lionshead to begin the investigation of possible view corridors in this area, and photographs will be taken to begin documeniing potential views. We will do a walking tour of the Village at the following meeting of the Task Force. IV. Fotlow-Up Discussion and Selection of Time for Next Task Force Meeting Our meeting will originate at the Community Development offices (old Post Office building). Please let us know if you cannot attend by cafling Tim Devlin or Jim Curnutte at 479-2138. We look forward ta seeing you May 17th! xc: View Corridor Task Force Members: Michael Arnett, Design Review Board Jack Curtin Diana Donovan, Planning and Environmenta! Commission Jim Lamont Joe Macy, Vail Associates Tom Steinberg, Town Council Packy Walker, Lionshead Merchant's Association Dalton Williams, Planning and Environmental Commission � �`' �` F,�a. ,�'�,y;a� f�`.,9�t�'ft� �r; 1 € .� s Jl� v.<,P �.P° o �` �'�; ,. - • �\ \ ` � _� �, � �y � TOWN OF YAIL � 75 South Frontuge Road Vuil, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138/ 479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: � Departmerit nf Cot1i»iuniry Devclopment MEMORANDUM View Corridor Task Force I Town of Vaii Community Developm�nt Department May 13, 1993 , i View Corridor Meeting Agenda .. ........... ...,.. .-- „A......,�_.,::.H:�.: :..:.::�.H:.._.:._.:,.....__._....�.......�............... .f,x �, 4.,,,.....�.�,,.; n ,,. ....,.,,, . . <:.:.: . .... .. . The agenda for our first View Corridor Task Force Meeti� at 2:00 p.m. on Monday May 17, 1993, is `, �_.._ as follows , -----______.__ -� � P,� pose Ua�s the strategy for establishing up to four ne�r view corridors in the Village and Lionsh ad during 1993. '�, Revlew Existing View Corr(dor Ordinance (atta�hed) � Enclosed please see Ordinance No. 18 of 1992, which created a new chapter of the Municipal Code to provide for the protection, of certain views within the town. III. Lionshead Watking Tour (weather permitting) We ptan to do a walking tour of Lionshead to begi� the investigation of possible view corridors in this area, and photographs will be taken to beg9n documenting potential views. We �fill do a walking tour of the Village at the following meeting of the Task Force. IV. Follow-Up Discussion and Selection of Time fqr Next Task Force Meeting - Our mee#ing will originate at the Community Development offices (old Post Office building). Please let us know if you cannot attend by calling Tim Devlin or Jim Curnutte at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you May 17th! � �,�7 � f ,"�, . t�'=� f -�- xc: View Corridor Task Force Members �� ;��;��,� Michael Arnett, Design Review Board t' �� , �1,��-Jack Curtin �: �-,° - "�=f--=- �� -`_} ��f•�� Diana Donovan, P(anning and Environmerital Commission ; � ��p y� t.�:Jim Lamont � �c + -Joe Macy, Vail Associates '�'`�`��;�� Tom Steinberg, Town Council � ``�`� �,uc�Packy Walker, Lionshead Merchant's Assdciation � �'��` =a - Dalton Williams, Planning and Environmental Commission ��, ii�J�•; 4" _ �. 1 �-,�.3-Lt�i;{`.. . •'tt f ;3... PF�_,s•. f -�t � f � � � � ; ^� ", Y ; _ _t;_. ,f� �; ,_ �� ,:;1 ��,ri� ,,�� , � r _ ��-� ; � ' �'� . ��.,,�,:�.-. . . [ 4� � f �4i .. � 3 F fi 2 i`�f � � f; {G%'' �' pf�'��'°,% .4..-* �..� ,�r�,�� i s a �„�{".i' ,`� nlf-�J q�'��.� 417��:sV`�� r �� `'��, _, ', � �� : � �� C,� st 1� TOW�V OF UAIL � 7_S Snuth Froriti�ge Road Yail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138 J 479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT Depuri�nertt c�f Cor�rf�z�snity Dcvelopntent MEMORANDUM View Corridor Task Force Town of Vaii Community Development Department May 3, 1993 View Corridor Meeting We wili be having our first View Corridor Task Force Meeting at 2:00 p.m. on Monday May i 7, 1993, at the Community Development offices (old Post Office building). At this meeting, we wili be reviewing the existing view corridor ordinance to familiarize the Task Force members with what is currently in place; also, we can set our strategy for estabiishing four new view corridors this year. Please let us know if you cannot attend by calling Tim Deviin ar Jim Curnutte at 479-2i38. We look forward to seeing you May 17th! xc: View Corridor Task Force Members: Michael Arnett, Design Review Board Jack Curtin Diana Donovan, Planning and Environmental Commission Jim Lamont Joe Macy, Vail Associates Tom Steinberg, Town Council Packy Walker, Lionshead Merchant's Association Dalton Williams, Planning and Environmental Commission We are presently in the process of forming a smail task force to look at estabiishing new view corridors for the study area of Vail Village and Lionsh�ad. $8,855 has been allocated for 1993 for creating up to four (4) new view corridors in �ddition to the five (5) ihat have been formaily adopted. ' We were thinking that the task force couid be made u¢� of one representative each from the Town Council, the Pianning and Environmental Commlission (PEC), and the Design Review Board {DRB). In addition, we were hoping to get som�one from Vaii Associates (perhaps Joe Macy), a representative of the Viliage homeowners (Jim Lamontj, and a representative from both Lionshead and the Village. it would be the charg�e of this task force to work closely with Community Developmeni staff to estabiish new view cprridors by walking the Viliage and Lionshead to: i.) investigate vistas that are important to preserve or worth "opening up" at some future date; 2.) document these vistas through p�hotographs; and 3.) prioritize the list of views. �, , We will be requesting that representatives to this task'��orce from the DRB and PEC be decided at the next scheduled meetings for these Boatds (March 17 and March 22, respectively). Also, we are in the process of contactin�g both Joe Macy and Jim Lamont to see if they would like to participate on this task force. We are also �equesting that a representative of the Town Council be chosen at the March 23 work session for this task force. We look forward to discussing this item in further deta�l with the Council on March 23, 1993. xc: PEC DRB � ,� ;,; °;,' � � � -�.Joe Macy, Vaii Associates � � �-; ��.={ j � Jim Lamont, East Village Homeowners Associaltion Larry Grafel ��t� � � j�� f . . ., � �� ' , . TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA REQUEST �v.• . � �l � (Request form must be given to the Secretary to the Town Manager by 8:00 a.m. Thursdavs.) MEETING DATE: � �� I � (Prepare a separate Agenda Request for each agenda item. If the agenda item will be discussed at both a Work Session and an Evening Meeting, be certain to check both boxes in this section and indicate time needed during each meeting.) �� Work Session TIME NEEDED ; �i� �3,•i��;��5 O Evening Meeting TIME NEEDED : O 5ite Visit T1ME NEEDED : WILL THERE BE A PRESENTATION ON THIS AGENQA ITEM BY NON-TOV STAFF? ,�" NO. O YES. Specifics: WILL THE PRESENTATlON OF THIS AGENDA ITEM REQUIRE ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, i�.e,. overhead projector, etc.? ��Q NO. O YES. Specifics `WILL THERE BE MATERIAL TO BE 3NCLUDED IN COUNCIL PACKET FOR THIS ITEM? �' NO. O YES. If yes, is the material also for pubiic distribution? O Yes. O Na ITEM/TOPIC: � /�G�CGr�v� ��ix�j �or� ��1� �juv Gz�u. C.�,�,�i�--> �� 4' /r��%'ri� %//y�aa, � � � � f < a lGaf��'i��>�h � 1f� �� ^�,,!c' �., v/��.%i C�rr��FrS. AC710N RE4UESTED OF COUNCIL.: � /'%�'� � c'o-`sr�ci ��r5,�h � fl�.c� / ��l � �'l-�' a-� v;r,.,� corrri-/25 BACKGROUND RATIONALE: ��? ,�t� �� /112�-:��o" � �ijr� �.z,�,ci � /-�'�� /f�.�rC /� %`J"�> . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: /�YFJ� ) /��/�/1/��,� � r��; � � �,.�,s, Employee Signature/Department C:NGEN�A.RE� • ' Iy_.�_,._ 4 t -.:.,.-..-.....�'"^' �r ��;� *�� Ff s ,% , -. �� '�1 f-={'� � _ _ , __� _ _ �. _ _ _. __ __ � � j� � �� ,' � �� ' ` 1 � f / '`r 1�%. f`IT ✓ti r� , --�''r` . f . ( � � _-_ I �4�-�` �,....� � .� _.._._....,_a ___� _ � __ � ____ .�__.__ .. �,. ._ . � . . ..� __. _._._�._ _ +, �. �.�— , .r' /.- . ` �t ,*� i�/� / i � . � ,.r`�` �v. �r ��. �9� �'. ��f �.:.�`'.G� ��f°f T�r�r� �_%��`r :..G. �, f��;.? �''1��'`�y.._�f �' ,'i�.s.�`�- � __._...��w.� r.....�:.,..._.__��_.s��___�____._..�.. ._.� ,. _..� �t' �_ ,_� ,_.,.___, � w� p ... I � 1 �,�'�'<',l.aYi, �r2�2!'� ;si-"'{ � �_._.. , . ..._.�..._� . .._ ...�_,-�.�._� �.:w. _._._� .,__ . . _ .� _..,. i ,%r j �.__� _, —°-.. ,._�.._, �� : �'�� _.__ � .. __.__ ;._,__.-___�__.M,_..�...�._._�_�,..�__._ _ f:.,,.,_w.._ , - - . __ , _ . , _.� < .� % � /�/ ; ,� ; �' I ��Tr .1' .� �' ,�"Y* f �f�/f� >, s�^ � . � �� ,,�s r�,� �,s t ` � � - r --�-�'-7 i� -'� ...,__.�...._ a__��. _..„ _ ; __._ _ , _ ._____ _. ... � ..,.__ � v�.�. � . �� f S . ._.,.�::..� _..�._ �_...-._..__...........�... . f ~...,_....�....':�w��m_.._._ _..,....._...�.--._...�,,....-�_.. d-._.-.a,. _.v._ -.....,.«....,.:.... ��__,-...._,..... - i � iii? � � `I _. �. � . _,_m. _. __�' � _ _ - .. � ,. . � _ . . .".� _ J _�� `� � '`f"'��< �.._.__�_,�'�tlsj ..sy��'.3 � �f�� . �. .._._..�.�-i __.�.� _. _ 1� __.,,_ .._ �_�_,._ . .. .._�.._ _ � 1 �� _ : . i � �� }� tf3� �? �•� '� '-. �- '_ . � . . . . :: .' . .. .. ' _ _ . . ' .Y � I :___"�--.._.�-�,,:.._�,.._.,_ _. �.,.....,.._.._ _ ....-��_,........__..,�........_..._.__._..,._. -_.._...._..._.. _._..,�.-,.�....,Y` ..._,.,....-�..._....,. _.._.,....__.:,.� �. .._,.�..__. ,..,.:'_1 � �. - i /�J,.�. " � -- . . . . . I .� ... ,.�' �7Z ,,,,: �. �,� `� 1 ,. . ,___ � ; ._ �_��__,..,-.�.�.�, � _ _ _ _ __-____ _.,. � _ ._� � "- Y � � � �� f � ��t^ �. ��Yt`� � � /'Lfi f _�'° . _� L�� .t lln�T g �{iTl "+• � � � .y�. .,t..__,._.� ._. .._.r_._.,..,.-._...__ "__ �....._ . _.,._. __� �" q �' � . ._.-.__..._.___� r r ...,t:. .._, .� ._�..,�. _. __. _.__ � __ ,..._._...._. .., . _ _ ,,.. _. _ ! ..__ ...,_.- , r! � _� ,��.�. � _ �� _, � �.....�,� �'�� _.__ ___._._._.� � _.�...M____._._ _ _ ��.V 3�� _�__� y � �_ �_ �__.__ � �' ` , J �e,�^ ��' ��ia"f ,��`• � d T. �"�'?', x!� ._�'�`�T ._`___ � '��'�^,.�,�C-.'" � .. . __.._ j- — -� .. � _ _ , �„�" f— �.. _. _. � _M . .. _. � �`r� `�i�� /V.i/ " � -- - f/��3t ✓�. � . � `°' ` . �� , �r✓`L�'�_ 1 i :-,�, �G,los^r .�'.-S �/ � �_ � �� t FY`��f� V.i.�'�c��.��i.F-e-"/l�z� ,.�f}_.__ _��'f ��'`� ...�.. : �_,_---,...- ,__�_..._. �__.-- `._.... � .__�:__ . . . . . . ... . . �/ �� ! -. : . � . ' . . .. .. : . . ... ..�. ..:. . . � ..�. ' " } / �y^ � ��{i� ��0.+'fil��i �Jf�� '. �--.�. ,,..._ ..._. , ., ...,, . Y �- . _�_ �.�,..w ,.. :. . .. . -:,. , ., � .. .... , . _ , , . �.: ...._ ... . , _..... � .._.�... �., .�......_J, _ , ,....... ..., ,,, , ...,, .�. ...._ ,...,,..... .,_.,-...».e ,...vT...P .. ,.. � I . . . . . .. : _.'_.. . : .. -. . . ... . . .. _ :. . - ,1�-f�: f�t �{ F� . �. �. _ __ ._'__U._. __,., ..,... ,.,._,..___-._. _,.,...._.. r � . , , .. _ �:� _ ....H......:,.,,N,�. . ,.. :! . ... -J..., .. _ , -..,.. ..,... .�.,..:...,.,� ... , .u,..._.,,. ,_... �� _...� _ ....... <....._, , �..,. , r �, . _, _.,. _ _.._.,.,._._ . . _. . .. .,, , _. . _ . . . . I � � ____ ._ � T :::....wa._.�� . �...�_.,.r_' _. _�_�.:..r r �� :._._.__ : ___�_. � __��. _,. .. .,_.�.m:.. __ __�aT _.._. � �.__m� ._.�. _. _.._.�. . _ _ _. . ._____ m ._ _ _ _ _._ ,,� �, ,�A y / - "�'� � ..� � �LI� �F��F _ . i, .% �„ ' l� .V._r.._ dc'�. _. ,. . ,� . .. ..-,_ _ ,..,. -_ __ . .�.,.,�.,. �..,..._.... »�, � ,�_ ,��, _._�_._� :..... :, .._._____. _._..._,.�� ._.._M.r..__..:-_�.__-__.,.___�_____:�_.,.__._ — -° -°- -�_.w.__ ¢°.. �1�& £A r � � 7�c � .,..,�,.�.____.,_....._ _ �_�. �_., _... _,. � ,T _,. ___ _ _ _ _ ___ � - . , ,.� pfp� / -� ,! . .. , . . . - ' '. . . . . ._,.._._._�._...__�..:.._.. .,__.. .., i, � �I� E -t�d j �.��,y �. .,.G.....,...�... . Y�.�" _...' � .. —�,...-... __ ��,-, .�........:�..- ,...-�:.._._.....-.,..-,. ....�....._ ,- -- -.;.,.,..... ...�.....,. '�- �f,.-f..�,........ ,. . ,....,». ._..y,..,._.._,.._,.�.._..._.....,-r . d..:.�. .x.. .. . - . � . . - � ....,...._........ ,. . . ,,.... : ,':., . f - . . : � . . . � ` --.-. I. . . ' . . � . ' ; t' - � � .. �. . ..,,. ,..,,_ e, ,,. . ..� .. . � _. _ , _ .r_,.. '. m � _.� _� � � �`'� ��"' l.t'�f' � f � � ._�., ` � � /��•'�_ . �� .�C y � ,( �� ! iJfO �� 'l y.s`� " � r _ . � l� ��" .r..:,....._., _ ,,r .,. d�! f,�_. t_. _ �___._ ._. _._�, �...�.., _ Y � �° �°" °1 ,r ; _.' _. _ _ _ _ -� ..,,.Y-vI i. - � �- -. . �. / : � .. �. �. � � . //J T ,y " ,.,,: .»_...__�'� «__ -.r., ,__.. Pr'�i ��`f''`�� ..�E�.?�-.�? �.fF.,ej __ _._ �,- ..._...._.T _' I ;__w_ __��_�., ..,_.._.� .' _'.._� ..._�.�,�...�.�.�.. _..__.__._. __._�__ ___._�: _�..___:�___m..�_.�� '' �'�'�`' , �� ? �`% � � __. ._ �w�,_�� _ _. _ �._._ �.� ._.___ ._ ___�.� _ �,�� _ __ __ ..:� ..____ .. �..�. . _ ._ _�._.M.�_-- --- _ __ _,._�.��.�r,�_�.. ____ _��._..a. .,�..._. __ ._ .. :, ._.... _.,_. _..�..._ _. :.� __ _ /� � �. _ � ` . f f/'� °' j ♦'i�,�rF�� .. . �- �. .; . � <I -�'i': C�% i �� Lr _ � � C � l,/ G � _ . �_ .m�., ...:, i , �..._...�:.. ..__............ ,... _... /._ _ . ............._.....� _._.__.�,,..,_..w.m....:....._.__......_. _T._..�.._._...__. _._. , _ . ;:,_..�..._ . ._ . . . . ' . , f� + s �' �e.<-- . ,�-.� Q�?�, . r �";�.f'' � �� ,:f.. ,/�r�',�,' �,. '.�"'f`�! �� •I Y/.-f� < ��___.�.�.�.._.... C. _.�__r___�.� .� _ _.=,�_�w......_FM_.___ _._._�m:.__��_.�" j ��.__._._�� .�.._. ��__.__.��_..�w_.__ � ..__W _____�r.�_.��_�..�_..� t / � � i k ,r,�� %f fi ,�,`�� _ ..�� # ._.,_ _�� .. ...... a �1_'=�� '� ` _�_ ._ .�i��____..�� . . _. � ___ �._._. _�. _._.__ ' ' ' ".� � , ,�' �/ ` _ ., � __ �,,`� x,�l� __.__ ..��.�.___._. ..��. ...Ll/,�r,�l�_,_ ��' __....�.._._.�._._�_ -_ __rv �_.__ . � _ _w .,.,__ ��'; ` < ,.., f "`� , , ...�.. ..�.,,.. .......w ._.,._ _ �...�_w< _ f �.�,�._..._..�. �...;.......Y...,..�,:. _.._M._.._-_.. __,.�M._°____.�.�..�_,. ,,. �..�.�.___..—, �,�.....w __..._...... __.,___ . . .._ ,r `_�. _ �"�� G`� . ,_m, .�� __ _ _ � .� , .:_. . ...., . . ,_ ' � � /��''��_ ,�r'`�'�<� s�"+"_"z -� __�.__ �� ,�.��. .,.. .�:. ��_�� _,_ _._w� .. ____u.__�.� ��.....a.�._...: _... _�� - � - �� - - - �_ � w_; :_ __ _y�� - � �- , . . � �.� °r � �'� ��F%G"r / F� � � , ,. . �``'�� '?'fnV"'✓ . . j}' _ .. � _ � - �_ ., _ __, _�..„. - . _ _._., . . . e., _ { � �" .txi�� l .1�..t �r' _.:��__ .�..m : w ._. _�_� �...� _._ ___._._ _.. . . . ._._ _ ,. __ ..., _�� _. _'�.... � _ . ..., .,_ _ - ° -. _ _ _ __ __.... _-_ _ _ �- ,r ��..:.�__ .. __.. .. _ _ . _ ._:� .., _._,. . .,..__.._: ... � 1�'1� y , �_�j 7 �„�'l/i° ,M ' f�"; �.' .d�"�� `- - ._ --_ __. .� . _ ._. ... _ , _ , _ __ _ _ __... _ . � '-. . . _. ..m ...�,, f �. -,._._ . � �,-�� . �... � ._�_:..._ �.w_ __�.._ _..� � rI �y .�, . ��_... L`_ - ,..... __M._.�� ,s I : � £ � � . � ��g�� . . 1 � /'. . .. ., . . 2 . � s j�„ r,,. t ,� . ....:., ...�._....-_.„..,.____._..; __,. _,:..__._,,. _;:-.._ ._._.„,. ...._.., . :... ,<_...��. .._ ,2_:... _. ___ . ._ ...:._:...��.._._ _� . �,-._. _.._..:.,. _..._...__:.__..� _ :_�._ ___._... _M-..,.�;....-_-��-,..: �-. A � j . � � � .� . � . . jfF f % f� ,.. ,... _ _.....f-.,.....��_ _._:..-.,_....,,�16 �%".1.�..,..s.:..'" ;r _ _i!_ ��Sm _. � ...,�......, "�k��, ��,.�� ° T �_ . ' � �....,.. .__�,., _.�. .�_�....._ _ . _,,...r,..T.,_.�.-..-.- � ,_. , 3 A �.,, � .✓� I f,Jr,� �� c_ ` `y ��'� � j �- �`�'•�°�p �� Z`' j,P'J �„ `''�^`� . .� _...._.,:r_ 1_s,c _ . _ -- = _ .� .,.,.._,._ _. _, - -..-.� _ . .,., � .,_. �� ._ ..__'/"' , .._ ... - .._ .._.___....,.___ _-- {� _..'-'_ �_—.. , '�. � ._......-....- A.�_ _ .,... ....._.-._.�,.,_ _ _ {. r . o l �r<��L,,� �_fZ',��...,J., ,,2' _ — .. } _ — —_-_ _ — _— . . . . . . .. . . . . . � . � . k�; ;;t ` � 1 �, � . ��, � :�,:- . . t;; _ < � t :� . ° . � .:� - . � ,��'r t }Y ;�`i�f , l:sy� � �,.�„,. `� � , s�'`� �_, �� _ � ^� � ~. . .. � . 3F. . _.. _ .�: _ � , _ _ �- ' _ _ _- _ : - -- - - j ± �t e ' " j .. { `� � �a f . ��y � � ,;�ir�i si``�A� �er.'r'� �� ,i,s� '�- f`�� ,',r`� , �:.JS't� _ ,�� t . _ ..... . f _ _ I __ _ - - - - ;: � . : � i 4 � . - , . � ' . � . ' . � . � . . . . ' ' � _ . ., .; . . ...... ...._.__ . ...... a .......... � .__... ,....... .............. .............. ..____ .._.. ..:. ' .. . .. '.._ . ._ . .... . .._.._.._ ,. ....... ..__.. __. . _._..._. _ . , : I : ' . . . . . .... _. . ;}y . ' . . . � . . . . .. . . . . ' 4 £ ' .. . . . � ' . . . . . . . . . � - . . . ' ' . . . . �3 _.__.. ..._ .._ . -.___.. .............. ... ___._ _ ....... —..._:._ ... ..-_...... .....�._. . _.._..._.__ ...___. . . _..._... :_.._._:.._ ......_. ._. .. .._. .. .... _ . � ' : �_ . � _._ ...:... . .: ..._ _ �. ii . . . 3 �. . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . ' - . . . . . .... . _.'___.: ........,.� .._.._ .:___ .....:....... "'..:.__, ..__. .__... ..... '._.... _ ..,...._ _ ..__�.:._. . ,._._... _"_'._.. ..""'_�._ . ..._ __.__ _ _. ._.._..... ..........._.__ € . �t� . . . �.. . ' - � . . . . � . . . . . . .>} . . , . .. . - . . . . . A ? 3 . . . . � ' `, . � '. ' . . . . . . . . � . � .. . . . . . .:.. . . � � . . .. .. ..... .........zi} ..... _..... ....:... .... _........_ _� ,._.. . .. . .. - � .... . . .. .... � � .._. . ._.._.�� . . ........ . .. __...., ..... _ .. .__�....._ ............. .._.. ._... : i : . .__._ ._._—_'_ _.... .. ..-' ....... ... . . ......... }. ....._..._,. _.._.._._ . . ............_ .�.�..._____ ..__-__ ..._._._.._._.. ...._._ .. ........ ..._.....�._ . __._. ......_...._.....,�..._��_._...._. __.._: :..___._._._____._... . ..........,.. . . ;; � .. . . . .. ' . . . . . . . . , ' .. .. .. . . _ ... .. .. . t .... .. . __. __. . ....... .. ..... .. . ... __ . ._._ _. . . _ ._�.— _ . ' ___. _'_ ' ___.. .. _ . _._.... .. _ _ ,�.. .. . _ __ � .. _ .... , ... � I . . . . , ' ' . . . . _ . . ...... .... . . ...._s.i. ._�. ...... _ ...___._._ . ._..._. ._.:. . _....._ _. _ � .....: ...__._..:..-' __._.:..__ _ _._ .._...._ . -. _ : _._- ._ __..:. ._ �.:.._..M - �_.:___.� " _......:,.. . . _.___�.—."___ _ ............... . . . ' ' � i - - . � . � ' . . � . . . . . . . ' - ' - . . . . . . . . . � i-. . . . . . . . " . . . . - . . . - - . . . . . . - :#i - . . .. . . . . � . . . � . . � . - . . _. __. -.._ _....._._ ......... _._ __.__ ,.._.. ..._..__ ..--'-. .__-- ,.. . ..__..- -.-_._ _..____ _�..._. ._.. ..-- _ -. _ _ ,,........_. ( ' _ �- - -� � � � �.: -� �. �. . .� .� �� . .. �. .:. _ �___ ... �+ -_._ ..... _....:... _ �-.._ _..._.__ .....:.�. _ ,.....__ _ . .-'--- -'._.-' -..._..,. _- --- .' ._..... . _ _.. -- -_. __ ._ _....._ - � ' � . . ...j' . � . ��: . . . . . . � � . . � . . . I - _. __ i� ---- . . ...: _ -- --__ _ _:_ __ _-`- -- .�— -.—_._. _ �__ . ___.__ _. .._. ... _ _ ..___. __._�_ __. �; . .. I ,, i ,; , ;� _ ._-. ---- --__,�. , _ ._ _. _.. .: _ _ . �_._ - --- _____ _ _----_ ___ _ .__- ----.. _.._. _- - ----._. ___� __ .. � .--_- --_.__ _; �� I _... ---------- _---_ � .'- _______ _ . .._:: _ ..-=---- ..:_ ._. : .. _ �.�-- -- ---- --... _ . �___ _ ---- -__ -- ----- ---- , __ _; :if i ..__ ��__ _ .. _..� r.� ..._._._ ----- - -._. �_ __ _ _....�- --- -- -- . _ __ — — -. .. _ . — - --- ---- ---- - si� , � 5�� - , - -:_. --�------ --_ �� ---_--_ _— __. --_ _ _ --- - _ . --- -- -. _ - - -- --- - - ---- - - -- --- - ------ ��; - - -.- -- --- � , 1 3 ' � � . � . . . ___.__. __. `__ _... ._ -�_. �. " _:.._ ' __._�__.._ ,. _ ..:. _._: _ ..,_....., �... "-__� _.,_ � .... �,. ..... __ '.��_ �,_ _ „�___.�...:,- _._ _ __ _'_ _ ' .._,..._ : ., .; � .. . ' - '. '�' .. - � . ' .' ' . .. . _.. ' - . . . . -. � ��. �: .-. �-. �. : : '� . .,.��"_'�..__-_ .: .._.._,..� � , ��__..� � �..��_,... _.. _.:..�._ .,""�_'"_ _"_ .:. . ... "_: ��_..-_._..-'.�. '_" " .� . . �. ; : . . ; : ` -.. ': . � , ' _ " � "'__ __�_:_� _ �- -_ " _ ' ' ____'_. __._.." }t ; f i' ' t� . . . . � � ' � � Es � � •.. . '._ .. ." ' . . . .. , . �' . ' . �. --. . ..._ �-_. ._. �+ ___ _ . ._ ' . � ._._ _ �_ _ —. '_ __ "__ .. _ '� � � � . . .. '.. _. . '. . . _ _� . r j , _ . . . _ . . ,: . ` � �. . �. . .. . ' � � ' �. __ _ � ' __ '_ ' '_' ' — '�' _ __ ' '__ " _ ' __ .__ __....T."'_ _ `_ __._..__'_ _"_' .,' : -. ; g � � , - _ ' ^j � - _ '.k^j�" '_ " _ _ _... _ _ _ _'--_' ' i '� _"" _ `__ ' _ - __ _' _ t ii . ' '_- _____ .__. � f < _ _ _ ' _ _ _ ' _ - ' _ - _ _ . i ia ----' -'--�-� � -- - -- ' - -- `-- '- - �- --- ' - - - -- - --- o_-T ._�� - � --'----`- --'- � � _.� ' ._ _.. ..: __. - . - . :�W � . , f-- . . . . . . , .�� ,� -. _.._ . . Ij i; � i; � � -�-'�- -"'_..---«i-..._.;---- -_�.' --.'-.-. '- ��.�. �.-- -'=- ----- - �--.....- -- -°. '-"--._��.� -----� -- ---- ------ --..._.__. . �I"t . . . , .� . .. . �� . -. _� i :-- . .. �. . � �;. : . . � �� . - . ;` .z . . . . .. . . ..� �:. �.. - __.-_ �.�� : .�. �. . . .. .. . . , . . .. . . . . . . . . _. . � -. . -. . - �_��..�.. '.__`__�- .__�? �.!_._---___ '_.._'_- ' _.:.-.�—__ "_ '__._" "'._"__. ..: . . . � . _ . . . .. ^ ��_ __ ._ _"___ _._.�__.._.,-____._�-__��_ ____ _.,._ .._- �.__ ° ___. ;�� . `. � ,. �. ! , _ �. � �. �. � _. _.,: � _..__._�... _ ��.___ ' .'.._' __" '�_" ' . . . '_'.:'__ _-___ , � .�._C_ +�--..-�.--�__ _;_ . _.:. _ " _ _._ .._._ __�_ ._ .. ____.�.�: _ '.- ' _.__'_ __ � .:___._ .._ __,.___� _ '_____._' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ , . . . . . . _ _ . _.._-.._'..._..._�_. . �__'__'_'s n'_'�'_ __ ___. :_. _�..._..___._._:._.._ <_, �.. . ._.._ _., .. ._.__ _ ._ ._ ..r. ._ :.. ...__ . .__.�_...._.._ .. __-_.' ___..."_'_..." _. __�_'.�_ � _ _____• �_. _ ___ '.�_'_'_ - _ ._r__ � � � TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA REQUEST ' (Request form must be given to the Secretary to the Town Manager by 8:00 a.m. Thursdays.) MEETING DATE: (Prepare a separate Agenda Request for each agenda item. If the agenda item wiil be discussed at both a Work Session and an Evening Meeting, be certain to check both boxes in this section and indicate time needed during each meeting.) O Work Session 71ME NEEDED : O Evening Meeting TIME NEEDED : O Site Visit TIME NEEDED : WILL THERE BE A PRESENTATION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM BY NON-TOV STAFF? O NO. O YES. Specifics: WILL THE PRESENTATION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM REQUIRE ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, i.e. overhead projector, etc.? O NO. O YES. Specifics: WILL THERE BE MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN COUNCtL PACKET FOR THIS ITEM? O NO. O YES. If yes, is the material also for public distribution? O Yes. O No. ITEM(TOPIC: ACTION RE(�UESTED OF COUNCIL: BACKGROUND RATIONAL.E: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Employee Signature/Department C:NGENDAAEO . ' ' i . . � ' i . _ 1Y.fi�—�i Lj- G�C�'7r,Y -i �`; vi{c�= ' f`fRS,%U' . � -s � E '� o: .:r �J:� r'� %� , <<; � ORDINANCE NO. 18 Series ot 1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION G OF THE VAtL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF VIEWS WlTHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVlDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHiN THE TOWN AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD iNERETO WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Councii that the preservation of cortain existing view corridors Is essentia! to the characteP of Vail as a mountain resort community; and WHEREAS the proservation of views will protect and enhance the 7own's attraction to guests and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will 'stabilize and enhance the aesthetic and econom(c vitality of the Town of Vaif; and � WHEREAS this new chapter will moro clearly identify existing vievr corridors and development procedures for the beneFit of the pubiic; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED 8Y THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Title 18 of the Municipal Code of ihe Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as foilows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors 18.73.010 - Purpose ' - - _ ._ -- ___ The Town of Vail believes that preserving certain vistas is in the interest of the Town's residents and guests. Specificafiy, the Town befieves that: i `.' A. The protection and perpetuation of certain mountain views and other significant �1 ' views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town wiil foster �ivic pride and is in the " pubiic interest of the Town of Vafl; B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain views tor the ,s : enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the residents and guesis of ihe Town; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthotic and economic vitality and vaiues of the Town; E. The preservation of such views is intended to promota design which is compatible with the surrounding naturaf and bulft anvironment, and is intended to provide : ,. ,• � _ � . . � for natural light to buildings and in pubiic spaces in the vicinity of the vietiv co,�ric�ors; F The preservation of such views wifl include certain focal points �uch as the ; Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, which serva as prominent landmarks within Vaif Village and contribute to the community's unique senss of place. 18J3.020 - Detinitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shail be defined as shown below: A. Structure: Anything permanantly constructed or erected with a iixsd location including, but not limited to, new buiidings, building expansions, decks, riechanical equipment, vents, ducts, sateliite dishes, fences, stop lights, light poles, signs, utility poles, sky lights or any similar object. B. View Point Origination: The survey pin, calied out as the instrur�,�nt in each legal description defining a view corridor boundary, which is the basis tar �ach view corridor. Section 18.73.030 - Umitations on Construction No part of a structure shali be permitted fo enc, oach into any view corridor set forth in this �..;, ordinance unless an encroachment is approved in accordance with Section 18.73.C60 of this f:.;� �� . � ' ordinance. _ Section 18J3.040 - Adoption of Vlaw Corridors Photographs on record with tho Community Development Department and ;he following legai descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views }� within the Town. The photographs taken represent 1he boundaries defined by tho legal �. i i; descriptions. The camera used to take the photographs •rvas heid 5.4 feot above the instrument, i which is approximate eye level for most adults. A 35 millimeter camora was usod for each photograph; howevor, once developed, some photographs were croppod or eniargod to Improve the graphic representation of each view corridor. A. View Point #1. A view from the south side of thQ Vail Transportation Center from the main pedostrian stairway looking toward the Ciock Tower, 232 Bridgo 5treet, thQ Rueicsack Tower, 280 Bridgo Street, and beyond io the ski slopes; Purpose - To protect the views of Vail Mountain, views of Vail Village and to maintain the prominence and vlews of the Ciock Tower and Rucksack Tower as seen from thQ centrai staircase of the Transportation Genter. `. ` ;.; ., 2' ,,. � l" _. _ _. ___ � �� _,. instrument - View Point #1 - a 2" diameter brass disc, marked V.P. 1��n stair landi�g between Levels 2 and 3 of Vail Viliage Parking structure. ' Backs(ght - CW 1/16 corner of Section 8 � Helght of Survey Translt Above View Point #1 - 5.4 feet Horizantal Anqie Zenith Anqle 348°51'10" 77°21'30.' 348°30'10" 87°1i'30" 355°23'00" 87°37'40" 357°39'04" 87°40'43" 357°57'59" 88°27'22" : 004°05'19" 89°16'02" 004°39'S8" 89°16'33" 004°47'18" 89°41'44" 006°59'11" 89°42'12" 012°25'56" 87°38'Ot" 027°08'S4" 87°28'43" I � �- , '' 031 °53'27" 76°26'35" �' ' i , � � . ,< ,. : . C �: L Foresiqht Point on Photo as of 2(7/92 A- intersection of the horizon with a vertical line defined by the southwest corner ot the sixth fioor deck encfosure on the M'ountain Haus, 292 E. Meadow Drive. 61 - uppermost railing of tho southwest corner of ihe balconyi on the fourth flcor of the Mountain Haus, 292 E. Meadow Drive. B2 - east end of ihe Red Lian roof ridge, 304 Bridge 5treet. B3 - intersection of the Red Lion roof ridge with the southeast corner of the RucksackTower, 280 Bridge Street. B4 - northeast corner of the base of fho Rucksack Tower, 280 Bridge Street. C1 - intersectlon of ttie Galiory Building, 225 Gore Creek Drive, with the north9ast comer of the Ciock Tower, Immediately below the balcony. C2 - western end of facia bciard on Galfery �uilding C3 - intersection of the sloping roof of the Gaffery Building with the ridge line of the Ciock Tower euilding, which extends west D- intersoction of the Clock Tower B�ilding rocf and the northwest corner of ihe Clock TowQr E- peak of the Plaza Lodge vent chase, 232 Bridge Sireet. F- intersection of the north side of roof, Gasthof Gramshammor Building, 231 East Gore Creek Drive, with the east side of iwo large trees G-(ntersection of the horizan line on Vafi Mcuntain with the vortical line defined by the top of the western, very iarge pine tree west of Point F 3 , I ,i • ' ��° _ B. Vlew Pomt #2. A view irom upper 8ridge Stroat iooking toward the skl slopes bQfween 228 Bridge street, the Golden Peak Building, and 311 BridgQ Street, the Hiil Bullding; i- Purpose - To protect views oi the ski runs and sk1 base area as seen from upp�r Bridge Streot. Instrument - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2'/z' diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2{PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridgo Street In front of the Red Lfon Buiiding, 304 � ��; Bridge Street, Backslght - View Point �4 - a#6 rebar with a 2'/x" diameter aluminum cap markod V.P. 4(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximateiy 8 foet from the ,:: entrance to Frivolous Sai's, located near tho northeast comer of One Vafi Place Building, 244 Wall Street. Helght oi Survey Transit Above V(ew Polnt #2 - 5.4 feet Horizontai Anqle Zenith Anqlo Foresiqht Point on Photo as ofi 11/15/91 289°25'48" 74°28'18" A- northwest comar of third iloor baicony roof of �.,�': Golden Peak 8uilding 290°58'11" 89°58'00" B- PK nail in top of the 24 inch tali retaining wall on west side of Golden Peak House, 1 foot east from west edgQ o( planter waii, and 10 feet west from the west face of the building 300°32'46" 92°05'34" • C1 - top of south end of ski lockers, which are on ' ' railing 301 °35'24" 83°31'08" • C2 - southeast comer of top deck rail on Hiil Building . 303°32'24" 73°38'55" � D- southeast corner of brick chimnev ott Hifl r . Buiiding _ i . / /� �.: . a / t� r�,.�� wt�-�� ,,�[ 3P�� j�� C'_,__�_Reserved �c� �+T� f r r t� i �}' , � D. View Pofnt #4. A vie�tr from the northeast corner of 244 WaU Street, the Ono Vail , Place Buiiding, looking over tt�o ;c�fs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Llon Bui{ding, and 356 Hanson Ranch Road, the Christiaria Lodge, toward the Gore Rance. Purpose - To protect viows of tho Gore Range as seen from tho al;ey �etwoen Founders Plaza and Selbert Clrcle. • Instrument - View Point #4 - a#f6 ra�ar with a 2'/z" diameter alumfnum cap marked V.P. 4(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monu� ent box, in the brick pavers, approximately a feet irom the entrance to Frivolous Sal's, located iri tho northeast comer of the Ono Vail Place Bu+iding, 244 � ; " WaA Stroet. _ i �: . - ' 4 j i , l -- — _ - _ . � ' ' � Backsight - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2Yz" diameter aluminum Cap marKed V.P. 2(PLS i16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of i e Red Llon Buiiding Height of Survey Transit Above Vlew Polnt #4 - 5.4 feet � i � I Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anqie Foresiqht Point o� Photo a� of 11/15�`91 I i 343°56'53" 62°24'10" A- south facia board of Ghird t(oor roof of Plaza i Lodge Building, 281 - 293 �ridge Street i348°37'05" 73°05'43" B- intersection of upper and secor,d t!oor roof lines � of Plaza Lodge Buiiding i . 352°55'25" 73°34'26" C- south end of peak of se�ond fioor gabie o( Plaza Lodge Building ' � , 352°31'05" 79°24'44" D- eastern edge of second fioor gable roof of Piaza �' LodgQ Building i � 352°13'16" 79°24'55` E- intersoction of second iloor roof facia and souiheast corner of Plaza Lodge Buiiding l 1-! 352°13'14" 84°44'25" F- intersection of southeast corner of buiiding and � top edge of first floor facia of Plaza Lodge Building � 354°30'20" 86°13'30" G- top of southeasterly cqmer of first floor facia of Piaza Lodge Building 354°47'22" 86°07'5fl" H- intarsection of south eGge of Rod Lian chimney ' and upper Red Lion roof line E 358°21'46" 85°17'48" I- peak of upper Red Lion roof line �` � 359°04'31" II5°30'36" J- iniersection of upper Red Lion roof line and northerly roof line of the Christiania 000°16'55" 84°36'56" K- peak of rorther{y roof !ine of the Christiania 001°59'4T 84°36'S6" L- intersection of noriheriyr roof peak and southeriy roof lino of the Christiania 003°05'44" 83°32'42" M- nor:hwesterly comer o( second flocr balcony on Hil! Buifding 006°23'3i" , 83°33'52" N- intersectlon of top of second floo� balcony rall and brick wail on Hill Building 005°32'14" 67°54'58" O- northwest correr of top of facia on third fioor roof of Hifi Building E. View Point #5. A view of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Rcad just east of ......__. - - ��.___—_ the Mil{ Creek &icSge anS► sqUth of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Miil Croek Court 8ui(ding; Purpose - To protect views of the Goro Range as seon from Hanson Ranch Road and East Gore Creek Drive. ` Instrument - View Point ,#5 - a#6 rebar with 2�/z" diameter aluminum'czp marked V.P. 5(PLS � •. ... ,.. 5 i . . . ` -- . � i . r, -, �. 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Hanson Ranch Road in fron± of the h�iil Greek Cou;t 8uiiding Backsight -#4 rebar with afuminum cap (LS 256II) In iron "Lar,dmark" monumor,t bcx marking cenieriine of Hanson Ranch Road - box is just west of MiI! Cree'� In front of thQ Cyrano's E3uiiding at 298 Hanson Ranch Road. Neight of Survey 7ransit Above View Po{nt #t5 - 5.4 feet Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anqle Foresight Point on Photo as oi 1 i/15/91 199°03'06" 81°23'49" A- intersection of scutherly utility pole with ridge line 204°06'43" 85°10'40" B1 - intersecticn of narthe;�y extension of Garden of the Gcds Building, rooifine wiih hiilside ridge iine 206°00'02" 85°i0'40" B2 - northern end of roofline of the Garden oi the I � Gods Building, 365 Vail Valley Drive 20B'12'53" 85°10'40" Ct - intersection of southerly extension ot the ' Garden of the Gods building rooflire ancf the Villa Valhalla rootiine, 360 Hanson Ranch Road 208°33'36" 84°55'50" C2 - northwost corner of the Vifla Vaii�a;;a at roof facia 210°41'41" 84°01'47" D- iniersection of top of the Villa Valhalia raof facia and tha upward extension of the no�th ed3e of tho trim on the window column 210°41'41" 82°01'5l" E- thQ upward extension of the north edga of tho trim on the window column on khe Viila Vafhalla to a point above the horizon F. View Point #6. A view looking east to tho Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive -_..� .:._--------�_______----- between retail shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodgo ai Vaif, and 193 Goro Croek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza Building pro;ecting east to the Gore Fange. Purpose - To protect views of the Gore Range as �een from the Gcre Creek Drive Area. i Instrument - View Point #6 - a#6 rebar with 2�/z" diamater alur�inum cap markad V.P. 6(PLS • 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore CreeE< Drivo in front of tha Gore Creek Plaza Buiiding BaCkSlght - a#6 rebar v�i�h 2Y2" diamoter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6 B.S. (PLS i 6827) set in an aluminum monument box in Goro Creek Drive near tf�o sou?hwest carner o� Pepi's deck �,: ; ' . : '. 6 i .. �� . , � I- Helght of Survey Transtt Above View Polnt #6 - 5.4 fect ( �1� h � ; . ,��,��•-�._ v c � � �fx��=�� /' / 1 , � ?� GylGt'C7a-(4»r?.6�r�J' . � r� � . .7:i,y . ,, �,f ,;, -�; �`;'n,. • � � F Honzontal Anqie Zenith Anqle Foresiqht Pcint on Photo as �f i t/15!91 �'�"f ��`" �. 356°OS'35" 81°02'17" A- poirit cn horizon left of t e chimnsy on Gasthof vrY�' -% � i- Gramshammer roef, 231 East Gore Creek Drivo �i ! 356°55'02" 83°02'06" B- intorsectlon of southea t odgo of chimney and � � Gasthof Gramshammer's rc fline f �. 000°31'36" S2°54'27" C- southern end of gable an Gas,hof Gramshammer's roo: I 001°48'10" 85°17'34" D1 - lntersectlon of northerl� extension of Gorsuch �" Building's roof line and Gasthof Gramshammer's f: roof, 231 East Gore Creek Rrive 003°14'42" 85°17'40" D2 - no�th and of Gorsuch Buiiding's roof � 007°56'03" 85°11'32" D3 - south end ef Gorsuch Building's roof � ; r;: " i E F 013°30'31" 013°38'14" 012°55'17" 014°44'21 " 85°11'32" E- intersectior of southerly extension of Gorsuch Building's roof li;�a and briclt pfils; on Lazler Arcade Building ! Wall Street Building, 225 Wa�l Street. 78°48'35" F- intorsection of faca of stucco and eve lins on Lazier Arcada 6uildingM,/all Straet Buiiding 78°14'51" G- tcp of facia on ncrtheast comer o( roof on Lazier ArcadQ Building / Wal( Streot Building 73°13'39" H- top oi rocf on Lazior �rcade Buiidirg / Wa(I 5treet Building Section 18.73.050 - Amendments An amendment of the regulations of this Chapter, including a request to add a new view corridor, delete an existing view corridor, or amend the boundary of an ex�sting view corridor, may be Initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Plarnfng ard cnviranmer,taf Commission on its own motion, or by application of any resident or propl�Orty owner in the Tov✓n, or by the Director of the Community Developmert Departmenf or his/helly designee. A. Application information for Amendments ', An application for the amendment of the provisions of this Chapt�r inciuding the addition of a new viow corridor, the deletfon of an existing view corridor or ar, ame�d„ent to the boundary oi an existing view cqrridor shall be filed with the Communiry Ceveiopmer�t D�partment on a form to be prescribed by the Director of the Community Development DeparL��ent. The appiication shall Include the (ollowinp Information: 1. A summar�r or description of the proposed amendmant. 2. A photograph of the proposed view to bo protected if th� a�pifcation is to add a new view corridor or amend the boundary of an existing vie�v cor;idor.l The p�int used as the view point origination and the height of the camera above sxisting grade'or pavement at the ti^�e the photograph was taken shai( be identifiad The photograph or photographs shali be marked 7 _ __ ,'' 'I . • �� to show tho proposed viaw corrdcr bcundary or sha.l ba marked �� sf�o�°� th� proposed improvements in re�ation to existing improvamen;s and existing t•iew ccrridor bo�rdaries. 3. The Community Developmcr; Department may requiro mcdels, overiays, sketches, or other submittai requirements to show: (a) For a now view corridor, the potentiai impact the neyv viev� corr,d�r coul� ' have on the develop�;,ent potontiai of surrounding prcperties; or (b) For a modification to a view corrfdor bound«ry, tho potontial impact the change wouid hava upon the proiected vie�v corri�o�. 4. Names and addresses of the property owners �vhose devsioom�nt ooten:ial, as set forth in Chaptor 18 of the Town o' Vail Municipai Code on tl�e date the applica4icr is received by the Community Development Departrriant, may bo increased or decreased by the proposad view corridor or by the proposed modification to the existing viow corridor. 5. if the application is to add a new view corridc, or a�end the bcundary of an existing view corridor, the applicant shall submit a Iegai description uf the new view ccrridar or the amended boundary prepared in the same format as fhosa set forth in Ssctior 1II.'3.040 of fhis ordinance and any othor survey informafion deemed necessary by the Community Development Department 30 days prior to tl�o final PEC pubiic hearing. 6. An app{ication for an amendment may requirQ rovie��v by consultants other than Town staff. Shou{d a determinat;on be made by the Town siaff tha! an au±side co�su!ian: is needed to review an amendment application, tho Community Deveiopment Depart;�,ent shali obtain the approval of the Tovrn Council for tha hirng cf such a consuliant. Upon approva! ot tho Town Cour�cll to hire an outsldo consuftant, the Community Development Depa�+.;��ent shaii estimate the amount of money necessary to pay the,outsl:ls consultant, and this amaun; shall be forwarded to the Town by ths appiicant at tha tirne tt?e am�ndme�it apN';cation is submi,tod to the Community Development Department. Upon completion of the revie�.^� of fhe appiicatior� by tho consultant, any of the funds forwarded by the applicant !or payment c! ;I.a co�sultant wh�ch have not been paid to the consultant, shall be returned to tho applicant. �x,�er,ses incurred by ihe Town in excess of tha amou�t forwarded by the appl,cant shall 5v ,,a��' fo the Town by tha appilcant with(� �1tlrty (30} c1�ys of no;ification by tho To�vn. B. Notice and Hearinq Proceduro 1. Upon the filing of an application for an amen�mor,: to this Chapter, or upen initiation of an amondment by the Town Council, Planning and Emrironn�er,ai Ccm;�ission, cr �. Community Development Director, the Community Development �„ec;or or his designoe shalf sot , 8 ;? i -� ;. �. I' ; i - • /; - �.... a data for a pubiic. hearing bofore the Planning and Environmentai Co miss'on. S�bseqL�nt to ihe hearing, the Pianning and Envifor,mental Commfssicn sha(I mGk a recomme^dation for approval or denlaf to the Town Councii. Aiter consfdering the Plannin and Emrircnmen,al Commission's racommendatfon, the Town Councii shall mako a iir�i dater-n(natlon on ii,o amendmont at a public hearing by ordinance. � 2. Notica for the pubGc hearing before the Planning and Environment Coi:;mission shall be given to the proparty owners designated In Section i8.73.0:; �(�1}4 or Seciion 18.73.060 (A)2 in accordance with Section 18.66.080 of this Code and the h�arirlg shall be conducted in conformity with Section 18.66.090 of this Codo. , � �� . � .,------�__ :� __-.___---�--------- � � __ _ . ; C. Criteria for Amendments � . ;� The Town Council shall �ni� approve an amendm�ri to th!s Ch�pter adding �a naw view ` corridor, deleting an existing view corridor, or amending the �oundary of'an existir,g view corridor if the amendment complies with the policios and goafs of the app!icable q'lements c. ,he Vaii Land i Use Plan, Town Policies, and Urban Design Guide Pfans �nd other ad�pted mGster pians, and � �`---_. _._. _ _ _.._ 9 _ _ _ . meets all of the followin cntena: I _ � 1. If the request is io a�d a new view carridor or to amend th� boundarE oi ar exis� ` � / view corridor in such a way which sxpands an existing view corridor: .__�---------- (a) That the proposed view corridor or the boundary �mendme�t protecis and perpetuates a view or views from pubiic pedestri�n areas, putrlic ways, or pubiic spaces within the Town vrhich fcs,er civic p ide and are in the puniic Interest for fhe Town of Vail; •(b) That the prcposed view corridor or boundary a�nendment prc+,ects and � enhance th• v ' � :� s 3 To �n s attraction to residen,s, gueslts and property owners. (c) That the proposed view corridor or boundary am�ndment protects G visw , � �- which ls commoNy recognized and has ir�heren4 Gualities which �;�aka �t more valuab!e to the Town than other mo-e cornrrion views. �� 2. {f the amendment is to amend the boundary of �n existing view corridcr �� such a wa which reduces � y �he existing v'saw corridor or Is to repoal a� exsti�g v;ew corrdor. -----___ _ .._.. ,. _ ._ __ _ . -- --_ _... . _. _ . _ _ _ -----_ (a} That the boundary amendmen# or repea� will ;:otllreduce o; eiiminate any view or views fram pubiic pedestrian areas, �ut�6 ways, or pubiic spaces within fhe Town which tes!er civic pride and uro ir ihe public ir:terest for the iown of Vail; . I 9 _ , i _-- . , �- `:....-. (b) That the boundary amendmer.; or �epea! wiif nct reduce the Tawn's attraction to resider�s, guests, a^d property ovmers nor ba detrimentai to tt�a �n;oyment of public pedestrian arras, pubiic wuys, pubiic spaces or pubiic views. (c) That the boundary amQndmont or repeal wiil not d;rnin;sh t;��s (nEegrity �r quality, nor comp; omise tha origina! purpose of th� �:is;ing ;�ie�� corridor. _ ., __, ..,....._ ._�, _..__ . _ _,.._..._._�..___�_____.._____�_, Section i8.73.060 - Encroachmer�ts inio Existinq View Corridors . _.__. _ .... . _. ___. �....._.. . .. � An application for approval to encro2ch ir�to an existing view corridor may be iniliated by the Town Councii on its own motion, by the Planning and Envirormental Cornm'sss;on on its ow�r, motion, or by appifcation of any residon± or preperty owrer in the Town, or by 'c��e Dir�ctor of Community DevelcpmenE Department or his/her desic�nee. A. Application Information fcr Encroachments An application for an encroachmoni shali �be filed with 4i�e Community �euelopmarf � Department on a form to be prescribed by the Director ot ihe Ccmm�nity Davelo �n�ent Departmont. Tho application shal( ir,clude tho foi!owi��g i��formaGon: i ' � �. � 2. 3. 4. 5. A summary or descrip;i�n of the pro�osed ercroachr„r;��t. Names and addresses ci property ownors lacated 4vith;-� 540 tea: of tha preposed encroachment. Photographs cf ihe existing view carr�dar. ThQ photographs shali �a marked with tape to identify the exis!ir�g view corrdor boundaries, ar,d shafl shaw the ��ropcsed encroachment. The photographs shall be iaken from the view pcint orig;r,ation at the same height as identified in tho legai descripiions in Section 1II.73.yu0. The Community Development Department may reGulre madois, avarlays, shetches or other submittal requirsments fo show how the propose� encroachme; �t coulcf impact the prpiected view corridor. An appiication Sor an encroacfi�ment may require revievr uy co��suitani� ^`.�er than. Town staff. Should a determination be made by the Tovrn statf that a^ �utsic�e consultant is needed to review an encroachment app;icaiion, !hs Co�tmunity Development Departnent shaii cbtain ,he apprcval o( the Town Coun�:'. fcr the hiring of such a consuitant. Upon approva! of th� Tov,n Councu 2c hire a-� cuiside consuitant, the Community Developmer; Department sha'1 esti�r;�tc the a, ;;ot:nt of money necessary to pay the outsu�a consuitant, and fhis asnount si�a!! �a 10' m ; � �� I i • � .. �-, � � `�., ` _.. i ----� - I fonvarded to tha Town by the a�,p(icar,t at :t�e tir;�e �t;; e:;; ,vac;,; -;e::i i; si;�r,;i;;;::; i i to tha Community Cevelopme�i Department. li�,or, ;; ,:?-p •�:;:�;: a; ;;� f9�iIB1Y C( :;;s i i. � BppliCatiGn by the COi15U(tant, ar;y ef l�ic3 iUi1CiS fG'tlVu(' Ei: :J'✓ i�� r'�.);ICc'i:i� (n;" j payment of ti,a consuitant which havo ��ct uaen r�iL ;o i;.:.� c,,^-;s�:;ta ;i, shai; �e roturned to tf�e applicant. Expenses incurred b f the To�r;n ir e:cus� �; ;;;� an,�ur; �' forwarded by ihe a�p;icant shali be pald to ihe To�v �y !,e a�;;,�::,t vri!hin ihi� :� � (30) d2ys oi notific2tion by the Town. I i , i B. Notice and Hearina Procedure � ; ;, Notice ar,d hearir,g or a7 application for an encroaci-�men; inio n exist;ng view co�r:�'�r I shall be in accordance vrth Secticn 1E.73.Q50(B) of this Chapter. _ _ .._ _... __ __ __._�� . . ._... , . _ . . ..__ C �. C. C�iteria for ncroachment � t.. � .I � , No encroachment ir c an existing vi�w cerridor shull be ,:, ed ur!ess .he app;icant � ; �' demonstrates by clear and cenvincirg evidence that t�e 2ncrcach;-�~�f ,s��s �!i ef ih� toi!cx;;,� i � ' criteria: ; 1) That the !itoraf enforcamert cf Soc'.;or ? �.?3.C30 vrc::'•:� p; eciG�3 a � , reasonable deveiopment of a propesed structuro on ths uppficar±'s Ian . i 2) That tho development o'tna st;uc;ure proposed �• t'�e app'i��r:t �:JOU!d r�t i �` be such as to defeat ti�e purpcses of this Chapter. I � I'�', 3) That the developmen! proposed by the aYriicant ��., id n��i �a d��rimenfa -\ to the enjoyment ot public pedestrian areas, pubiic tivays, public spac� , o- p��,:c views. 4) Tl�at the deveiopmont prcposed by the applicant c� r E�s �- :'h ��,p2ica�'.� elements of the Vaii Land Use Plan, Town Poiicies, Urban Design G�;i,�',e Pia�s, a.�d o: �e� i � ! adapted master plans. , i � 5} That the proposed str�ctu�e wi�i not c�;m;nish th ?r;e�-rii,r or qGal�:}� :;ar � � � compromise tho orlgiral purpose of the presarved view. i _ Sectlon f 9J3.070 - Non-Conforminq Si�uctu�es ,I A} Qny structure which preser;tiy erc� cach�s inio �n ex;sti^g vi;,,°r c�,-� dcr 4vnich ;}�as lawfully authorizsd by ordinancas or recula!icrs 'exis±inc ;�;�o; to ?h e;fec;�v�a da,� p; i�,�s i; ordinance may continuo. Ha��aver, such er.croachme�!s wi:: b� ercc� a;e� :u i.� ;a,^-��va� u,. i � � part of any remodellire or roconstruction o! tf�o s:ruct;:re. i^ i;�;o casa of .e;'::;in ;ecal �oir�ts, s4c� I. ..-_._._.__._-.__.____ _�_-- ______.__.._..,_ ..._..____.._..-- -- -._._____—� ----t� as the Clock To�,ver ard Rucksack Tower, the Town ; eco^yriz�s ihe;r im: �r� <ce tc ;�:e cnara�ie; _ ___ , ,.. ___.__ _.__--.-.._..�_._ __._— � - __ � � of Vail Village and to ihe quality ef tha urban des;gr of Vai! Viliage �_oi:�v�t�:s!a::cir�g �hei� i - _ nonconforming status, the Town �oes rot enC0Ur1t�E lh@IC f6fTiGVaI. I _ �.f__'l'�a,�{ �� `jl�� LC�.t �1�� . 11 , �- _ B} 5'ifUCtUfEiS �$�41fUi�� fiSi�:� i�iiuc: ;��.,i' t:; :`4u 'o';,.�, .. ..:c_:i; (-i �? 4i: � ;Cu C G �i;iu'' in this Chapter r:�ay b� modified �rv.•;d�� ,,,a; s�c�i ;::c.. ,�,.,�. .�cas r,� _.,� ., s;rU ;;r� ��? ancroach info a vioW COiridor to a ui��;t��i f�X�c' �� P. �:i; 4„+.�,'£. , �. �)� �;;;;U' ,;j�4j°(G�:;;�Y hefght, width or rnass, lhan ;he oxist;r:;; vi;uc,u;c. %� Non-corformir�c, tfiJ�._;.�.,� ii�:zlf ;i7., il;,,.�, ..,.'t;�.: �a^v "8j;�.iC .. .,:. �, i�� 'v' .,;8 COf1VQ�l8ftt, safe, oref(ic'ent cpera±icr: o; Ua�' �1i0L'lu2u i�;_.. �._. SUwi� I�;.,,,,�.:i�, Ce: :. :�J&7; �-i';�i GflUSQ tft8 StfL'CfUfB t0 Ef1CfCuC�1 Ill:v a� V('r,� CO((iC:if i.� u„ ...._,. 2Xi�;;; ;<i G;' �,S�i�:;i�;!Qi� 'vi configuration, specificaily hQig`�i, t Y�d; , �r ira ,:,�; � .�. .. .� ,. �. ,,. v�„�; ;� i.;,r tc s;.;,i� maintenance and repalr. • �} Rostoraiion: 1Ni�yil�V9i 2 t:OCi-C.,:lii.�`�77ii1�' "_�?..i.� ��.... u�v.`'� �i��; w�.FCCi`1 `t'a'ti�2 the provisions of this Ch�pte� is des'-oy�o b; ;;,e ^, of' c, .._ ,y, ;r �,,,c ,,: �o:;, o: �y ih� pubiic enamy, its use may be resum�;a cr ih� str�.�;�ra r, ;; ce �.,;,,;.;u „r i;;:�u ;.,,; res ,,,ai:or ; is commenced wifl;in or�e (1 } year anc; 4;�icer�;ly �;��;,.a;,=d ,3 co��, :il r,. :::r;.✓��r�; a+:vr sucli restoration shail flOt encroach if?iG G JI,`;VE C:�,,.t;u!' i� c, �. <:' ': °'!„E; ,� �;; u; , ;�;:�;p,^; C; configuration, specifica�ty height, wic'w, o�� ;�as�, .��„ t., f,:;� .,,;,�,,;. .� ��::.:_ ...�....� crlcr "c � destruction. Section 18.73.080 - He�cht L;�,;;��,�on __ _ ..�_. _�.._�-�w. if tilE f1ldXimum hei;"t a1;0'.VEu� i � �.. �t� ��i,C u,�i„�. ,1.: ,� i; ..,,, � ,,.. ... . _ .. . _„� fi^,.. ,'iGt,^,,�'� � � � � . �� ; � � '' permittod by a v;ev� corridor,_tF18 (ilC'� iC 'CiCiIVE, ilc; �i':1 � l� ;_;::�,o- �`.;,i ; ��'.'. I _ _ _ . _ . �. ' Section 18.73.090 - Fees Til@ {OWf1 C.OUCICI� S�18�� aJ1 fi1G;:�^, c3S:ul..�riS�i u'v; 1'v ci� �' cx'C;� 6.' .��1;;; n.� GOVu( �i 9 COSt Of tOW(1 staff time and other ex;•i?�;�E;S ;[;C�G;,�; ;; ;0 .`�., i;> .,,1 G� _ , ,..,O:l. : io� .��0 shall be paic! at the time of the aprlic.;i;c�;, an;: s';a;, „c� �,.. , �;,. Section 2 � � Sectian G of tho Urban Do�;cr .�.. _....:,a,.,, ,� ;,, ..,,.,, ., ,; .f.;, .. . _ s .,. iu!'� Para4raph G i%31�'s mountain/valley so�i!i;g :°, u+.:: r,.�,;;;.�,...;?i �!�;� Q.` .::: ,,., �i<:�' � '. 3..., n, i�;x u..� � ski s�opes, croeks and other n2turai f�<::;�;.,s ...,, �,.,.,. ;d.:..: �� '. ....,",.. r� ".... �,:�,...;.: a��_�, U•;r \ repeated visibility, aro ori�n?a;��,� r;;,,., �r;�a 7,. ;,;s. _.,,..w,. „�!�;;,� , .,� ,, �;s.; ;� c��r;c:� � � fmportant orientation r8}@l"ef1C°S c'iP,� ;`!CJG: `i�C�; !`Jl;l:c;. � ir� ,.r�> � ,., .�._ .:c` . ..�.,.��C ., r:uV:^ been adopted as part of Cha�ter 1�.?3 ri ;`:e ti;z;i C.;��r,t ,;a! ,�;, �. T;� �... °.. �:, ..v..rs { �d v�J: , 1 SIlOUIC) (10� be considereci cXh3US�iV2. :�`v,'.u;� OVu�UE:(i,`;�e �. a��w�: ,�TiC-i;I ,. ; �3:'i ,.�7 IG'ii'�' S�i _u'.0 be given to an ana;ysls of the ur;�a:i �f �:,";� �raj�;,, c� �.�•;��s. ..;;�� ,i G,,,,_ .: �„= c;r�se.^:s� IG ,� : � ' . r , � ' � . . Ci��'�td:v <tC�iii} ...i;:.. � � � . � �C;Ci'ut.x�� ,ii::.$ Ci ..��. :c.C::c� c..�t. ,... . ..� c .. �.. � . .._.. _ .. . _.. �.� f^Olii;td.il� F.-.:i �.-�'�"c �'E3'�- � �i;. v:C;,�� . J:�;°°� t�iC ; .vi.;.,........ ��:.... ,..,� � ' �, . .... ...c. ,.. -.r vu�.i�� _ ?: -.i _._.� 1 j 2(lCa.i il:;iliui E.iC; �F:'1�:i :�-:.. ..D;3'.��iii2 ::1 ,.�.. ..iCiS:i Cf �''..�t2 u��C�'.c.`tc:.� . i _�.. ..��.. ' �,,='� �t, ° V�.1��'r<, j � � " �.4, . '�...,. �i.�.-.. ` '-. � vi�.L�: ly.vl�i �..tiiili Gl�.:J'j�.i'.�.�il'.i�� .�,�i�;�l.(�.l.v i �Y.�".�ti LliJrvi: 'u:i':, 1U ..-i'.�i�f S'�. . � ..� .. � ,... . ...�. �aE.''S:iit�iiC tGi[. :,�.� .........li G: ..r�..��..:ilt�ii? f:71�:�1.I-iC' NJ:i}S t�. � ;'�u�; ,.... . CJCI�iC� :iit�li �P: �rui� �l�iii,x,�c. S?ic;�i� r,J: £i�CiUi:v��l 1^::; �2?i� 3OQ�i'`v ....., ..,, .,.:Oi i. ..:�;i d�.`NiQVEu ,..i.....� v;i..r:E, �+:.?._.v. liG�t.(E'"� CC�i..^�..OfS u�� iiS:,^.0 ii� �tl�',.... ..,.f�... .. ,��.. �.�;i �i1tilCl�a{ l"iG�`J y�jii�;;i'tt rz'iiEr' i su ciG"vr.:B:i Vik:'rl ..,..�;ii0(S GI" i?C�. t'1ta ,_�i Ct i;ON^, .... C�8V0i:7�ill.-^,i:� :i: � ........ .. ... �JC...;S:ri-'_i"�'r'ra�%S c. �G �.1:�i:.. Sr:�CBS 'il::Sr .�`.B i '8,,.:i:.:_: c....: w.'1.�.�u.,:c�.G'' t`hiyr �L{"fJi .J.c:�'. .iL a:�ifL G . � Iv�';�� .%.:{.i�.J _..... ,. Y G rn` r� Tr �;;:.i 1 iG pl.'�-+.n � , t�t� �::F.?!': O°iyi� ,��' , ��i...i�S� c.�, Otfl@i aG�O��BC�' ii�G::�". j','�.�...`?.:� S`1..i� Gc�. :iSt�„� ?'� �;.°_Tj� C�": if';� �,`3'e�i:ll�.ii 1.:.�J4'S � i...,- ;.. �..,___�., ,_. , h01Y lil£}� S?'." `'� G� :_,.ui£.:SBC;. �."C?i,-;i �i Ri1Y : -. , S2.,s0;,� r�:'.C,CC.:.�,�� ,.,.�2 �., � ''i�:;:SB C," �:`li-G5� �. ,fi. ., .._....,.... � � . _ , fEdSOfi �1BlG� �G �:;P, ;i?'a'c";1;G, '�Ci'. G°GtS:.^,�t S,.a:i 7�: $itcC. „�° J`dllv�ip` "v� i,iv ,..�,....� � �r:,.�..,.� �. tiiES Q!Q�fi13Y1CQ� �u1i•.'�. i:... T...,!1 vD��..i..�� .:8i�-'� ��if'.!t:� li ...�....�' i:.?Jo p.a Cu� }:,.c _,.... ._..�t:� ,.,� ��.�:,�,� c,��•c � i_ : Ci�P„u !-�� i ' o !t x c. eac part, s„�,��, , ��..�:,, c: ,.,., �, ., se cr �,�ru�� ,. �rao:, r..ga�.�.,� .,. ...a :v�..:�u� �-. c;�e or m�ra ,�u,:s, s:,.,.:�;: ,,.:L..�.,...,.. , se^:es-�ces, ��a;:ses or r�,.a5 ��. ��:._��c .,,.... _. S�ction � � � � � �t18 I'v..�i 1.��..,."�! ..��....J �.�_. , ,..t��i!?i�cS ...�L �^..z.��$�C,S t��.:� ' u:..�„_..,.� i� ":i:v�`':.;'r:isr . ard pre;�er fo: :he r,..�,:r:, ,...,.�- �,,.. .:�;`a�e or t;;c to�rrr c; 'ti` .:I a^:d',i.e ,�...�w..4...� ..,�r�:;i. S�ct;on ; T�6 ie�53i :.+f �i's� '"t�✓uc:: �a .. . ......�,�C:;TiG!"i vf ut�:' : ,.�.'d1�;OR �s :� �'�OViC�B� til trtiS �.'��`�2��i.3 �(l:i�i `cCt St�V rl� it 1��:�,:` i;d$ :..�CCI:E V;��$tI0f1 til�:: dC:Jii�u ,S�l.'.Jr tl? :�_ �`,.�...,.., v2,':E �f'2��E, &�', �.'�^.S�C.. O�tic^C 3Cll 'il ., , .,�..�,..;t�3 �;5 .... . �..,.,..EC ut;...., �.i � j' 1 �...:2 Ci :[;B �"^vS' 3i�CI rEEfiaCiC�. ..;a ....�J....� ., d. ,;V:Siv:i �2'Bt:� S.iG!i i Gl •��..,d o�dinarce . ;��::c:: ; ��Y��,.��: .. _ , ve.v� .,,:fa.:s �.,cr�� s��te� ;� �... h... �-��. L��..�� aS '! v'.::; �""��::.u, �!i';� 7 � .. ..,�.........`'', r�. c. , .� � . , _....� .,, ..;�.��..�.. .. , , ,:ti�...�� , w.'.-�i S�c', i� ,.._ , �.i. _., � �;L:.. , Iv..v�l�i �.. ��1: V:..ii1Gt�.i�'..� J� �I4i�j �Il��:.iUt� :'� J...+�..iL..: �I��J�V.�r: �a... iC ;LU�L.� ?v .s13 �....w;:.. � ��i :,..,......,,.;:o�J:::�ii.;' 1 ri.S it,� ..;11^c� Si�:..:� i� , t -.. ........�...,..: w �v1`i�: F:.i�)i Ej�y'iaV�", :JIG�f, :LSGi�...,,r.',. L� vt�:.._.i"'iv'� `r r;a i il:,:�ti.4i, .�; GB�ClGi� r:i2,: . � .' i ;.- i ' u� ; . �_ � i�,�,� J..:,��D; R=�,L'ti^.:n rf;?.�-�'; .ik:.u,,._:, ,. . �.,,. _._ .,�,_� ...<,�u.?__ ; _,.._.�.�.�... I iiii\Lt i�\ , .. _ , i�„$ ,.�. Cc:' , , ,.,�_,. t'- , . . � � .:"' _.�_.� .0 . ..,_. „v...r . ..., .'... ':..� .. � � '�I .� QihU�.USi��i�-:�,2,:.iiC�,.�:10��... .. y .i�� i ,..;�`.......,!i:.:�.,i�� a�..i..¢�:�.. , _....�._... , .,.� . . . � ..� � r � • .. I friUl'J I� "' .',Ui u- i v� I:;F: �uJ�i;. � � . . � � � � � � � . , I .. � . �^ r � .. . f. �- � �%j ., l' i '� � -. i.,. ;'_r_> . . I � . � �''1i;i�^J^ . . . t � i=. ..: �, . /'T . .. . � ' . . .. . � � � . . � . . � _ . .� i � _ ' � �l� El�l-.... � . t��...��-f✓ � __ . � . � . � � . i Ac�„l�ilr3 rJ. i}��.C�'in(, �i V.a.. CiP.r�C I� . . . . � ' . . . � . � � . . . ��L',.''�,��' .°r''.�'ii� : .�i'i i�JV t'.�: �;�i 1 Le.��..:;`i�... � .__. ,� ,.44 . .. eJ J� tt �'�.t i�__� � . _ _�..n F,..� ..�;? � , .. . . GT?��4' IF3i� -. ii'i Gr^�;✓ 0� r�L'`CU�i; '; �';i"`, j J�/ � i t ii r �� l' / �'.✓ ir . � ------r,-�- -- -- . � . . . � � - �... �, 7�i.•.. .. �!-�... ,v.. � .. "i/ . ' N,i—f�ST: r iv��t�>:;� � . �^�m��..°✓ . .��:ieii�'iFi ��'., i�:'r..:,'C�(::�, i �''r\`� viP.S'ti � ..�_. � � . . . . . . . . . . � � . , � � � � � C:IORD?2.18 , . ... � . . . � . . � � � . � .. � � .. . � � . . . �. � - � . �. . . � . - . ; r . .. . f. . � .. {.'Y � . I i � i � • � � :�.� �> �,� � � TOWiV OF UAIL (% 75 Souib Frontage Rond i Department of Community Development I�ail, Colorado 81657 ', 303-479-2138/479-2139 I August 12, 1992 Mr. Dan Corcoran Eagle Valiey Surveying P. O. Box 1230 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Re: View Corridor Survey Work Dear Danny: We are finatly done! The Town Councillpassed the view corridor ordinance on second reading on August 4. It was certainly a long process and we want to thank you for your help throughout it. Sincerely, 11 � � �(� `� Kristan Pritz Director, Community Development Depa ent �.c �� Andy Knudtsen Tovvn Planner .. , , " L.: � �, ; �}, : , , � � . - � � .� ��`'.�� — � - � _�'�_ 1,, �� y. . ��t„ 7�`. � �:�...'' . a * _ . � i. . � � . . . . �` -... ,—� . � , - � . " � � "e`t�-aM3 �� xl � PUHLIC 2�10TICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on February 12, 1941 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request ior a review and recommendation to Town Council � �, regarding adoption of the Stephens Park Master Plan; site �. located at the southeast corner af South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinick Road. ApPlicant: Town of Vail 2. A request for a height variance to allow the installation of a Satellite Dish on the roof of the Vail Village Inn Plaza. Located at 100 Vail Road. Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Satellite Receiving Systems 3. A request for a rear setback at Cascade Crossing at 103Z South Frontage Road on a parcel of land located in the northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 5S, R81W of the 6th PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. Applicant: Vail Enterprises Partnership � 4. A request for setback, landscape and site coverage variances and an exterior alteration to the Lifthouse Lodge at 555 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead lst , , _. , f ., -�. ,, � . _ � _. , . „ , ', f, s 1 r; ,� F � . � �` . . � . f r ' �� , v i % . ,. ' , t a � l�� . . . � . . . � � � . � � �� ;� > � Filing. Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier 5. A request for a major subdivisiqn, to approve the final plat. Said parcel is commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail/I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr. 6. A request for approval of a modification to a development plan approved by Eagle County far Phase Three of Spruce Creek Townhouse located at 1750 S. Frontage Road West/ Spruce Creek Townhouses at Vail. 7. 8. ti � Applicant: Carl Dietz/Michael Lauterbach A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish an additional View Corridor and to clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected extends to the east down Hansen Ranch Road over the Red Lion in front of Frivolous Sals. Applicant: Town of Vail � A request for a front setback variance, 5188 Gare Circle/ Lot 7, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Fili.ng. Applicant: Nowell May � _-- --- - - - . - _,,,_.--_„�1..__ - -- - —__ _ _ _ - �S- - A request for a density variance in order to construct additions to tra Christiania Lodge, 355 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Blocl{ 2; Vail Viliage lst Filing. Applicant: Faul R. Johnston applications and information about the proposals are _Iable for public inspection in the Community Development irtment office. i of Vail iunity Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on January 25, 1990. � # � l I f I E j I�. " . � . . � ' . ' ' . . - J �.. i�. ' . ' . . . . . _ . . I- ' . _ . ' . ' , . . � ' . . ; . I.� ' . . . . � ' . ' . .. . . . . . .. _.. . .,.. :: . .::.,.�. ........ . ..... .._......,,.. -.....,....,. _ .:.... ....._....�. .___.-.�. .. _.... _ -. --.- . .. . -. . .. ......-. .. .........,... .......... ..., .. ....... . . .. . . .. . ..., ...�,. ..� . . ....,_.: � .._.... .. .. � . . , . . f . . � ... _. - -- - -_ � , 3 � i ,� , � , , I , �:' , �. �� : _�'` � `� i � .c.r' , 1t Z� i c'�v 1 �. � �. _: i t ��4 � � . . . � � � � ,�� v . L�,�� . t �,�'' � t �' ��,i,.� � : / � ' _ r,. !�� i x ' .1!�' � �-.? �:^} L ' ,�/�� v�� `.� `'�',� �' X' `" .. � 1 � , /� *k ; ' y' ' � l z \� 5� y r� ; �� ' Y,L, �" �`'� /L Y b , � �,✓�-i L v � � �:�t'' _�j � r�'� i � � ' �� ^'� � . � � \` ;f.�4 . , � ,� : �'�� 3iir � , . . . . : � . - - � � . - j �u J� ` ��.,�\;� � �,"f� � . v � ,� . . � . . - . . . � . . � _ � 4%�' . . � `- . . . . , .. . . .. . � � . . .... . . .. . .. ,. . � . . . . �� ;: _ � �; �r" , �,� " f F i � a { ROBERT W. GALV�N i303 EAST ALGCNOUIN ROhD SCHAUMBURG, 1LLiN015 60�96-1065 September 22, 1992 Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontabe Road Vail, CO 81657 Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members: — - - R�C�IVED S�� " � i9� �708> 576-5300 {� � /J t ��. _ � . .' :. f`.`�.. 1 ! i �� , '.�� 4� � �. �� '�.� �� The East Village Homeowners Association appreciates the invitation to attend your recent Speak Up meeting regarding local government regulations and policies. Unfortunately, none of our Board of Directors were able to attend in person. Our representative in attendance has given me a briefing on the subjects discussed at the session. As a result of your discussions, I wish to reiterate the East Village Homeowners Association's on�oing concern with the status of our requests regarding the adop- tion of additional view corridors. As weli, our concerns for the need to place further limitations upon special development districts continues. We're gratified that over the past year the Town Council has taken steps to adopt procedures for the adoption of new view corridors. However, we are disturbed by the prospect that provisions have been approved that could expedite the diminu- taon of existing view corridors. It has come to our attention that the Town of Vail did not protect the fuil,_.extent of the Frivolous Sal's view corridor as proposed. It is our understanding that the Frivolous Sal s view corridor was under study for over five years. The approval of the Christiania Lodge Special Development District caused more than 50 percent of the proposed view corridor to be lost. Some weeks after the Christiania Special Development District was approved the Town CounciI adopted � the Frivolous Sal's view corridor. To our knowledge no public discussion occurred � regarding the specific amount of reduction that was imposed upon the proposed Frivolous Sal's view corridor. Our representative has been told by town officials that it was impossible to de- terinine the full extent that the proposed Christiania expansion would have upon the pendin� Frivolous Sal's view corridor. Even thou�h the Christiania is nearin� completion, we have been informed that there has been no check of the building's conformity to its approved design heiglit. In Vail we noted that for years temporary mock-up structures have been affixed to buiidinas requesting expansion to determine sight lines and view preservation. We understand that a sight line mock-up was done for the proposed Christiania expansion. � �� '�Z, ��•. Honorable Mayor and Town Covncil Mem September 22, 1992 Page Two Ii is with these circumstances in mind, that bur confidence in the administrative review/enforcement procedures for special development districts and view corri- dors have been undermined. Our disappointment is amplified with the apparent action regardin� the disposition of our application [o establish the East Village View Corridor that is stiil pending before the Town of Vail. Our request to establish the East Vi]lage View Corridor was submitted to the Town '` of Vail in March 1991 with additional information bein� submitted to the Town Council in October of the same year. To date we have received no response to aur request. It is our understanding that with the recent approval of the proceduraI amend- ment to the View Corridor Ordinance that the To�vn Council urged the adrninisira- tive staff to reconvene the View Corridor Committee for the purpose of recom- mending additional view corridors to the Town Council. We ask that this effert be undenaken in the near future and that the cpmmittee expeditiously present izs recommendations to the Town Council. We request that the Town Council avoid prolonging the review of view corridors. We urge Ihe Town Council to adopt a policy a�d review procedures that would cause the detailed analysis of the impacts of al development proposal upon a pro- posed view corridor, should the development proposal occur prior to the formal adoption of a view corridor. ' We recommend that the Town Council require for buildinas built in proximity to view corridors, have a mandatory location verafication of required view points on the building once the external framing is completed. We recommend that the Town Council require for buildings built in proximity to view corridors, that specific photographic documentation be provided that veri- fies, throu,h the use of on-site moek-ups accompanied by survey documentation, the recommended view points prior to the commencement of the public hearing process approving a proposed building development. It was reported that during the Speak Out meeting the Town Council was accosted, by a prominent member of the community for the municipal government's lack of flexibility in applying i[s zoning and plannin� regulations to individual cir- cumstances. In the same presencation, the Town Council was admonished for at- tempting to protect the rights of neighborin� propeny owners from a neighbor's wrongful acis against the provisions of the zoning laws. The Town Council was told that it should take no responsibility to protect the neighbor's rights against such wrongfui acts. I ; � � � Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members September 22, 1992 Page Three We take affront to these assertions, finding them repugnant and contrary to the principles of responsibte citizenship and the intent of good government. We sup- pori and urge the Vail Town Council to continue its efforts to cause its zoning law to be jusily and fairly created, administered, as well as enforced in the best inier- est of all its citizens and properiy owners. We look forward to continuing our dialogue in our mutual effort to improve our neighborhoods and the community. Would you please advise me as to the act:ons taken upon our requests and recommendations. �—� /"� � Best� y✓ishes, � ;�_��' !� � / i �� , /� , �=-7 '� C.�-�-�._. Robert �'V. Gaivin, Presidenl East Village Homeowners Assoc. RWG:ch cc: Jim Lamont x ^ • �/� �� `.�\' ��.�''.i . . �!� l ',' ' � ' . l� TO�V1V OF UAIL � 7S Sou1b Frontage Road ' Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138/479-2139 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Graefei, Director of Public Works FROM: Andy Knudtsen�' DATE: October 5, 1992 SUBJECT: View Corridors : : :.::.:: :.:::..::..: . . ..... ..;:.: � . �. ..;.:. . . . .: : : : .:. . . . ,.;:: . . : .: .....< .::.::::.. ..: ::.: .>:.. : ......::.:.... .:;:..� ::::.::: ..:.::.... ..:.: . .:...... --..:., ..,..: . ......:..... � . ..... .. ... .. ....... . . ..... . . ..... . ... .......:...:.:::::>...:....:.:..:..:.................. .. .._. . ... ...... # .......... .. . . ........ . ..... .. .. . _ _ . This past year, the Town Community Development staff has tried to update our View Corridor Ordinance. Our goal was to make it easier to understand for applicants proposing development in the Village. i have included a copy of the ordinance and a copy of a i photograph of each of the five corridors. As you can see, two of the corridors have Town of , Vail street lights which encroach into the adopted view. Council asked that the lights be I relocated out of the view corridor as, ideaHy, Town property should comply with all of the � Town's regulations. ; In order to prevent other encroachments similar to these, woufd you please pass this information on to your department. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to walk each of the corridors with you to help you better understand where they start, and what streets and properties they affect. Thanks for your help. i ^�^�" r �. ZT`-!�{�,t• •••—.sG f"e� '.a = � ^ >�3t=ti..�,J��, �I �'" �',� . Y 1M k .it '" � !, �f7�y' � � { �:. � � T _ � k i i �� . A�s� ��`� d �, � I ��o� �-1�. � _ 4 p �, .. . . � �. . S 4�" _ . . _ . e 4 �i'V' ,t r,f' � r .�.� .,.o��?ex�'i r ..,,.¢ � y . Ff � . � _ . 4� tw..,� ?�. � s'• � �i � `5'' . �'L: '.' i �`��*t' `. � ' ,� � �, �=3�; � � '�{r �l�e . ,.� '`�' _;':':1t �� . i � 4�; � ��;. <,� �; �--: ', � � . �- �ti . �� V � .: ��... �� :.�+ �.'-`q�- !,Y!.:+� � ' :. L�': m'i' ....'t w✓'w"a _ _- ��J.. nRA 4 t � r . . , . . �� ,-�.. . � i -, . . . a f -• ' � � •. • , �',» � ._ ^ . �r= � � j Y � 5ti� �`�� a� .� � �,b,_ : � ;�, ..,,� .�� •� j, _ _...; r .. b � . w . �g � y `�:� s � , � {v. � � ��: . ... �. .�-, -r�!� ,�: ■ �i�° � 3 �. _..:.�, � � � ,, , M , w ;• -�:�+~ . � �'•;.p�r,,, ri �� ,��' + `' f y -.. rt.: t �� _�. . . " . . ;'::;�.�` '�': �."'`,�'' +� . �r.: .� � � ,�.:.. • . -- .�a .rww(,� '�'' o��k' y� ' . rR ; �= N r � ,i � " � _��,•� f,� .° - _' �. +' �.n. .. •' - = � �,�- �rr ,� r = ,,. "�+' -=�Mt t!'�" ;, '''� �%�-isiJ�. �.:_. � �- _� . , .- � .-... �/ �` '.c . 's n � t � - rLY�YE -: '� - ��3 : a � � •~� �� i'�'��r ^.,` ��f��, � � � jA� � 1'� Y � � ��-� � "Y��x � � � � ' i. •\ . .. r' s p. t a,� .w'" r T T Z j c"� � s a,- ,s � .J 'Mf ;.� � T sr�, f o: � � � ��i 4' . '1 _ ,A,� � "t"3' '�7.Ir�� £ � �_ k �� -, � � a� > Z �` .y� 4-"�'. 3�+ .s.�� ` � q,[ F t :. �MS s , ..t' ifli� : 3 r J � � 3 � };�, ''�s �["� �'*�t' s� , � . '_ i..�o y ~` `.. �.` ��.r -,..��A `'- � N \ �� 4 �` �^S 3 ,: �` 'n�'°`'t �� .. - :!'r! . t�•: ;��— "'. „%�I , �.. f� � � JI `�� ` . `� .�,x�' ��t�� : i ��P ",. � �r : f : .i �aR.�r• �,,`'� , ; :; y ~Y�'f,' " ° � y °".�"`i 1 r � � �Y - • � �� 's%� i • � .;� . a�+` -��` � /� . --�r r ��- �� u w� .y��= rt . ' � .!:~�Cf.` f.r•�� yt�_'y � ., � � - : . �� .: ��. � Y :A! M �r7i� 111$TA 6A/IN $Id RF.IffA68 �� y. �'�F � � �` ' �r'�r'! .. �. . . -- �� , � � _ t„ b � � , � � � �.,n • �- Y s �f, /Y� 2 . , �..'' • �� iM .- ._ �Yf` ,i� di a ; � __ 3f�(i'•s � ,�'`��M^.�.tf E -��'�''''s" yl, <s �,� � a �n�`� ,..:."p � ` '' t , �. � ° - � E� �3 r{%�FIM' � ""�� ' � '_� V� �• t�:� � �1 �` ��tii. � \'.v� ' +i ..� Y + 1 1' ' ` � i�� . � � .�� + /,1 � .,��►, / y . "'� 4�,u'aa� $ s�� y , � �'.,y � a�� ; i� , • �� 4 .' ` < ,�.+,.�`�..'�r.r3g s �'?- �"5 we s - � � f '� 5 � � . ��t� f I �, . . . �. :_ �'� '�' �, cC��a`.� , "�"'� . C*" N ; . � � � �5 '�' � � � � - �'( '- .,� � +� �'� X �r+ ,�__ , , , . . . ' �u. r� . - lE �s . .� x. / ` +' �T�2, +'. _ j �'. ` _ . �ks� � = � . _ ` � �- � < < �II �I�+ II �� 'k ` � �A�s��= -- ._ r . - - _ . Y ; � �. : ._ � �� _..... : _. - �INI. �a � , � � . � � � � _ _ _ .:¢� �� t�od�s� , ` .. � � � _ - � ;. . _ . _ }_ , .� . - _ , �,..;• • � `^ � =L �, ��.. � . �� . - Y .�a r.: . '.. :.; ��i P� { c � �=i ` N '�5+�_l� { � �s _ = 3 � �� :'*Yr�{ �i" `�� t:: � �_ �:. 'd'. a"N �.,,� �M1, • . . , r7�_,ae°�r,,.. . .. . .. . ... ,_,,..+�+�" , , �� x . .. ,�.., � � ;,a .,��;, S� � � � i � .. ��: ` '�ic �?:.�� . `j ':.: „�� X hs S � '.��iPi�!",��.. r "'i/..r - \�,'��.��i.',. � 1� _ �` � A � � �. ` t;'-� ' �j� � � '► ' ''r �� p��-, � � � '� �. ��`i ".�..a��^� 1��. '� R :.� .k'k.�."� � `. Ir€ l � /�/" � , -� �'�"E�`rn� � �5„��'tt.eec � � l J , . .,•;� ` s � �'� kf�� '�.,g,,`-b ��'�`"� .�,_,�'� � - . � ��r .. ��.�.� . � _ .. , �� Boundary �f View Corridor �r`4 Based o, Town Council work session 3iscussion Nov. 12, 199 Reviewe;? for second rea�ing on: v � . . . - �,... �� 1 ... ..... .._ _'.•��,-•<x --�s�. .x� �? - / / /�� " . . _ , - ^ -�._ '�9c� .. r45�19tt'�A�'i s�e ara-,c:v:.-..� . ------ - -- - �:.` _ ��1 ..:?k.;? • . : � , � .. 4 ' � �, � , . ; � � . ,�;, s � +_,_ �' '' �,' �.,. t ►�'�.'; � A. � � ti: ,N, �,,� .; ��, ; a.� t � �: � ` , . -.�� . ,..� ��,' ` � ,,�_ ''�.,, � . T r:r. Y � y . /_{�..�r:: � c.r r :� i Christiania Lodge and View Corridc�r Adoption Summary September 23, 1992 The proposal to construct a fourth floor on the Chris�tiania has been presented to the Town several times. There have been four distinct proposal�, with some overlap between them. The first was submitted in 1987 and was never built. This i� called out as A in the summary and the extended chronology. The next, called out as B, was tabled indeffinately and then voided by the Town. The next, C, was approved by the Town but not built. B and C had two different iterations to them-- one for PEC that involved variances and one for DRB which met "by-righY' zoning standards. The last propasal, D, is the one under construction and was approved as an SDD in 1992. A. May 11, 1987-- PEC Approval ofi Christiania_ Height: 40'6". This addition was never built. B. 1. Nov. 26, 1990. Pec work session on Christiania. Neight: 43'. Tabled indefinitely_ 2. Dec. 19, 1990. DRB approval of Christiania. Height: assumed to be 43'. Eliminated variances needed from B{1) proposal. Feb. 11, 1991. First presenfafion fo PEC regarding view corridors. C. 1. March 6, 1991. DRB approval of Christiania. Height: assumed to be 43'. March 11, 1991. Second PEC hearing on view corridars. March 19, 1991. First Town Council worksession on view corridors. 2. April 8, 1991. PEC approval of Christiania. Height: 43'. May 7, 1991. Council passes view corridor ordinance on first reading. Nov. 12, 1991. Council worksession on views. Feb. 4, 1992. Council worksession on View Corridor #1. Spring/Summer 1992. Ongoing meetings with View Cprridor Task Force. D. April 21, 1992. Christiania SDD (#28) approved by Council, second reading. Ordinance Number 8, Series 1992. Height: 44'. Currently under construction. August 4, �992. Final View Corridor Ordinance passes second �eading. Ordinance Number 18, Series 1992 c:�akmemo\view-chr I i II _.... . __._ _ I _ m CHRISTIANIA LODGE AND VIEW CORRIDOR ADOPTION CHRONOLOGY 1987 A May 11, 1987 Addition approved for Christiania for 4th fioor at 40'6". This addition was never constructed. 1990: B(1) Sept. 4, B(1} Oct. 8, 4 Nov. 2, B(1) Nov. 12, Nov 19, Nov. 21, B(1} Nov. 26, B(1) Dec 10, B(2) Dec. 19, Dec. 28, 1991 C(1) Feb 11, Feb. 11, DRB Application filed for Sept. 19, 1990 meeting. PEC worksession density and setback variances. Since item was reviewed by the PEC as a worksession item, and since there is no advertising requirement for work session items, item was not advertised. Height: 43' JK - phone call from Jack Curtain inquiring as to what is going on with Christiania. PEC worksession on density, setback and common area variances JK and KP and Jay meet Jack Curtin in front of Frivolous Sal's to take a look at View Corridor from photo point Note: First documented mention of View Corridor encroachment is above mentioned letters TOV receipt of revised elevations from Bill Reslock showing how bldg plan has been modified to decrease impact redevel. will have on proposed Hanson Ranch view corridor PEC worksession on density, setback, common area and parking variances. First discussion of corridor by board. Discussion centered on View Corridor, Density & parking PEG - no discussion item tabied indefinitely to aliow time for resolution of parking lot ownership and parking rights issues. DRB consideration of Christiania redevelopment proposai item was approved subject to several conditions including Town Attorney's legal opinion regarding zoning code issue raised by Art at the meeting. TOV receipt of tetter from Art. Appeal of 12/19 DRB approval. Town determines Art's objections to Sections 18.64.050.B and 18.54.040.C.2 are valid. Accordingly DRB 12/19 approval is vo(d. (Project B(2}) DRB application filed for March 6 meeting First presentation to PEC regarding the request to establish an additiona! View Co�ridor, and fo modify the wording in the existing View Corridor Ordinance. C(�) March 6 DRB meeting - Christiania is approved 4-0. Those present include: JK,Larry, Bili R., Art, Paul Johnston, Jay and Peter Rudy representing East Village � Homeowners Assoc. (Assoc. not formally established at time of this hearing) � ---- _ _ : _ __- March 1 i/91 C(2) March 11, C(1) March 19, March 19, C(2) April 8, I Second work session with PEC regarding view corridor�. !n the memo fo PEC, staff discussed a'grace period" for the proposed ordina�nce. The memo to PEC dafed March i 1, included the following paragraph: "Before this view co�ridor is established, it musi be considered by Town Council twice and adopted by ordinance. Staff believes that this addition to the code be freated similarly as other code changes. Theie should be some kind of 'grace period" for develdpe�s to pul! building permits for projects designed under the curreni regulations. Staff proposes to use the same process that was used for the recent code changes limiting fhe number of wood burning firaplaces. Once adopted by the Town Council, staff proposes that there be a six week period for indivrduals to present a complete DRB application for projects that would otherwise encroach into View Corridor Number 4�_ Approval of the project by DR8 or any other board, is not needed. The complete application submitta! is all that would be necessary." Notes from that work session in the siaff files indicate that the PEC desired fhat fhe view corridor be revised to reflect all consfruction projecfs which had been applied for during the six week period. Once the projecis which had been submitfed during the grace period had been built, the PEC said thaf staff should revise the photographs and locate the corridor boundary around the recently completed consiruction. The approved minutes from thaf work session state the following: "Kathy Langenwalter asked that Christiania, if built as approved, would encroach into the view corridor, and fhen be encouraged to be removed at a future redevelopment. Kristan Priiz responded by indicating that when staff formulated the view corrrdor proposal, they were trying to find the best possible view without looking af the Christiania project specifically. Kathy Langenwalter indicated thaf she understood the reason why statf recommended the corridor follow the roof lines, and believed that the Christiania proposed roof line should determine the view line when built. Kristan expressed her concern thaf, if the Christiania redevefopment was used as the boundary of the corridor, the result could be that the corridor ordinance would be unnecessarily delayed....Kathy continued by saying that she was comforlable with the staff's recommendation wiih the provision that the corridor be re- photographed after the Christiania expansion was completed....Kristan Pritz suggested the commission approve the corcidor with the provrsion that staff would amend it aRer the consfruction of any building or addition, submifted to DRB during the grace period, was completed. This would allow for the establishment of the vieiiv corridor without delay. " Variance application submitted ior remodel of lobby and 4th floor. Town Council review of appeal of DRB decision Staff presented proposa! to Town council at a work session. !n the material submitted to Council, staff specifically identified the grace period concept. This term is used in the Council Agenda Request. Variance request approved by PEC. Height 43' Apri! 22/9i Final PEC hearing, for ihe formal recommendafion to Tawn Council regarding the proposa! to amend the Zoning Code. The ordinance attached to the memo stated (on page fourJ: "the legal description wil! be written after proposed developmenf has ----__ .. either been construcfed or the approval for such development has expired. This provision applies for all development projects which have received DRB approval as the date of the second reading of this ordinance. " This paragraph was inserted after a heading titted, "View Point 4". AI! other view corridors at this point had metes and bounds, legal desc�iptions, which had been taken from the previous ordinance. May 7/91 Town Council approves proposal on first reading. Staff explains ihe legal descripfion for the Christiania will be based on the exisfing ridge lines but that this cannot be done unti! fa1l. Thrs rs because the aspens around the Chrisfiania prevented surveyors from identifying the exact ridge line and exact meets and bounds survey line. Staff suggested that the second reading be presented in fall after ihe leaves had fallen. The Chrisfiania could have built the project as proposed. C(2) June 5, DRB approvai of variance project Nov i2, Staff returns to Town Council for a work session to discuss the proposal. The leaves had fallen and staff was working with Eagle Valley Surveying to generate the metes and bounds legal description. Before bringing it back to Town Council for second reading, staff wanted to tie up some loose ends. These included responding to proposa! from Jim Lamont for a new view corridor in the Easf Village area as well as specifying a way to handle the Christiania issue. From a memo from Community Development to Town Council, the following information was stated: "During a discussion during the first reading, Council directed staff fo write a lega! description for the Christiania which wouid accommodate the proposed addition. Staff had originally sfafed in ihe ordinance that the legal description would be written after the Christiania expansion was completed. Around the time of first reading, it became apparent fhat the Christiania expansion would not occur during the summer of 1991. As a result, Counci! directed staff fo write a lega/ description in such a way that it would allow the addifion to be built in the future. Staff has drscussed this idea with Kurt Segerberg, the architect who designed the expansion, and Dan Corcoran, the surveyor doing the work during this view corridor work. When staff walked the site (and roo� with both gentlemen, it was determined that rt would be extremely drfficult to write a legal description based on a hypothetical ridge line. It would require up to a dozen individuals standing on the existing Christiania holding pofes af certain heights, at certain locations, representing fhe proposed roof. The fact that the proposed ridges do not line up with the existing ridges complicates the situation. Furfhermore, the existing roof rs a standard shed while the proposed roof is a combination of sheo; flat, and parapet. If is highly unlikely that the proposed legal description would be accurate based on the dozen or so poinfs reflecting different kinds of roofs, elevated certain distances above fhe existing roof. Staff is proposing, instead, that CounciJ adopt the proposed view corridor based on fhe existing ridges of the Christiania with the understanding thaf the addition could be built per the approved plan. The language in the proposed ordinance for second reading specifically states ihat the development proposals which have been approved at the time of the second reading of the ordinance may be built. Paul Johnston, the applicant on fhe already approved Christiania expansion, would be responsrble for keeping this approval current. DRB approvals expire one year after the approval. Similarly, a variance approval expires one year atter the date of the PEC approvaL Applicanis may request, in writing, extensions of these approvals, and the Town, in most cases, has granted fhe extensrons. Pau! would have to take the i � i ' responsibilify for exfending the approvals until cqnstruction. After construction, the Town would have to rewrite th� legal description for i this corridor. Staff believes this rs a much simpler way to adopt the coriidor and, af the same time, allow the Chrisfiania addition. It is staff's understanding that there is Council support for allowing the Christiania expansion to take place. It is just a matfer of identifying a pracess for adopting a view corrrdor which allows the expansion. The issue of the Christiania roof is, in staff's opinion, the only poJicy decision that staff needs inpuf from Council. All of the oiher changes which Council directed sfaff to make have been incorporafed into the ordinance." Months ol Dec. 1991 and Jan. 1992 Stafi works with Public works and Eagle Valley Surveying crews to install monuments and have a legal descriptions written. 1992 D Jan. 27/92 SDD application submitted Feb. 4 Siaff present detailed analysis of View Corridor Number i to Town Council. The purpose of this was fo have the Council approve a revised boundary to accommodate minor additions made fo buildings in the Village since the view corridor had been adopfed. C(2) Feb 24, Extension of 4-$-91 PEC approval requested by Paul Johnston Feb. 25, Council work session. Staff presented a variety of issues to the Counci! for their input. Among these was the eNort to determine an appropriate lengih of time for the 'grace period." Since Councif, PEC and DR8 decisions a11 involve different periods of time for construction of approved plans, Council needed to determrne an appropriate amounf of time for ali three types of reviews regarding the grace period. Section i8.73.070 Exempfions was discussed at length. At the fime, that section read as follows: 'Approved development and proposats whrch encroach into view corridors. For development proposais which have received approva�s from the Town of Vail, but have not received an approved building permit as of the effective daie of this ordinance, which encroach into an adopted view corridor, the applrcant shall be abte to renew their approva! notwithstanding the provisrons of this ordinance. For PEC decisions, the approval can be renewed once. For DRB decisions, the approva! can be renewed two times. For Town Council decisrons, such as the special development district, the approval shall not be extended. If, for one project, the length of time resulfing form the exfension of PEC or DRB approvals differ, fhe shorter length of time shall be the maximum time ailowed. If an approval lapses, the right to consiruct ihe development shall become void. Renewals can be made, notwithstanding the provisions of fhis ordrnance, providing there is no subsfantra! change to the structure, and provided there is no increase in portion of the sfructure which encroaches into the view corridor. ,. D March 9/92 Work session with PEC March, April, May, June, 4 0 July, Ongoing meetings with the View Corridor Task Face put togefher by Kristan and Andy. D March 23l92 SDD reviewed by PEC, PEC recommended approval to Town Council D April 6, DRB appiication submitted D April 7, First reading at Town Council D April 21, SDD approval at Town Council. Height 44' April 22, Met with View Conidor Task Force C(2) May 28, Extension request withdrawn by Jay Peterson May 27, Met with View Corridor Task Force June 30, Month of July July 21, August 4, As of this meeting, the section on Exemptions was sti!! a part af the ordinance. Met wifh View Conidor Task Force During fhis month, staff deleted the section on Exemptions, since there were no projecfs within the Town of Vail which had been approved, which would have encroached rnto a view corridor, for which a building permit had not been issued. Ordinance 18, Series 1992 passed on first reading. Ordinance i3, Series 1991 denied on second ieading. Ordinance 18 Series 1992 passed on second reading. 5 c;�amly�adm in\comdned _--- - I _ m CHRISTIANIA LODGE AND VIEW CORRIDOR ADOPTION CHRONOLOGY 1990: Sept. 4, DRB Application filed for Sept. 19, 1990 meeting. Sept. 6, Meeting w/Biil Reslock {arch.) to review plans Sept. 18, review of development proposal by �ire Dept Sept. 19, DRB meeting conceptual review of Ghristiania Lodge redevelopment proposal Receipt of list of property owners to be notified Oct. 5, Notice in Trail for 10/22/91 density & setback variance requests Oct. 8, 4 PEC worksession density and setback variances. Since item was reviewed by the PEC as a worksession item, and since there is no advertising requirement for worksession items, item was not advertised. Oct. 17, JK phone conversation w/Bill Reslock summarizing comments of PEC mtg on 10/19 and setting forth information Town must receive in order to process application Oct 18, Received letter from Richard Siegal, Pres. Chateau Christian Townhome Assoc. dated 10/17/90, stating Assoc. approves remodel proposal and encourages Town to approve plans Oct. 22, sched. for PEC Worksession on setback and density variances. Item tabled without discussion to November 12th PEC meeting date. Adjacent property owners had been notified of ineeting Oct. 25, Notice to Adjacent property owner mailed for 11/12 mtg Oct. 26, Letter from JK to Paul Johnston re: summarizing PEC member comments from 10/8 mtg and setting forth information which must be presented to Town by November 2nd to allow Town time to process information in time for 11/12 PEC meeting. Letter states letter is follow up to 10/17 phone call. Although letter is addressed to Paul I beiieve only phone conversation I had was with Bill Reslock �ct 30, JK meeting w/Bill Reslock to review Oct. 31, or so Town L.A. review of plans 2 < 1990 Nov. 2, Nov. 2, N ov. 7, Nov. 8, Nov 9, Meeting 12:00 p.m. @ TOV JK & Bill Reslock to go over requested additional information submission from Bill. Info received from Bill @ Meeting JK - phone call from Jack Curtain inquiring as to what is going on with Christiania. discussion re: Christiania parking lot and Town owned land @ Interdepartmental Adjacent Property owners notified of 11/26 PEC meeting Ad published in Trail for parking variance request hearing at 11/26 meeting of PEC Updated Christiania Lodge property survey submitted to TOV offices Nov. 12, PEC wor4csession on density, setback and common area variances Nov. 12, Bill Reslock submits of landscaping plant material list Nov. 13, Phone caN JK & Jay Peterson to discuss 11/12 PEC meeting and additional information which application must provide to Town in order for Town to process application for 11(26 meeting. Nov. 14, JK meeting w/ Gretta Parks to go over submission plans Nov 15, JK, Kristan and Jay Peterson meet @ Christian to discuss provision of employee housing unit(s), restricting units to short term rental and proposed site improvements Letter to Jay Peterson fr. JK to summarize phone conversation of 11/13 and to set deadline of 11/19 for receipt of information requested Nav. 16, Lttr dated 11/16 to TOV fr. Richard Siegal, Pres. of Chateau Townhome Assoc. granting permission to designate one parking space on CCTA owned property to Christiania for the Christiania's use. Nov 19, Nov. 20, JK and KP and Jay meet Jack Curtin in front of Frivolous Sal's to take a look at View Corridor fram photo point Barry Craddock {adjacent property owner) notification of 11/26 PEC hearing returned to TOV offices 3 ••�, Nov. 21, TOV receipt of letters of opposition to redevelop proposal from: Mill Creek Court Condominium Assoc. i Jack Curtin Note: First documented mention of View Corridor encroachment is above mentioned letters Letter dated 11/21 fr. Art Abplanalp representing Jack Morton Productions owner of unit on 2nd FI. of Mill Cric. Court Condo Build, objecting to redevelopment proposal JK in discussion with Art becomes aware of fact that parcel of land where Christiania is now parking (J) is not property on which they have the right to park (P-3) and that TOV ROW bisects ihe parking lot located north of the Christiania Lodge TOV receipt of revised elevations from Bill Reslock showing how bldg plan has been modified to decrease impact redevel. will have on proposed Hanson Ranch view corridor JK - Phone call fr. , Art A., Bill Morton and Mark Mathews (manager of Mill Creek Court Bldg.) Inquiring as to what was proposed under Christiania development proposal Nov. 23, TOV receipt of Lttr dated 11/23 fr. Art to KP re: Art's discovery that Christiania parking area used and parking area rights don't jive. Encloses copy of signed 1963 agreement between VA, Christiania and TOV. Agreement to swap land has never been executed Nov. 26, PEC worksession on density, setback, common area and parking variances. First discussion of corridor by board. Discussion centered on View Corridor, Density & parking Nov 30, JK meeting with Mike Mollica and Rad Slifer and another gentleman who came to the meeting with Rod, to discuss Mill Creek Condominium site redevel. work which Mill Creek Condominium Associations would like to carry out on TOV owned land located in the Hanson Ranch Rd. ROW. Condominium improvements (stairs and walkways) currently encroach. Rt this same meeting Christiania redevelopment proposal was discussed and reviewed by those present. 4 ••� Dec 10, PEC - no discussion item tabied indefinitely to ailow time for resolution of parking lot ownership and parking rights issues. Dec. 18, revised and updated northern parking lot survey (parcels -3 and J- including Villa Valhalla ownership) submitted to TOV offices. Dec. 19, DRB consideration of Christiania redevelopment proposal item was approved subject to several conditions including Town Attorney's legal opinion regarding zoning code issue raised by Art at the meeting. Dec. 28, TOV receipt of Ittr fr. Art. Appeal of 12/19 DRB approval 1991 Jan 3, Meeting JK, Larry Eskwith and KP to address Art's zoning code violation issue. Jan 4, JK, Mike Brake and Jerry Arnold meeting to discuss ownership of parcels P-3 & J Jan 11, Lttr fr Kristan to Paul apologizing for zoning code interpretation problem relating to increasing size of nonconforming structures - in the past, code was not interpreted in this manner. Jan 22, JK phone call with Jay re: TOV requirement that Christiania obtain written confirmation fr VA stating VA does not object to Christiania's use of lot and VA will continue to accommodate Christiania's parking needs. Jan 24, Lttr mailed fr. Larry Eskwith to Art notifying Art of TOV's findings with regard to his letter of 12/19/90. Town determines Art's objections to Sections 18.64.050.B and 18.54.040.C.2 are valid. Accordingly DRB 12/19 approval is void Approx Jan 28, mailed notices to adjacent property owners af 2/11 PEC meeting KP telephone Joe Macy re: staff position on VA's need to provide written confirmation to TOV stating VA will continue to accommodate the Christiania's parking needs and that even though property which they own is impacted by the redevelopment propasal, they do not object. 5 - - -- . --- - 1991 Jan 31, Lttr to Jay fr. JK re: placing redevelQpment proposa! on 2/11 agenda, reiterating points of 1/22 phone cail and setting 2i4 deadline for receipt of required fetter fr. V.A. Feb. 4, JK Phone call fr. Larry Lichliter of VA inquiring as to just what information Town is requesting VA provide to Paul Feb 4, 4:19 p.m. TOV receipt of letter fr. Vail Associates. Letter does not provide needed Christiania parking commitment required by T4V Feb 5, Town Council Work Session. Discussion of Christiania redevelopment and Council consent to proceed thraugh the PEC review process. On agenda, item was not discussed. Larry Eskwith verbally notifies Art of TOV interpretation that the TOV recognizes the Christiania Lodge as having 3 legal parking spaces. These 3 spaces are located on Christiania property to the west of the Christiania Lodge Building. TOV receipt of hand delivered letter to Council fr Gretta Parks (East Vail Village Steering Committee) re: need for master plan for East Vail Village Feb 6, Art notifies staff there is no variance application in the file JK phone TOV accounting to get print out of 41330 funds received to check if application filing fee was ever paid JK phone Bill Reslock to see if he has copy of application form or canceled check JK phone Jay Peterson to see if he Ihas copy of application form or canceled check Feb 7, TOV receipt of 2/7 ittr fr Art to PEC stating consideration of Christiania redevelopment proposal is improper because no application has been fifed JK receive copy of TOV 41330 account print aut. Unable to see record of TOV receipt of Christiania filing fee C� �� Feb 11, Feb. 11 Feb 12, Feb 15, Feb. 20, Feb. 21, JK phone call to Resfock. He aiso is unable to find record of payment in his files. Having aiso checked with Jay and Paul, and finding out that they have no record of payment of copies of an application, we conclude no payment was ever received. ,1K telephone Trail to have item removed from 2111 PEC agenda ad DRB application filed for March 6 meeting KP and JK review DRB application to insure all required submittal information had been submitted. KP and JK determine application is complete. However it appears a portion of the redevelopment is proposed to occur on Chateau Christian Townhome owned property. JK telephones Bill R. to make sure all construction is to occur on Christiania- owned property. Bili submits drawing to show relationship of Christiania lobby to the Chateau Christian Townhome lobby First presentation to PEC regarding the request to establish an additional View Corridor, and to modify the wording in the existing View Corridor Ordinance. TOV receipt of 2/7 Ittr fr. Jack Baylin a property owner in the Townhomes stating his objection to the plan 8:00 am JK, Bill R and Jay P meet. Bill presents drawing which shows Christiania redevelopment will not occur on Chateau Christian Townhome owned property JK letter to Bill Reslock re: additional information required to complete processing DRB application JK mails courtesy notice to Art to notify him DRB application has been filed for March 6 DRB meeting JK mails letter of apology to Paul and Sally in response to fact variance application was not submitted and filing fee was not paid. TOV receipt of letter from Art appealing staff determination of adequacy of 3/6 DRB application 7 1991 Feb. 28, KP, JK and Larry Eskwith meet to review JK response to Art's letter of Feb. 7. Response to Art's letter of Feb. 21 not yet drafted. KP indicated that in a conversation with Jay earlier that day, Jay indicated the allowable dweiling unit count under the current PEC application did not exceed 9.5 d.u.'s. JK then indicated allowable unit count is 9.0 d.u.'s and that she has conveyed that information to Jay in a telephone conversation and further that every PEC memo which has been wriiten has set forth 9 d.u.'s as the allawable unit count. During course of this discussion JK indicates zone check is not complete. Meeting breaks up. It is determined no further discussion on response to Art's letters need occur until zone check has been completed. JK telephones Bill R. regarding need to reduce unit count. Bill indicates where unit count reduction will occu�. JK does zone check based on unit combination information provided by Bill R. March 1, JK telephones Jay regarding need to reduce unit count JK receipt of revised drawing from Reslock reflecting unit combination/reducing project density to 9 d.u.'s KP oui ofi town in New Mexico. KP phones JK to find out what Jay's response was to d.u. reduction telephone call. KP response to Gretta Park's letter of 2/7 is mailed 4:15 pm JK sits down to go over zone check in preparation for 3/6 meeting. Setback encroachment is discovered. Bill and Jay are not available by phone at their offices Sat. Mar 2 Jay is not available by phone. 3:45 JK contacts Bill at his home to notify him of side setback encroachment (Paul is in Mexico an vacation) JK contacts KP in New Mexico regarding same. No answer at survey company. � Sun. Mar 3 approx. 9:00 am JK reaches Jay at home to notify him of encroachment. 8 ' 1991 Ron Phillips stops into Community Development Dept. JK notifies of setback encroachment situatian March 4, KP calls JK from New Mexico to get update on situation JK, Mike Mollica, Jay Peterson, Bill R. and Kurt Segerberg (with arch. firm) meet to discuss encroachment and ta review preliminary design solution to encroachment. Purpose of this meeting was also to set forth agreement on what information/plans need to be submitted as a result of proposed minor plan modifications and when this information must be submitted. KP calls JK in evening to set up meeting for following morning to review Christiania project status JK meets with Ron to up date him on status of encroachment situation. March 5, 7:30 am KP and JK meet to discuss status of Christiania project - KP gives JK written summary of morning discussion and which includes outline of how to avoid this type of problem in the future. JK receives around 7:30PM. 3:45 pm TOV receipt of revised plans fr Bill R. addressing E. setback line encroachment. JK review plans with Bifi R. JK completes draft of letter responding to Art's letters of Feb. 7 and Feb. 21. 4:30 pm JK review plans with KP and Bill R. 5:00 pm JK telephones Art A. to inform him revised plans have been submitted and making an appointment to meet with him the following day at 9:00 am to review plans March 6, Review new plans with Art and Jack Baylin (Tawnhome resident) KP puts note in Ron's box informing him Christiania is going to DRB on this day KP out of town 3/6 and 3/7 to Crested Butte 7 1991 ' DRB meeting - Christiania is approv�ed 4-0. Those present include: JK,Larry, Bill R., Art, Paul Johnston,' Jay and Peter Rudy representing East Village Homeowners Assoc. (Assoc. not formally established at time of this hearing) March 8, KP reviews JK's draft of letter written in response to Art's fetters of Feb. 7th and 21 st. March 11, Second work session with PEC regarding viewcorridors. In the memo to PEC, staff discussed a'"grace period" for the proposed ordinance. The memo to PEC dated March 11, included the following paragraph: � "Before this view corridor is established, it must be considered by Town Council twice and adopted by ordinance. Staff betieves that this addition to the code be treated similarly as other code changes. There should be some kind of "grace period" for developers to pull building permits for projects designed under the current regulations. Staff proposes to use the same process that was used for the recent code changes limiting the number of wood burning fireplaces. Once adopted by the Town Council, staff proposes that there be a six week period for individuals to present a compfete DRB application for projects that would otherwise encroach into View Corridor Number 4. Approval of the project by DRB or any other board, is not needed. The complete application submittal is all that would be necessary." Notes from that work session in the staff files indicate that the PEC desired that the view corridor be revised to reflect all construction projects which had been applied for during the six week period. Once the projects which had been submitted during the grace period had been built, the PEC said that staff should revise the photographs and locate the corridor boundary around the recently completed consiruction. The approved minutes from that vtirork session state the following: "Kathy Langenwalter asked that Christiania, if built as approved, would encroach into the view corridor, and then be encouraged to be removed at a future redevelopment. Kristan Pritz responded by indicating that when staff 10 a� formulated the view corridar proposai, they were trying to find the best possible view without looking at the Christiania project specificaily. Kathy Langenwalter indicated that she understood the reason why staff recommended the carridor follow the roof lines, and believed that the Christiania proposed roof line should determine the view line when built. Kristan expressed her concern that, if the Christiar►ia redevelopment was used as the boundary of the corridor, the result could be that the corridor ordinance would be unnecessarify defayed....Kathy continued by saying that she was comfortable with the staff's recommendation with the provision that the corridor be re-phatographed after the Christiania expansion was completed....Kristan Pritz suggested the commission approve the corridor with the provision that staff would amend it after the construction of any building or addition, submitted to DRB during the grace period, was completed. This wauld allow far the establishment of the view corridor without delay." March 11, Variance application submitted for remodel of lobby and 4th floor. March 12, Larry completes review of JK's ►etter to Art mentioned above March 13, KP review final draft af JK's letter to Art. end of JiIPs research March 19, Town Council review of appeal of DRB decision March 19, Staff presented proposal to Town counci{ at a work session. In the material submitted to Council, staff specifically identified the grace period concept. This term is used in the Council Agenda Request. April 8, Variance request approved by PEC April 22, Final PEC hearing, for the formal recommendation to Town Council regarding the proposal to amend the Zoning Code. The ordinance attached to the memo stated (on page four): "the legal description will be written after praposed devetopment has either been constructed or the approvat for such development has expired. This provision applies for all development projects which have received DRB approval as 11 199� the date of the second reading of this ordinance." This paragraph was inserted after a heading titled, "View Point 4". Ali other view corridors at this point had meets and bounds, legal descriptions, which had been taken from the previous ordinance. May 7 Town Council approves proposal on first reading. Staff explains the legal descriptian for the Christiania will be based on the existing ridge lines but that this cannot be done until fall. This is because the aspens around the Christiania prevented surveyors from identifying the exact ridge line and exact meets and bounds survey line. Staff suggested that the second reading be presented in fall after the leaves had fallen. June 5, DRB approval of variance project Nov 12, Staff returns to Town Council for a work session to discuss the proposal. The leaves had fallen and staff was working with Eagle Valley Surveying to generate the meets and bounds legal description. Before bringing it back to Town Council for second reading, staff wanted to tie up some loose ends. These included responding to proposal from Jim Lamont for a new view corridor in the East Village area as well as specifying a way to handle the Christiania issue. From a memo from Community Development to Town Council, the following information was stated: "During a discussion during the first reading, Council directed staff to write a legal description for the Christiania which would accommodate the proposed addition. Staff had originally stated in the ordiraance that the legal description would be written after the Ghristiania expansion was completed. Around the time of first reading, it became apparent that the Christiania expansion would not occur during the summer of 1991. As a result, Council directed staff to write a legal description in such a way that it would allow the addition to be built in the future. Staff has discussed this idea with Ku�t Segerberg, the architect who designed the expansion, and Dan Carcoran, the surveyor doing the work during this view corridor work. When stafif walked the site (and roaf) with both gentlemen, it was determined that it would be extremely difficult to write a legal 12 1991 description based on a hypothetical ridge line. It would require up to a dozen individuals standing on the existing Christiania holding poles at certain heights, at certain locations, representing the proposed roof. The fact that he proposed ridges do not line up with the existing ridges complicates the situation. Furthermore, the existing roof is a standard shed while the proposed roof is a combination of shed, flat, and parapet. It is highly unlikety that the proposed legal description would be accurate based on the dozen or so points reflecting different kinds of roofs, elevated certain distances above the existing roof. Staff is proposing, instead, that Council adopt the proposed view corridor based on the existing ridges of the Christiania with the understanding that the addition could be built per the approved ptan. The language in the proposed ordinance ior second reading specifically states that the development proposals which have been approved at the time of the second reading of the ordinance may be built. Paul Johnston, the applicant on the already approved Christiania expansion, would be responsibie for keeping this approval current. DRB approvals expire one year after the approval. Similarly, a variance approval expires one year after the date ofi the PEC approval. Applicants may request, in writing, extensions of these approvals, and the Town, in most cases, has granted the extensions. Paul would have ta take the responsibility for extending the approvals until construction. After construction, the Town would have to rewrite the legal description for this corridor. Staff believes this is a much simpler way to adopt the corridor and, at the same time, allow the Christiania addition. It is staff's understanding that there is Council support for allowing the Christiania expansion to take piace. lt is just a matter of identifying a process for adopting a view corridor which a{{ows the expansion. The issue of the Christiania roof is, in staff's opinion, the only policy decision that staff needs input from Council. All of the other changes which Council directed staff to make have been incorporated into the ordinance." 13 1992 Months of Dec. 1991 and Jan. 1992 Staff works with Public works and Eagle Vailey Surveying crews to install monuments and have a legai descriptions written. January 27, SDD application submitted Feb. 4 Staff present detailed analysis of View Corridor Number 1 to Town Gouncil. The purpose of this was to have the Councii approve a revised boundary to accommodate minor additions made to buildings in the Village since the view corridor had been adopted. Feb 24, Extension of 4-8-91 decision requested by Paul Johnston Feb. 25, Council work session. Staff presented a variety of issue to the Council for their input. Among these was the effort to determine an appropriate length of time for the "grace period." Since Councit, PEC and DRB decisions all involve different periods of time for construction of approved plans, Council needed to determine an appropriate amount af time for all three types of reviews regarding the grace period. Section 18.73.070 Exemptions was discussed at length. At the time, that section read as follows: "Approved development and proposals which encroach into view corridors. For development proposals which have received approvals from the Town of Vail, but have not received an approved building permit as of the effective date of this ordinance, which encroach into an adopted view corridor, the applicant shatl be able to renew their approvaf notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance. For PEC decisions, the approval can be renewed once. For DRB decisions, the approval can be renewed two times. For Town Council decisions, such as the special development district, the approval shall not be extended. If, for one project, the length of time resulting form the extension of PEC or DRB approvals differ, the shorter length of time shall be the maximum time allowed. If an approval lapses, the right to construct the deve{apment sha{1 become void. Renewals can be made, notwithstanding the pravisions of this ordinance, 14 � 1992 providing there is no substantial change to the structure, and � provided there is no increase in portion of the structure which encroaches into the view corridor." March 9, Work session with PEC March, April, May, June, July, Ongoing meetings with the View Corridor Task �orce put together by Kristan and Andy. March 23, SDD reviewed by PEG, PEC recommended approval to Town Council April 6, April 7, April 21, April 22, May 28, May 27, June 30, Month of July July 21, DRB appfication submitted First reading at Town Council SDD approval at Town Council Met with View Corridor Task Force Extension request withdrawn by Jay Peterson Met with View Corridor Task Force As of this meeting, the section on Exemptions was still a part of the ordinance. Met with View Corridor Task Force During this month, staff deleted the section on Exemptions, since there were no projects within the Town of Vail which had been approved, which would have encroached into a view corridor, for which a building permit had not been issued. Ordinance 18, Series 1992 passed on first reading. Ordinance 13, Series 1991 denied on second reading. August 4, Ordinance 18 Series 1992 passed on second reading. c:\a nd y�ed m i n�com bi ned 15 , _.. _ -- --. ._�.. _ _. .._ ..___ _ - - � � I , �, i • ' ' T'he ordinancc sho��n below inciudes aIl of che rcquested changes which C�,utcil made durin� first reading, May 7, 1991. The o:dinsce w1s passed on fizst rwding with a 7- 0 vote. 7'he ordinance prepazed for suond'reading will have different ]cgal ! descripdons for each view corridor as the Town is updating the monumentauon for all of the view cocridors. ORDINANCE NO. 13 Sezies of 1991 j AN ORDINANCE Ab¢NDING SECTION G OF THE VAIL VILLAGE i URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATZONS RELATING TO !1'HE PROTECTION OF VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MUNICIPAI, CODE , OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CERTAIN VZEWS WITHIN THE TOWN AND SETTING � FORTA THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council thatl the preservation of certain existing view corridors is essential to the cha�acter of Vail as a mountain resort community; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect an� enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; and ' WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and �nhance the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS the amendment will more clearly identify ex�lsting view corridors and development procedures for the public's benefit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 1. Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modified to read as follows: Paraqraph G ''� � Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other �yatural features are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features al,so provide important orientation re£erences and visual focal points. The most significant and obvious view corridors have been adopted as part of the Design Review standards in Chaptei 18.73 of the vai1�I,Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. when evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analy is of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originl�te from either major pedestrian areas or public plazas, and include views of t�e ski mountain, the Gore Range, or the Clock Tower. The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but',also as orientati.on reference points for pedestrians. Development in the Vai1 Village shall not encroach i to any adopted view corridor. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 o the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, th impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways must be identifiecfl and mitigated where needed. 2. Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail i.s Y,ereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as follows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors 16.73_O10 - Purpose A. The protection and perpetuation of ceztain panoramic mountain views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town is required in the interests of posterity, civic pride and the general welfare of the people of the Town of Vail; ' B, It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain ' existing panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment and environmer.tal enrichment i iof the citizens and visitois to the Town; � C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attxibutes; D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; ' E. The preservation of such views will protect and enhance the Town's I attraction to tourists and visitors; IF. The preservation of such views will promote good design and will I iprovide for natural light in the buildings and public spaces in the vicinity of , � the view corridors. 18 73 020 - Adoption of View Corridor Leqal Descriptions and Photoqraphs The photographs on =ecord with the Community Development Department and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. 2 i A. A view from the south side of the Vail Transportation Center from the main pedestrian stairway looking toward the ski slopes; � Viex Point #1 Instrument - View Foint #1 Backsight - Traverse Point #1 Height of instrument above View Point #1 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizonal Angle Zenith Angle F resight Point o� Photo 359 47' 76 41' A 358 97� 65 49' B 12 06' 89 14' C 15 00' 89 17' D 22 14' 86 54' E I 35 18' 85 42' F II 38 17' 76 21' G'� � B. A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward t e ski slopes between 226 Bridge street,the Golden Peak Building, and 311 Bri ge Street, the Hill Building; II I View Point #2 II Instrument - View Point #2 Hacksight - View Point #4 Height of Znstrument Above View Point #2 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm 3 Horizontal Angle 287 30' 289 40' 299 02' 301 51' Zenith Angle 74 35' 90 17' 92 97' 74 10' Foresight Point on Photo A B C D C. The northeast corner of 244 Wall Street, the One Vail Place Building, looking over the roofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Lion, and 356 Hanson Ranch Road, the Christiania, toward the Gore Range. The legal description for this view corridor will be based upon the proposed Christiania development as shown on Exhibit A. View Point #4 Instrument - View Point #4 Backsight - To Be Determined Neight of Instrument Above View Point #9 - 5.4 £eet Lens used in photograph - 50 mm D. View of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Mill Creek Court Building; View Point #5 Instrument - View Point #5 Backsight - Focal Point #1 Height of Instrument Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle 201 31' 206 53' 210 24' 213 09' 213 09' i 81 24' 85 03' 85 11' 84 03' 83 00' 4 Foresight Point On Photo A B C D E. Looxing east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek iive between retail shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at Vail, and 193 ore Creek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza Building. VieK Point #6 Instrument - View Point #6 Backsight - Traverse Point #2 Height of Instrument Above View Point �6 - 5.4 feet Lens used in photograph - 35 mm Horizontal Angle Zenith Angle Foresight oint 356 55' 357 32' 00 46' O1 59� 12 43' 12 51' 12 12' ai oo� 83 19' 83 13' 85 26' 85 26' 80 1Q' 78 SB' on P A B C D E F G 13 07' 73 06' H I 16.73.030 - Limitations on Construction No structure shall be permitted to encroach abov the view corridor boundary identified with the dashed tape set forth on ach of the adopted photographs. The boundaries are determined by the legal d scriptions listed in Section 18.73.020. Copies of the photographs and legal des riptions are on file with the Community Development Department. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term structure shall include, but not be limited to, new buildings, building expansions, decks, remodels, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, satellite dishes, fences, stoplights, light poles, utility poles, sky�ights or any similar objects. I 18.73.040 - Mass and Bulk Controls � A. Proposed BuildinQ Expansions in the Viclinitv of Existinq Encroachments �I When any proposed structure infringes upon a Town of��Vail view corridor, but is located in front of or behind another structure 5 which already encroaches into the same view corridor, the new structure sha11 not be permitted. B. View Corridor Heiqht Control If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code exceeds the resulting height limitation defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height regulation sha11 apply. C. Proposed Remodels of Buildinqs with EYistinq Encxoachments Pre-existing encroachments in view corridors shall not be expanded or enlarged to create further eneroachment. Any existing encioachments will be encouraged to be removed as part of any major building remodel, except for identified focal points, such as the Clock Tower and Bell Tower. 18.73.050 - Submittal Requirements The following information shall be submitted along with a Design Review Board application, exterior alteration application, any variance application, or any other application that may pertain to view corridors, so that the Town staff can properly evaluate whether a structure complies with this view corridor chapter: A. Existing and proposed elevations of the development; B. Photographs taken from the adopted view point which indicate the present improvements which protrude into, or are in the vicinity of the view corridor, and a graphic representation on the photographs of how the proposed improvements will appear with relation to existing improvements and view corridor boundaries. Photographs to be submitted must be taken from the same point used to define the corridor, with the same lens size, and with the camera set at a height of 5.4 feet above the pavement. C. If necessary, the Community Development Department may require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittal materials which show the potential impact the structure could have upon the protected view corridor if constructed. 6 0 18.73.060 - 7amendments and Appeals i ' i A. Amendments No variance shall be permitted to any provision of thi,s chapter 18.73. The � I ! provisions of this chapter, including the legal descriptio s and photographs of ithe designated view corridors, shall only be amended in accordance with the i provisions of Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.170 of this code. � B. Appeals i I£ a determination is made by staff that a prop sed structuze would encroach into an adopted view corridor, the applicant may appeal the determination to the Planning and Environmental Commission, according to Section 18.66.030. 18.73.070 - Exemptions i A structure which is presently located in an adopt�d view corridor may remain and, if destroyed by natural causes, may be replace¢ to its current size and height, provided such reconstruction takes place withiln one year following destruction. However, no structures which are located within a designated view corridor on the effective date of this ordinance shall be p�rmitted to expand or enlarge the area of the structure which is located within Ilthe view corridor. 3. I£ any part, section, subsection, sentence, claµse or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decislion shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; land the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety an�3 welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. ' 5. The repeal oz the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred pr�or to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expresely stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regula�r meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal BUilding of the Town. 7 Kent R. Rose, riayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Biandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 8 Rose, Mayoi _ _ .. _. l _ _ -- ---_-- - ___ _ _ i i � � � ; ORDINANCE NO. 13 , Series of 1991 I AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION G OF 7HE VAlL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO 7HE PROTECTION OF VlEWS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CERTAiN VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the pres�rvation of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of Vail as a mountain resart community; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect and enhanc� the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views wifl stabilize and enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS the amendment will more clearly identify existing view corridors and development procedures for the public's benefit; NQW, iHEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modified to read as follows: Paraqraph G Vail's mountain/valley sett+ng is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. �;:,`� '"�� The m ificant and obvious view corridors have been adopted as p of t�e�igr� ;- -, -_.,.._._....—''` Re+rie�v �stan�ards-ir�- apter 1�3 of the VaA Munic;pal Gode. T�e view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a devetopment proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public plazas, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, or the Clock Tower. The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. 1 ` � • Devefopment in the Vail Viliage shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor. Adapted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways must be identified and mitigated where needed. Section 2 Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as foilows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors 18.73.010 - Purpose A. The protection and perpetuation of certain panoramic mountain views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town is required in the interests of posterity, civic pride and the general welfare of the peopie of the Town of Vail; B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain ex+sting panoramic mountain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the citizens and visitors to the Town; i C. 7he preservation of such views wiil strengthen and preserve the Town's unique ; environmenta� heritage and attributes; � D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; E. The preservation of such views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to tourists and visitors; F. The preservation of such views will promote good design and wiil provide for natural light in the buildings and public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors. 18 73 020 - Adoption of View Corridor Leqal Descriptions and Photoqraphs The photographs on record witn the Community Development Department and the foilowing legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as officiai view corridors protecting views within the Town. � i� � 9:30 P.M. Mike Rose 9:40 P.M CIAGENDA.TCE forth provisions relating to signs displayBd on balfoons which are associated with a special event within th� Town of Vaii. Action Requested of Councii: Approve/d�ny/modify Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1992, on first reading. ' Backqround Rationale: This ordinance amends the Sign Code to permit cold air, as well as hot air, balloon signs. 8. Resolution No. 11, Series ot 1992, a res�plufion adopting a Joint Paratransit Plan with the Town of Avon alnd the City of Leadville. Action Requested of Counci{: Adopt tMe July 1992 Americans Disabilities Act ,toint Paratransit Plan as presented. Backqround Rationale: A Paratransit Piah is required by law to be in place by July 26, 1992. 9. Adjournment. I 3 I - I I I i � Kristan: Here is the view corridor memo. There is only one issue to resolve with Larry. 1've highlighted in the attached ordinance. It deals with the timing requirement for submitting legal descriptions. Larry and I met on Wednesday to review the draft dated June 10th. He and I agreed to a few changes. Then, I went back and double checked with him on Friday after I changed some phrases so that they were consistent throughout the ordinance to be sura he was comfortable with them. Would you please review the June 19th draft? Please clean up any language that needs it, and then would you run it by Larry again to make sure he still likes it? Thanks, and I'll be seeing you later!! � �,..... �.r�,------�•� � t"��F.J' � t �+ � ,� _ � 1 i `� F� � r.,�m�,-�'�'� � V� l. ._ .....,:__.._ ' ' . 3 k � ��' � ;�� .;,� � ; } x,� � r ;r', �� i � i� � ` � r�� A � ' /� � �; aar`' ��,��;r, — 1 ' ji�r ri;; (,^., ,�.� ��'� ��: �' r,;r -� r „1 � n � . DRAFT ORDINANCE } ,{t. ,�r�"�y +,��,!'�, JL�N�-fi0,1'992 ��.�. ✓\n.�i�' {� ��,� `1 �f �� .' � � iti — ,� � . � . 1 ,,v._ . •. � � . � . . 'J ORDINANCE NO. 18 r Series of 1992 � ' � ��`�� ,_ ; AN ORDlNANCE AMENDING SECTION G OF THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PAOTECTION OF V1EWS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OIF 7HE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CERTAIN VIEWS WITHIN THE TOWN AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, it is the opinion ot the Town Council that the preservation of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of Vail as a mountain resort community; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to guests and visit�rs; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will stabilize and enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS this new chapter will more clearly identify existing view corridors and development procedures for the benefit of the public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORAGO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as follows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors 18.73.010 - Purpose The Town of Vail believes that preserving certain vistas is in the interest of the Town's residents and guests. Specifically, the Town believes that: A. The protection and perpetuation of certain mountain views and other significant views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town wiil foster civic pride and is in the public interest of the Town of Vaii; B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and psrpetuate certain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the residents and guests of the Town; ��: C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; I -- - DRAFT ORDINANCE JUNE 10, 1992 D. The preservation of such views will enhance the �esthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town, E. The preservation of such views is intended to pr�mote design which is compatible with the surrounding natural and built environment, an�d is intended to provide for natural light in the buiidings and public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors; F. The preservation of such views.wi�i'include'certain f,ocal points such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, which serve as prominentlli landmarks within Vail Viilage and contribute to the community's unique sense of place� �t�,. �. ff�i,� `u', �.Cv..� ;.. - 18.73.020 - Definitions ' {'l ,. :.._ _ _ , ;i. . For the purposes of this chapter, the fo4lowing terms shall be defined as �l�own beJtiw: A: Sttictafe: Anything permanently constructed or erec#ted with a fixed location including, but not limited to, new buildings, building expansions, decks, mechanical equipment, vents, ducts, satellite dishes, fences, stop lights, light poles, signs, utility poles, sky lights or any similar object. _- ' B. View Foint Origination: -The survey pin, calied out as the instrument in each __ _ . _ legal description defining a view corridor boundary, which is ttie basis for each view :' �,._ corridor. _ _ , Section 18.73.030 - Limitations on Construction No part of a structure shall be permitted to encroach into any vieiyv corridor set forth in this ordinance unless an encroachment is approved in accordance with �ection 18.73.060 of this ordinance. ...?.�.v .-±-r'�-+7�-T'[. .r;�.- � - `-O- _, _ . . . f-� � . Section 18.73.040 - Adoption of View Corridors Photographs on record with the Community Development Dep�rtment and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view cprridors protecting views within the Town � - ,. , = '� � �� , l�trr. _ _ _ : . .: �. _ _ .__. ..- - -- , . . : Section 18.73.050 - Amendments ` . _ �. , An amendment of the regulations of this Chapter, including a,change in view corridor ,' .-r_ _ < I < . boundaries�#he creation or the repea� of view corrider�rmay be initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Planning and Environmental Commission o� its own motion, or by �: ;; DRAFT ORDINANCE JUNE 10, 1992 app{ication of any resident or property owner in the Town, or by the Director of the Community Development Department or his designee. A. Appiication Information ' An application for the amendment of the provisions of this Chapter including the ,s„ � r�*-�" �, modification of a view corridor boundary or the creation or the repeal of a view corridor'shali be filed with the Community Development Department on a form to be prescribed by the Director of i the Community Development Department. The application shall inciude the following information: 1. A summary or description of the proposed amendment. -i ,,,,.� , , _ b�- ��- °� -; : � �, ;;... _, < _. , .-.__ � _. i ;�.f i ' ' .x � . . :.-, ,. . ; .... ., _ �. _ � . -... _ -,_.. , � _. 2. ; If the prbposed amendment is for3he change of any view corridor bound'ary or is �;-< �'• % . __. �, pxoposirag a new view-corridor �a photograph of the proposed view to be protected: The point ! used as the view point origination'and the height of the camera above existing grade o� pavement � � � ,n � - -�, , r,:. at the time the photograph was taken shall be identified. The photograph or photographs shall . ? < . : :: ..: : . : ...�.�e.=-=-�f... be marked to show tk�a-bc�ur►dary a# the proposed view corridor�or'shall be marked to show the � ,. proposed improvements in relation to existing improvements and existing view corridor boundaries. 3. The Community Development Department may require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittal requirements to show: (a) For a new view corridor, the potential impact the new view corridor could have on the development potentiai of surrounding properties; or (b) For a modification to a view corridor boundary, the potential impact the change would have upon the protected view corridor. 4. Names and address of the property owners whose development potential may be increased or decreased by the proposed view corridor or by the proposed modification to the existing view corridor. � � �-�-�-'��`�� . _,;:_ . � r. , , .. _ _._ _ �. � 5. if the application is fw_#he addition of a new view corridor or forthe mod+fication of the bow�cia�y of an existing view corridor, �pon apprr�val o# tF�e-��er�+r�ont; the applicant shall submit a legat description of the new view corridor or the amended boundary prepared in the � a: , same format as those set forth in Section 18.13:49€� of this ordinance and any other survey information deemed necessary by the Community Development Department prior to scheduling the request for"second reading before the Town Council. ` _. j _ _ ,.- , � � „� , � � .., � F " �� , �'� t� � � �� 3 . �' i i , '; � t.z , '�, �' ` ' � DRAFT ORDINANCE I JUNE 10, 1992 �� ' ' 6. The Community Development Department, in its sole discretion, may determine that an application for an amendment if granted would have a 5�ignificant impact on the community. in this event, the Community Development Department �nay have the application reviewed by pianning or design consultants who are not Town employe�s, and the applicant shall reimburse the Town for all expenses incurred by such review. Any s�ch consultant retained to review an application for an amendment shall be selected by the T4wn. Subsequent to the submittal of an application for an amendmenC; the�Community Devel�pment Department shall determine the necessity of utilizing the services of a consultant and sh�ll estimate the amount of money needed to cover the cost of the utilization of the consuitant. The estimated cost shall be paid to the Town by the applicant prior to any public hearing on th� application. Any funds remaining after the review of an application by the consultant shall be �eturned to the applicant. If the fee paid to the consultant is greater than that estimated by the To�vn, the additional amount shall be paid to the Town by the applicant prior to final approval of the amendment, � , , ,, � , �, B. Notice and Hearinq Procedure z- ��=.� �- � - 1. Upo� the filing of an application for an amendment t'b this Chapter, or upon initiation of an amendment by the Town Council, Planning and Enviro�nmental Commission, or , Community Development Director, the Community Deveiopment Directo� or his designee shall set a date for a pubiic hearing before the Planning and Environmental Corrpmission. Subsequent to the hearing, the Planning and Environmental Commission shail make a recommendation for approval or denial to the Town Council. After considering the Plannin� and Environmental Commission's recommendation, the Town Councii shall make a fin�al determination on the amendment at a public hearing by ordinance. 2. Notice for the public hearing before the Planning and Environment Commission shall be given in accordance with Section 18.66.080 of this Code ahd the hearing shall be conducted in conformity with Section 18.66.090 of this Code. C. Criteria _r.',- � . . ,_ The Town Counc'rl•�shall only approve an am�ndment to this Ch�pter adding a new view `�\ �.4.�r�..l� f:!' � �� Clv'.. �'.. corridor, defeting an existingbfew corridor, or amending the boundary ot'�an existing view corridor if the amendment is consistent with the policies and goals of the applic�ble elements of the Vaii 4 I ; l DRAFT ORDINANCE JUNE 10, 1992 Land Use Pian, Town Policies, and Urban Design Guide Plans and other adopted master plans, and meet all of the following criteria: 1. If the request for�an amendment is forthe addition of a view corridor or for the � modification ot a view corridor boundary" which expands'an existing view corridor. (a) That the proposed view corridor or the boundary amendment protects and perpetuates a view or views from pedestrian or public ways within the Town which foster civic pride and are in the public interest in the Town of Vail; (b) That the proposed view corridor or the modification of the boundary protects and enhances the Town's attraction to guests and visitors; (c) That the proposed view corridor or boundary modification protects a view which is commonly recognized and has inherent qualities which make it more valuable to the Town than other more common views. v 2. If the amendment is, for tMe modific�tion of a Giew "co�rid6r boundary which wiil . �, , reduce the view corrid4r-er-.far the=repeal a# an existing view corridor. ,, °` ° �, (a) That the boundary modification or repeal will not reduce or eliminate any view which fosters civic pride; (b) That the boundary modification or repeal wili not reduce the Town's attraction to guests and visitors; (c) That the boundary modification or repeal will not diminish the integrity or quality, nor compromise the original intention of the existing view corridor. Section 18.73.060 - Encroachments into Existinq View Corridors f 1` An encroachc��t to an exis�ing view corridor may be initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Planning and Environmental Commission on its own motion, or by app{ication of any resident or property owner in the Town, or by the Director of Community Development Department or his/her designee. A. Apqlication Information for Encroachments ° �' "`- _ ._ t`t .. �.�.._.. . An application for an encroachment�"shall-be made in accordance with Section 18.73.050 ` A-1. arid-A 6 of-this Chapter as-well-as the foltowing information: ! � ; �: , - � _...__ � . .- r,_: ., .. . .; � _ _ ._ i; � ,; , ' � !'.. , trl r : .. . . l., e ,J S G . . � ;1, .� ,. �'.,v �! .�: . l�. ..��c_ .��+_ `�1 c��pr�„�._� rt�� ..�f".�...�.�.., � j : .}..7. , � a . � � . . �„� . . . _ . . . _. I . � . '�. � � � � � � � � � . . � _ � . � � . . � s _ _, � _- - - I - - f. Names and addresses of property owners located DRAFT ORDINANCE JUNE 10, 1992 _i w thin feet of the proposed encroachment. I 2`. Photographs of the existing view corridor. The photogra�phs shail be marked with tape to identify the existing view corridor boundaries, anc� shall show the proposed encroachment area. The photographs shall be taken from the view point origination at the same height above the pavement �s identified in the legal descriptions in Section 18.73.090. ' , �. The Community Development Department may require rrnodels, overlays, sketches or other submittal requirements to show how the proposed encroachment could ,- impact the protected view corridor. " � �B. Notice and Hearinq Procedure foi,�t��r'o��t►mer� � � � �� _ � �} _ .� __. I Notice and hearing on an application tor an encroachment into'an existing view corridor shall be in accordance with Section 18.73.050(B) of this Chapter. C. Criteria for Encroachment No encroachment into an existing view corridor shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the encroachment Imeets all of the following criteria: ' 1) That the literal enforcement of Section 18.7�.030 would preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicanYs land. 2) That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this Chapter. 3) That the development proposed by the applicant nvouid not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public places and public views. 4) That the development proposed by the appiicant �complies with appiicable elements of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town Policies, Urban Design Guide Plans, and other adapted master plans. 5) That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the original intention of the preserved view. Section 18J3.070 - Non-Conforminq Structures A) Any structure which presently encroaches into an existing view corridor which was � DRAFT ORDINANCE JUNE 10, 1992 lawfully authorized by ordinances or regulations existing prior to the effective date of this ordinance may continue. However, such encroachments will be encouraged to be removed as part of any remodelling or reconstruction of the structure. !n the case of certain focal points, such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, �'he Town recognizes their importance to the character ot Vail Village and to the quality of the urban design of Vail Village. Noiwithstanding their nonconforming status, the Town vr`r�l not encourage their removal. B) Structures lawfully established prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter may be modified provided that such modification does not cause the structure to encroach into a view corridor to a greater extent than the existing structure. C) Non-conforming structures may be maintained and repaired as necessary for the convenient, safe, or efficient operation or use provided that no such maintenance or repair shall cause the structure to encroach into a view corridor to a greater extent than the structure encroached prior to such maintenance and repair. D) Restoration: Whenever a non-conforming structure which does not conform with the provisions of this Chapter is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by Act of God, or by the public enemy, its use may be resumed or the structure may be restored provided the restoration is commenced within one (1 } year and diligently pursued to completion. The structure after such restoration shall not encroach into a view corridor to a greater degree than the encroachment which existed prior to destruction. Section 18.73.080 - Heipht Limitation If the maximum height allowed in any zone district within the Town differs from the height permitted by a view corridor, the more restrictive height limitation shall apply. ,, `The-adlipted view ;corridor photographs on record with the Communiry Develgpment �. Departmentand the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted a"s official view ,:-.,hc ��, ,. �:.�. corridors protecting views within the Town.�The photographs taken represent the boundaries defined by the legal descriptions. The camera used to take the photographs was held 5.4 feet above the instrument, which is approximately eye level for most adults. A 35 millimeter lens was used for each photograph ; however, once developed, some photographs were cropped or enlarged to improve the graphic representation of each view corridor 7 DRAFT ORDINANCE JUNE 10, 1992 A. View Point #1. A view from the south side of the Vail Transportation Center from the main pedestrian stairway looking toward the Clock Tower, the Ruc�CSack Tower, and beyond to the ski sloQes; � , _ , , . � . � ,; :. -. . -�f,�, , ,� . . Instrument - View Point #1 - a 2" diameter brass disc, marked V.P. 1', on stair landing behnreen Levels 2 and 3 of Vail Village Parking structure. _ a ;, ;�, ,;.,� ,,__ Backsight - CW 1/16 corner of Section 8 ; � In` "i,��z_„- Hetght of Survey Transit Above View Point #1 - 5.4 feet � Horizontal Anqie 348°51'10" 348°30'10" 355°23'00" 357°39'04" 357°57'59" 004°05'19" 004°39'58" 004°47' 18" 006°59'11 " 012°25'S6" 027°08'54" 031 °53'27" Zenith Anqle Foresiqht Point on Photo 8s of 2/7/92 77°21'30" A- intersection of the harizon with a vertical line defined by the southwest corner of the sixth floor deck enclosure on the Mountain Haus 87°11'30" B1 - uppermost railing of the southwest corner of the balcony on the fourth floor of the Mountain Haus 87°37'40" B2 - east end of the Red Lion roof ridge 87°40'43" B3 - intersection of the Red Lion roof ridge with the southeast corner of the Rucksack Tower 88°27'22" B4 - northeast comer of tthe base of the Rucksack Tower ', 89°16'02" C1 - intersection of the (�aliery Buitding with the northeast corner of the Cjock Tower, immediately below the balcony 89°16'33" C2 - western end of facia board on Gallery Buiiding 89°41'44" C3 - intersection of the slpping roof of the Gallery Building with the ridge line of the Ciock Tower Building, which extends w�st 89°42'12" D- intersection of the Clock Tower Building roof and the northwest corner of the Clock Tower 87°38'01" E- peak of the Piaza Lod�e vent chase 87°28'43" F- intersection of the north side of Pepi's roof with the east side of two large �rees 76°26'35" G- intersection of the horixon line on Vail Mountain with the vertical line defiined by the top of the western, very large pine tr@e west of Point F I B. View Point #2. A view from upper Bridge Street lookirig toward the ski slopes between 228 Bridge street, the Golden Peak Building, and 311 Bridge Street, the Hill Building; a �` __ —_ _ i �, , DRAFT ORDINANCE � , ` � ' :�� "� :�_.-�; JUNE 10, 1992 -, � ° , ., .. , �� " � . , . . . .' . . �' . . . Instrument - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2'/2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2(PL.S 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of the Red Lion Buiiding Backsight - View Point #4 - a#6 rebar with a 2'/2' diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 4(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivolous Sal's Height of Survey Transit Above View Point #2 - 5.4 feet Horizontal Anqle 289°25'48" 290°58' 11 " 300°32'46" 301 °35'24" 303°32'24" Zenith Anqle ForesiQht Point on Photo as of 11/15(91 74°28'18" A- northwest corner of third floor balcony roof 89°58'00" B- PK nail in top of retaining wall on west side of Golden Peak House, 1 foot east from west edge of planter wa11 92°05'34" C1 - top of south end of ski lockers, which are on railing 83°31'08" C2 - southeast corner of top deck rail on Hill Building 73°38'55" D- southeast corner of brick chimney on Hili Building C. Reserved D. View Point #4. A view from the hortheast corner of 244 Wall Street, the One Vail Place Building, looking over the roofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Lion Building, and 356 Hanson Ranch Road, the Christiania Lodge, toward the Gore Range. , ; , ` , � .- . , : ;' { . . �-, , ��...,.r, i :` �... _ c ` � . ;: ,..., �.. �.. �: �. . — . r _ , � � .. . v K"r�- . . .. ., .. ..__, � Instrument - View Point #4 - a#6 rebar with a 2Y2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 4(PLS ?. �1 i6827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximatefy 8 feet from the �, i entrance to Frivolous Sal's Backsight - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2Y2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of the Red Lion Building Height of Survey Translt Above View Point #� - 5.4 feet '\ ,� . ,_ � , ,- . , , . ;' � .;_;. ,:.�. ` , _. , � . _�,%. ,.- , � Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anqle 343°56'53" 62°24'10" 348°37'05" 73°05'43" 352°55'25" 73°34'26" 352°31'05" 352° 13' 16" 352°13'14" 354°30'20" 354°47'22" 358°21'46" 359°04'31" 000°16'55" 001 °59'47" 003°05'44" 006°23'31" 005°32' 14" 79°24'44" 79°24'55'. 84°44'25" 86°13'30" 86°07'58" 85° 17'48" 85°30'36" 84°36'56" 84°36'56" 83°32'42" 83°33'S2" 67°54'S8" ; DRAFT ORDINANCE ', JUNE 10, 1992 A- south facia board of I third floor roof of Plaza Lodge Building � B- intersection of upper ahd second floor roof fines of Plaza Lodge Building j C- sauth end of peak of s$cond floor gable of Plaza Lodge Building D- eastern edge of second floor gable roof of Plaza Lodge Building E- intersection of seco�nd floor roof facia and southeast corner of Plaza Lodge Building F- intersection of southeast corner of building and top edge of first floor facia of Plaza Lodge Building G- top of southeasterly cprner of first floor facia of Plaza Lodge Building ' H- intersection of south eidge of Red Lion chimney and upper Red Lion rooF Ifne I- peak of upper Red Lior� roof line J- intersection of upperl Red Lion roof line and northerly roof line of the C�hristiania K- peak of northerly roof hine of the Christiania L- intersection of northerly roof peak and southerly roof line of the Christiania M- northwesterly corner af second floor balcony on Hill Building N- intersection of top of second floor baicony rail and brick wall on Hill Building O- northwest corner of top of facia on third floor roof of Hill Building E. View Point #5. A view of the Gore Range from Hansor} Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Mill Cr�ek Court Building; , ;, _,.�. ' : , •'.;.., ,.:_ , �`':,. Instrument - View Point #5 - a#6 rebar with 2'/z" diameter aluminum, cap marked V.P. 5(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Hanson Ranch Road in front of the Mill Creek Court Building Backsight -#4 rebar with aluminum cap (LS 2568) in iron "Landmark" monument box marking centerline of Hanson Ranch Road - box is just west of Mill Creek in front of Cyrano's i[i7 � DRAFT ORDINANCE JUNE 10, 1992 Height of Survey Transit Above View Point #5 - 5.4 feet Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anqie Foresiqht Point on Photo as of 11l15/91 199°03'06" 81 °23'49" A- intersection of southerly utility pole with ridge line 204°06'43" 85°10'40" B1 - intersection of northerly extension of Garden of the Gods Buiiding roofline with hillside ridge line 206°00'02" 85°10'40" B2 - northem end of roofline of the Garden of the Gods Building 208'12'53" 85°10'40" C1 - intersection of southerly extension of the Garden of the Gods building roofline and the Villa Valhalla roofline 208°33'36" 84°55'50" C2 - northwest corner of the Villa Valhalla at roof facia 210°41'41" 84°01'47" D- intersection of top of the Villa Valhalla roof facia and the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column 210°41'41" 82°01'51" E- the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column on the Villa Valhaila to a point above the horizon F. View Point #6. A view looking east to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive between retail shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at Vail, and 193 Gore Creek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza Building projecting east to the Gore Range. / ' A- . . .J. _.- . . ,. R� : 1 ..'/ • �1�1?-t: . � _. > . .. .. . , , . instrument - View `Point #6 - a#6 rebar with 2'/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive in front of the Gore Creek Plaza Building Backsight - a#6 rebar with 2Yz" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6 B.S. (PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive near the southwest corner of Pepi's deck Helght of Survey Transit Above View Point #6 - 5.4 feet 11 I ;_ __ __ _.: i ,, ii. � : ��;,: � � �Uf . DRAFT ORDINANCE JUNE 10, 1992 Horizontai Anqle Zenith Anqle Foresi ht Point on Photo s of 11/15/91 356°08'35" 81°02'17" A- point on horizon left c�f the chimney on Pe i's 356°55'02" 000°31'36" 001 °48'10" 003°14'42" 007°56'03" 013°30'31 " 013°38'14" 012°55' 17" 83°02'06" 82°54'27" 85° 17'34" 85° 17'40" 85° 11 '32.' 85°11'32" 78°48'35" 78° 14'S1 " 014°44'21 " 73° 13'39" P roof ' B- intersection of southe�st edge of chimney and Pepi's roofline C- southern end of gable'on Pepi's roof D1 - intersection of northerly extension of Gorsuch's roof line and Pepi's roof D2 - north end of Gorsuch's roof D3 - south end of Gorsuchj's roof I I� E- intersection of souther� e�ension of gorsuch's roof line and brick pillar on Lazier Arcade Building / Wall Street Building F- intersection of face of stucco and eve line on Lazier Arcade Building / IMail Street Building G- top of facia on northea�t corner of roof on Lazier Arcade 8uilding / Wall Street Building H- top of roof on Lazier Arcade Building / Wall Street Building 12 DRAFT ORDINANCE JUNE 10, 1992 Section 2 Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modified to read as foliows: ParaQraph G Vail's mountain/vaUey setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant view corridors have been adopted as part of Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and other important man-made and natural elements that contribute to the sense of place associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. {; , j�,�, ,; Development in Vail Village shaU not encroach into any adopted view corridor. Adopt d '��f � . t�. �y�-1 � corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view 1�� -� corridors or not, the impact of praposed development on views from pedestrian ways and public spaces must be identified and addressed wheee appropriate. The Vail Land Use Plan, the Town .. : << : - r. x;.. , �.. ., :�. ._ � � : r : ; .-r � ,�, . . , , Policies a�r.tthe Urban Design Guide Plans shall be used to help determine which views may be affected, and how they should be addressed. Section 3 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and deciares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vaii and the inhabitants thereof. 13 0 � DRAFT ORDINANCE JUNE 10, 1992 Section 5 I The repeai or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of tF�e Vail Municipai Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrue�l, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revi�re any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. I Section 6 ' All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, �nconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall r�ot be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1992. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1992, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 199�. i Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST. Martha S. Raecker, Town Glerk 14 ' i C:\VIEWCORR.ORD TO: :• �� File Andy Knudtsen June 1, 1992 MEMORANDUM :�c,' � `' 0 SUBJECT: Comments from the May 27, 1992 View Corridor Task Force Meeting The foliowing comments we�e made by the task force: � 1. Notices for a projection and a view corridor amendment should be different. For ` projections, the task force believed that al! property owners within a foot radius '`� from the proposed construction should be notified. The " " foot distance could ��. � ,,` +.��" �' be approximately 500 feet. For view corridor amendments, notice should be all - properties whose development potential is likely to be affected by the change in boundaries. In both situations, 1 think that we should require #he applicant to submit a map showing how the surrounding property owners were determined. 2. The criteria for projection were revised as foilows: 1. That the iiteral enforcement of Section would preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's iand; reasonable in this situation is further defined as an appropriate amo�nt of development in accordance with the zoning and land use regulations of the Town of Vail. 2. 3 That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be such to defeat the purpose of this chapter. That the development propo'sed by the applicant would not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public places and public views. 4. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with the applicable elements of the Va41ey Land Use Plan, ihe town policies and Urban Design Guide Plans and other applicable master plans. 5. � That the proposed structure wiil not diminish the integrity or quality nor compromise the original intent of the proposed view. Such other factors and criteria as deemed reasonable and applicabls to the request. 3. The task force suggested that staff add purpose statements to each view, to define what the view is preserving, how focal points are part of the views, and what the critical aspects of the view are which shou4d be preserved in the future. � 4. It was agreed that any proposed projeetion wt�ich wouid be constructed above a view corridor boundary will require a full review. Thjis will include a recommendation from PEC and two readings by Council. It was agr�ed that there would be no simplitied shortcut review process for any projection loca�ted behind existing buildings. 5. !t was agreed on that language describing foc�( points would be deleted as this ordinance deals with view protection and the gIoal of preserving certain structures should be dealt with in a separate ordinance, $uch as a historic preservation ordinance. ��` � � �� '�._. , , , ; , � `� \ , � , ��, �� 'OWN OF VAIL � 75 South Frontuge Road Department of Community Development Yail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138/479-2139 May 22, 1992 Kathy Langenwalter P.O. Box 1202 Vail, CO 81658 RE: Review of the Proposed View Corridor Ordinance Dear Kathy, Ws are looking forward to getting together again to discuss tha proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduied to me�t on Wednesday, May 27, 1992, at 1:30 PM in the Small Conference Room in the Municipal Building. As you can see from the attached draft ordinance, almost all of the suggestions #hat were made at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been typed in with a gray shading. We were pleased with the comments that were made in the last meeting and feei tnat the ordinance has improved as a resuit of our discussions. if you have any questions before the meeting, please feel free to call either of us at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday. Since,reiy, ^/� ,,�' G� l.' /�.-�(� �.V�C. �� ndy Kn sen and Town Planner t ' � � ��/ � � . � � Kristan Pritz Director of Community Development � i i �� ^�� ;,�„ ,y TOW�V OF bAIL � 75 South Frontage Road T�nil, Cotorado 816>7 303-479-213y / 479-2139 May 22, 1992 Craig Snowdon ' Snowdon and Hopkins ' 201 Gore Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 ' Departmeni of Community Development RE: Review ofi the Proposed View Corridor Ord'inance Dear Craig, We are looking forward to getting together again to discuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduled to meet on Wednesday, May 27, 1992, at 1:30 PM in the Smali Conference Aoom in the Municipal Buiiding. As you can see from the attached draft ordinance, aimost all of the suggestions that were madle at our last meeting have been incorporated inio the Text. The additions have been typed in with a gray shading. We were pieased with the comments that were made in the last'��meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. ' ff you have any questions before the meeting, please f�el free to call either of us at 479-2i38. We look iorward to seeing you Wednesday. ' Sincer ly, i � , / ��-�- ,(�^ Q,� i L.., Gt L c i.'<;S'�— �)�^ 1 { L 1 An Knudtsen and Kristan Pritz Town lann,er Director of Community Development �: i ` ; �.��. � �," ,'� TOWN OF UAIL � 75 South Frontage Road vepartment of Community Development Vail, Colorado 8165 % 303-479-2138/479-2139 May 22. 1992 Jim Lamont P.O. Box 73 Red Cliff, CO 81649 RE: Review of the Proposed View Corridor Qrdinance Dear Jim, We are looking forward to getting together again to discuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduled to meet on Wednesday, May 27, i992, at 1:30 PM in the Small Conference Room in the Municipal Suilding. As you can see from the attached draft ordinance, almost ali of the suggestions that were made at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been typed in with a gray shading. We were pieased with the comments that were made in the last meeting and feel that #he ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. If you have any questions before the meeting, piease feel free to call either of us at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday. Sincer,ely, 1( - ��"`� �v�-'----_.. � Andy Knudt en and Town Pl�er ��, � ' Y'��i � � ristan Pritz Director of Community Development - _ _ -- -- - -_. — _- - - ---- - - i--- -- - _ _ i , �� - � � \ �y Toi�� oF �AIL 'S Soutb Frontage Xoad ', Department of Co�remunity DeveloPment Yail, Colorado 81657 ', 303-479-213<Q / � i9-2139 May 22, 1992 Geri Arnold Vaii Associates P.O. Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 RE: Review of the Proposed View Corridor Ordinance Dear Geri, We are looking forward to getting together again to dis�cuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduled to meet on Wednesday, May 27, i992, at 1:30 PM in the Smali Conference Roorri in the Municipai Suilding. As you c�n see from the attached draft ordinance, almost aii of the suggestions that were made at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been typed in with a gray shading. We were pleased with the comments that were made in the last,meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. ' !f you have any questions before the meeting, piease f�ei free to caff either of us at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday. ' Sincerely, � �� .�-�I�,..,� � f� � ! 11,�� And Knudt en and Kristan Pri Y �, tz Town Planner Director of Community Development • �� `� n," ih TOW\I OF VAIL � 7S South Frontage Road Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado S16S7 303-479-2138/479-2139 May 22, 1992 Joe Macy Vait Associates P.O. Box 7 Vaii, CC� 81658 RE: Review of the Proposed View Corridor Ordinancs Dear Joe, We are looking iorward to getting together again to discuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduled to mee# on Wednesday, May 27, 1992, at 1:30 PM in the Smali Conference Room in the Municipal Buiiding. As you can see from the attached draft ordinance, almost all of the suggestions that were made at our iast meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been typed in with a gray shading. We were pieased with the comments that were made in the last meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. If you have any questions before the meeting, piease feei free to cali either of us at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday: ' Sincerely, .:; . . � � �r,�� ,� L� L � An Knud en and Kristan Pntz Town ann' r Director of Community Development -_ - - -- --- I .r-� � � , M" d TOI� OF VAIL � --_� 75 South Frontage Road Vuil, Colorado 816>7 303-479-2138/479-2139 May 22, i 992 Diana Donovan 1014 Nomestake Circle ' Vail, CO 81657 '� Department of Community Development RE: Review ofi the Proposed View Corridor Ordinance Dear Diana, I We are looking forward to getting together again #o discuss the propased view corridor ardinance, We are scheduled to meet on Wednesday, May 27, i992, at 7:30 PM in the Small Conference Room in the Municipai Suilding. As you c�n see from the attached draft ordinarce, almost ail ot the suggestions that were made at our (ast meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been typed in with a gray shading. We were pleased with the comnients that were made in the last meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a resuit of our discussions. If you have any q�estions before the meeting, p(ease f�el free to cail either of us at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday. '� Sinc- rely, ��d "" (.. -� c �!_. 1 �� , � ��1 � � l � Andy �nud�tsen ` and , Kristan Pritz 7own P1a�iner ' Director of Community Development � � � 1 � . �, � l: �rou�v oF vA�L �► 75 South Frontage Road Deparrment of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138/479-2139 May 22, 1992 Larry Eskwith Town of Vail Attorney 75 S Frontage Road Vait, CO 81657 RE: Review ot the Proposed View Corridor Ordinanca Dear Larry, We are looking forward to getting together aga+n to discuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduled to meet on Wednesday, May 27, 1992, at 1:30 PM in the Small Conference Room in the Municipal Building. As you can see from the attached draft ordinance, almost all of the suggestions that were made at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been typed in with a gray shading. We were pleased with the comments that were made in the last meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. If you have any questions before the meeting, please feel free to call either of us at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday. Sincer �y, �,��%��.- �r�s��'1 f' Andy Knarftsen and Kristan Pritz Town Planner Director of Community Development �"\1 1 � ., � �,� - �11 1t TOI�- OF VAIL � 7) South Frontuge Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2138/479-2139 May 22, 1992 Peggy Osterfoss 3950 North Frontage, #4 Vail, CO 81658 Department of Community Development RE: Review of the Proposed View Corridor Ordinance Dear Peggy, We are looking forward to getting together again to discuss the proposed view corridor ordinance. We are scheduled to meet on Wednesday, May 27, 1992, at 1:30 PM in the Small Conference Room in the Municipal Buiiding. As you can see from the attached draft ordinance, aimost afl of the suggestrons that were made at our last meeting have been incorporated into the text. The additions have been tyiped in with a gray shading. We were pleased with the comments that were made in ihe las� meeting and feel that the ordinance has improved as a result of our discussions. ' If you have any questions before the meeting, ptease �eel free to call either of us at 479-2138. We look forward to seeing you Wednesday. ', Sinc�rely, ' c�- � i � i � � �r � � �� Andy Kn dtsen and Kristan t'ritz Town anner Director of Community Development � �- _ -- - - - -- - -- ORDINANCE NO. 13 Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION G OF THE VAIL VI�LAGE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIQNS RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF VtEWS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CERTAIN VIEWS WtTHIN THE TOWN AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the preservation of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of Vaii as a mountain resort community; and WHEREAS the preservation of views will protect and enhance the Town's attraction to guests and visitors; and WHEREAS the preservation of views wiil stabilize and enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality of the Town of Vaii; and WHEREAS this�new ch�pter will more dearly identify existing view corridors and development procedures for the benefit o# ihe puBiic; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCII. OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.73 to read as foliows: Chapter 18.73 - View Corridors 18.73.010 - Purpose I The Town of Vail believes that preserving certain vistas is in the interest ot the Town's I residents and guests. Specifically, the Town believes that: � A. The protection and perpetuation of certain mountain views arid athet significaiit �iews from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town will foster civic pride and is in the public interest of the Town of Vail; B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the residents and guests of the Town; C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; D. The preservation of such views wili enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and vatues of the Town; E. The preservation of such views is interitled tci promote design which is Compatit�le 1 wiih the surrounding natural and bvilt enviro�ment, and is intended to the buildings and public spaces in the viciniry of the view corridors; F. The preservation of such views will inClude certain f Tower and Rucksack Tower, which serve as prominent landm contribute to the community's unique sense of place. for natural light in points such as the Clock within Vail Viilage and y:,; � ,7 .��/ f'� ��,E /,/ 4 .. .... -' �.. � � �.... ...... ..,� . 18.73.020 - Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall be defined as shown below: A. Structure: Anything pet'manenity.;;constructed or erectled with a fixed location including, but not limited to, new buildings, building expansions, decks, mechanicai equipment, vents, ducts, satellite dishes, fences, stop lights, light poles, sJgits utili�y poles, sky lights or any - , �_-�. , �i;. � , t `' � ',, I �:� �� similar object. _ � � , � � �. , � x 1 .� f , _ B. View Point Origination: The survey pin, called out as th� instrument in each legal description defining a view corridor boundary, which is the basis for each view corridor. _.._ � �._ _-_-- . _ ,._ , 18.73.030 - Limitations on Construction No structure shall be permitted to encroach in.ta a view corrido� uNess approved under Sections 18.73.040 through 18.73.060. The view corridor boundaries afie identified with the legal descriptions in Section 18.73.Q90 and are graphically represented by �he dashed tape on each of the adopted Town of Vail view corridor photographs. Copies of the'�own of Vail view corridor photographs are on file with the Community Development Department� 18J3.040 - Amendments to View Corridor Standards In the event that an individual proposes an additional view corridQr or proposes a structure which would encroach into an existing view corridor, the following prdcedures are available to review such proposals: ' A. Projection: In the event a proposed structure would project irifa a view corridor, an applicant may apply for a projection allowance by following the procedures outlined in Section 18J3.050 and Section 18.73.060(A). For exampie; this type of review includes �xpatZSions _; locaied behind other :structures (such as the Clock Tower) as vie�nred from the view point origination. ��` � � B. Boundary Modification: In the event an applicant proposes a structure that would encroach info an adopted view corridor, and the applicant believes it is in the pubiic's best interest I to change the location of the view corridor boundary, he or she may apply to do so following the ; procedures outlined in Section 18.73.050 and Section 18.73.060(B). IC. View Corridor Creation: If an individual believes that an additional view corridor is in the public's best interest, he or she may submit a proposal to the Town to adopt another view corridor. The applicant shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 18.73.050 and Section 18.73.060(B). D. Appeal: If a determination is made by staff that a proposed structure would encroach into an adopted view corridor as speci�ied in SeCt[an 'f8 73:p�t3; and the applicant does not concur, the applicant may appeal the determination to the Planning and Environmental Commission, according to Section 18.66.030. E. Non-Conforming Reconstruction: In the event a structure which is presently located in an adopted view corridor is destroyed by natural causes, an applicant may propose to reconstruct that porti�on of tii� 5tcucture whieh encroached inta a view corricior to its original configuration, provided such reconstruction commences within one year following destruction. The applicant shall follow the procedures of Section 18.54 and other applicable sections of Title 18, but does not need to follow the process outlined in Section 18.73.050, nor meet the criteria outlined in Section 18.73.060. The reconstructed structure shall not encroach into a view corridor to a greater degree than the previous structure. 18.73.050 - Process A. Public Hearings Any individual wishing to make an application for a request adenti�ed in Section 18.73.040, or make any other amendments to this chapter, shall foilow the procedures listed in Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.170 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. After filing the appropriate application, the request shall proceed to the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall make a recommendation to Town Council. Town Council decisions shali only be made by ordinance. B. Submittallnformation The information listed below shall be submitted with any application listed in Section 18.73.040: 3 � ---- :r � . � j . ��I . l ` . . ` i �- . , . {� � V � , �; �,. _ . L �,:`t%� n,�� ., . .. . � � — "--�=��' 1. Names and addresses of all property owners wh se dev�lopment potential ,, , ,, . _ ', wili be affected'by the proposed view corridor r the amendment to an ' existing view corridor. I '�` ; '`�%; `• ; 2. Photographs of the proposed view. The point used as the view point '�'' ' :a. origination must be identified, the camera lens s�ze, and the height of the ��`{�'-' ,, ,, , ��,:� camera above existing grade or pavement. These photographs must be :,�;T-;j, marked to show the boundary of the proposed view corridor, or must be ,.; ;,:;, marked to show the proposed improvements in relation to existing improvements and existing:;view corridor boundaries. 3. If. n�cessary; the Community Development [�epartment may require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittal materials which show: a. For a proposed view corridor, the potential impact the new view corridor could have on the development potential of the surrounding properties; or b. For a modification to an existing view corridor, the potential impact the changes could have upon the protected view corridor. 4. Once the PEC gives preliminary approval for any request listed in Section 18.73.040, a legai description written in the s$me format as those in Section 18J3.09Q and any other necessary survey information shail be provided by the applicant. 6. Proposals deemed by the Community Development Department to have significant implications on the community rriay require review by professionals outside the Town staff. In this e�rent, the applicant shall reimburse the Town for expenses incurred by tlhis review. Any outside consultant retained ta review a proposed view corridor or an amendment to an existing view corridor shail be selected and utilized by the Town staff. The Communiry Development Department shall determine the amount of monies estimated to cover the cost of outside consulting services, and this amount shall be provided to the Town by the applicant prior to any public hearing on the proposal. Any unused portions of these funds shall be returned to the applicant following the review of an application as defined in Sectio� 18.73.040. Expenses incurred by thQ Town in excess of the 4 estimated amount shall be reimbursed to the Town by the applicant. 18.73.060 - Criteria ! � The following criteria shali be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of any application request idenii�ied' in Section 18.73.040: A. No projection shall be authorized unless the Town Council finds that ail of the applicabie following conditions are met: ' r. , i 1. 3 That the literal enforcement of Section 1873.030 woulri preclude a�ea$onable ', v;, '�. '"�' ,,�`l{i�p�r�,��i� �.� ��, deuelopment of a`�ropos�4�.�tCl�ci�.lf� �°[1�a applicant's lanc� :�,,'' +��'��. 0 #�; �,' � +�'�.\\� � � } � � ,� `� `�:,:''� € � � �4 "� �4' 1��`t�``'� "i `� i 2. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would no� b� }�,�}�'�,�;��..t I � ° ��.,;� � �; � such as to defeat the purposes of Chapter 18.73. �`� � , „ �„�=�r, 3. That the development proposed by the applicant would not resutt ata:sl��nag�^to � �.�� r�eighboring propert+es-or public lands:>^ �' � . � • � J' �;:: : �., ; 4: That the development proposed by the applicant complies with applicabfe elements �, � >. . . , ; � of the Vai( Land tlse Platn, Town poliGies �and Urban Design Guide Plans. � , I �� ; , � ,�� 5:' That ffie pro�aos�d strunture ; wr11 nQt drminish ihe �ntegr�ty; or qualrty, no,r ; , ,,,, r �; � � F-. . compromise i�e originat iirtentio� of ftte preserveti �Igw.�? � � � �'' � 6. �+Such other factors and criteria as deemed re2s�r�abl�.a�d applicable to the R; _ � request� _ . ' �;;� �, i B. No boundary modification or view corridor creation shall be approved unless the � Town Council finds that t�ae�g conditions are met: 1. That the proposed view corridor boundary protects and perpetuates certain views from various pedestrian/public ways within the Town, and that this protection will foster civic pride and is in the public interest of the Town of Vail; 2. That the proposed view corridor boundary. protects and enhances the Town's attraction to guests and visitors; 3. That the proposed view corridor boundary: a; For a yiew carridor creation, proiecis� aview wh7�h [s comrr�onl� re.�ognized and has inherent qualities which make !ii more valuabt�;to th� Tawn than b.! For a boun�ary modification, wili not diminisM the integrity or quatity no� compromise the originai ir�ientian of the;pr�s�rved vaew; 5 4. 5. C'� That the proposed boundary complies with applicable lements of the Vad E.��i� Use Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Guide Pian . Such other factors and criteria as deemed applicable tol the request. For development proposals which have received approval from the Town of VaiY, but have not received an approved building permit as of the effective date of tt,his ordinance, and which encroach into an adopted view corridor, the applicant shall be able to renew the approval, not withstanding the provisions of this ordinance. Renewals can be'made, notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance, providing ihe�e is no substantial change to the structure, and provided there is no increase in the portion of the-structure which encroaches into the view corridor. For Planning and EnvironmentaL6ammission decisions, the approval can be renewed once. For Design Review Board-decisions, the approval can be renew�ed two times. For Town Council decisions, such as a Special Development District, the approval shall not be extended. If, for one project, the length of time resuiting from the extension of PEC or DRB approvals differs, the shorter length of time shall be the maximum ailowed. If an app i val lapses, the right to construct the development shall become void. I� i 18.73:080' - Mass and Bulk Controls A. Height Control Within an Adopted View Corridor. If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code differs from the restricting height limitation defined by the view corridor, the more restrictive height regulation shall apply. B. Proposed Remodels of Non-Conforming Buildings. Any existing encroachments into view corridors wili be encouraged to be removed as part of any major building remodel, except focal points, such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower. Pre-existing encroachments in view corridors shall not be motl�f�ed in suCh a way to �:ncroach' into a ieW �ctrr`�r to a greater �egree than the existing strucfiure, � C. Focal Points. The Town of Vail has .cer#a+n focal points, �c�-;as the Clock Tower or Rucksack Tower, which afe,;appfoved sfructures loCateci within ihe �iiew corndors.! It is the ' `-' Town of Vail's intent that these focal points be maintained, notwithstanding their non-conforming ' �4 ��.. ' ,' status. In )he evenC thaFmodifications are proposed.to view corridor boundaries in the vicinity of � -rir � � - ,;,. —. ` these foc:al oints orchan es to the focal oints are ro osed, the foc�l oints shall remain, or ,.��., . P 9 P P p P , ;�.ti�. � �� . , , fv��, _ }.,t t + ,�:: ' , .. . i f�s� ;� ��.. �,� , 6 � be reconstructed in such a way as to maintain the relationship they have to the surrounding buildings at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 18.73.090' - Adoption of View Corridor Leqal Descriptions and Photoqraphs The adopted view corridor photographs on record with the Comrnunity Development Department a�d the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. The photogtaphs;; taker� represent ttte baundarie5. defir�ed by ihe tegal ii.escriptt�ns The camera usa@.to lake the phat��raphs was �eld<5+� fee,t abo�� the instrument'€ which ;is approximately,` eye levei far rri�st adufts. A 35' millimeter iens was used for'�ac�t ptiotagraph ; t�dwever, o�ce devetoped, sbr�8 photagraphs were �ropped o;r enlarged io improve the �rapi�ic representation t�f eaGl� uiew corridor' A, : UieW Point #1; A view from the south side of the Vail Transportation Center from the main pedestrian stainvay looking toward the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower, and beyond � � } to the ski slopes; � ,` instrument - View Point #1 - a 2" diameter brass disc, marked V.P. 1 on stair landing between Levels 2 and 3 of Vail Viilage Parking structure. Backsight - CW 1/16 corner of Section 8 Height of Su�vey TrBnSif Above View Point #1 - 5.4 feet 7 I � -- -- --_ _ _ . i . ; Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anqle Foresiqht Point on Photo �s of 2F1192 348°51'10" 77°21'30" A- intersection of the horizon with a vertical line defined by the southwest corner of the sixth floor deck enclosure on the Mountain Haus 348°30'10" 87°11'30" B1 - uppermost railing of the southwest corner of the balcony on the fourth floor of the Mountain Haus 355°23'00" 87°37'40" B2 - east end of the Red Lion roof ridge 357°39'04" 87°40'43" B3 - intersection of the Red Lion roof ridge with the southeast corner of the Rucksack Tower 357°57'59" 88°27'22" 64 - northeast corner of thie base of the Rucksack Tower 004°05'19" 89°16'02" Ct - intersection of the Gallery Building with the northeast corner of the Clock Tower, immediately below the balcony 004°39'S8" 89°16'33" C2 - western end of facia board on Gallery 8uilding 004°47'18" 89°41'44" C3 - intersection of the sloping roof of the Gallery Building with the ridge line of the Clock Tower Building, which extends west 006°59'11 " 89°42'12" D- intersection of fhe Clock Tower Building roof and the northwest corner of the Clock Tower 012°25'56" 87°38'01" E- peak of the Plaza Lodge vent chase 027°08'54" 87°28'43" F- intersection of the north side of Pepi's roof with the east side of two large trees 031°53'27" 76°26'35" G- intersection of the horizon line on Vaii Mountain with the vertical line defined by the top of the western, very large pine tree west of Point F B. Uiew point #�: A view from upper Bridge Street looking toward the ski slopes between 228 Bridge street, the Golden Peak Building, and 311 Bridge Street, the Hill Building; Instrument - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2'/2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2(PLS 16827} set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of the Red Lion Building Backsight - View Point #4 - a#6 rebar with a 2�/z" diameter aluminum eap marked V.P. 4(PL5 16827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivolous Sal's I Height of SurVey Transif Above View Point #2 - 5.4 feet '' �� 8 Horizontal Anqle Zenith Anqle 289°25'48" 74°28'18" 290°58'11" 89°58'00" 300°32'46" 92°05'34" 301 °35'24" 83°31'OS" 303°32'24" 73°38'55" C. Reseniecl __ __ __ _ ____ __ _.. ._. Foresipht Point on Photo a5 oi 14/1'5/91 A- northwest corner of third floor balcony roof B- PK nail in top of retaining wall on west side of Golden Peak House, 1 foot east from west edge of pianter wall C1 - top of south end of ski tockers, which are on railing C2 - southeast corner of top deck rail on Hili Building D- southeast corner of brick chimney on Hill Building D. VieW.P4�ni.#4: A view from the northeast corner of 244 Wall Street, the One Vail Piace Building, looking over the roofs of 304 Bridge Street, the Red Lion Building, and 356 Hanson Ranch Road, the Christiania Lodge, toward the Gore Range. Instrument - View Point #4 - a#6 rebar with a 2Y2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 4(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box, in the brick pavers, approximately 8 feet from the entrance to Frivolous Sal's Backsight - View Point #2 - a#6 rebar with a 2Y2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 2(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Bridge Street in front of the Red Lion Building Height of Survey Transit Above Vfew Point #2 - 5.4 feet 9 Horizontai Anqle Zenith Anale Foresight Point on Photo �s of 1 i/1'5/92: - -,r— .— _ _ 343°56'53" 62°24'10" A- south facia board of �hird floor roof of Plaza ' Lodge Building 348°37'05" 73°05'43" B- intersection of upper and second floor roof li�es of Piaza Lodge Building 352°55'25" 73°34'26" C- south end of peak of se�ond floor gable of Plaza Lodge Building 352°31'05" 79°24'44" D- eastern edge of second� floor gable roof of Plaza Lodge Building ' 352°13'16" 79°24'S5" E- intersection of second floor roof facia and southeast corner of Plaza �odge Building 352°13'14" 84°44'25" F- intersection of southeast corner of building and top edge of first floor facia af Plaza Lodge Suilding 354°30'20" 86°13'30" G- top of southeasterly co�ner of first floor facia of Plaza Lodge Building ', 354°47'22" 86°07'S8" H- intersection of south edge of Red Lion chimney and upper Red Lion roof line 358°21'46" 85°17'48" I- peak of upper Red Lion roof line 359°04'31" 85°30'36" J- intersection of upper Red Lion roof line and northerly roof line of the Christiania 000°16'55" 84°36'56" K- peak of northerly roof line of the Christiania 001 °59'47" 84°36'56" L- intersection of northerly roof peak and southerly roof line of the Christiania 003°05'44" 83°32'42" M- northwesterly corner of second floor balcony on Hili Building I 006°23'31" 83°33'52" N- intersection of top of slecond floor balcony rail and brick wall on Hill Building Q05°32'14" 67°54'S8" O- northwest corner of top of facia on third floor roof of Hill Building E. wiev�r Poi,R; #5� A view of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge and south of 302 Gore Creek Drive, the Mill Creek Court Building; Instrument - View Point #5 - a#6 rebar with 2Yz" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 5(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Hanson Ranch Road in front of the Mill Creek Court Building Backsight -#4 rebar with aluminum cap (L5 2568) in iron "Landmark" monument box marking centerline of Hanson Ranch Road - box is just west of Mill Creek in froq�t of Cyrano's Height of SurSey Transit Above View Polnt #5 - 5.4 feet �� ; i Horizontal Anqle Zenith Angle ForesiQht Poi�t on Photo as of 1 t/1!�19i 199°03'06" 81°23'49" A- intersection of southerly utility pole with ridge line 204'06'A3" 85°f0'40" 61 - intersection of northerly extension of Garden of ihe Gods Buiiding roofline with hillside ridge line 206°00'02" 85°10'40" 62 - northern end of roofline of the Garden of the Gods Building 208'12'53" 85°10'40" C1 - intersection of southerly extension of the Garden of the Gods building roofline and the Vilia Valhalla roofline 208°33'36" 84°55'50" C2 - northwest corner of the Villa Valhalla at roof facia 210°41'41" 84°01'47" D- intersection of top of the Villa Valhalla roof facia and the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column 210°41'41" 82°01'51" E- the upward extension of the north edge of the trim on the window column on the Vilia Valhalla to a point above the horizon F. t/iew Paint #6:! A view looking easi to the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive _ ._ _ . __ __ __ __ between retail shops at 174 Gore Creek Drive, the Lodge at Vaii, and 193 Gore Creek Drive, the Gore Creek Plaza Building projecting east to the Gore Range. instrument - View Point #6 - a#6 rebar with 2Y2" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6(PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monume�t box in Gore Creek Drive in front of the Gore Creek Plaza Buiiding Backsight - a#6 rebar with 2'/z" diameter aluminum cap marked V.P. 6 B.S. {PLS 16827) set in an aluminum monument box in Gore Creek Drive near the southwest corner of Pepi's deck Height of Survey 7r'anslt Above View Pofnt #6 - 5.4 feet 11 � Horizontai Anqle Zenith Anqle I i 356°08'35" 81°02'17.' I � 356°55'02" 83°02'06" 000°31'36" 001 °48' 10" 003°14'42" 007°56'03" 013°30'31 " 013°38' 14" 012°55' 17" 014°44'21" 82°54'27" 85° 17'34" 85° 17'40" 85°11'32„ 85°11'32.' 78°48'35" 78° 14'51 " 73° 13'39" A- point on horizon Ieft ofi the chimney on Pepi's roof B- intersection of southeast edge of chimney and Pepi's roofline C- southern end of gable qn Pepi's roof D1 - intersection of northerly extension of Gorsuch's roof line and Pepi's roof D2 - north end of Gorsuch's roof D3 - south end of Gorsuch's roof E- intersection of southerly extension of gorsuch's roof line and brick pillar on Lazier Arcade Building / Wall Sireet Building F- intersection of face of stucco and eve line on Lazier Arcade Building ! Wall Street Building G- top of facia on northeas! corner of roof on Lazier Arcade Building / Wall Street Building H- top of roof on Lazier Arcade Buiiding / Wall Street Building Section 2 Section G of the Urban Design Considerations is hereby modified to read as follows: Paraqraph G Vail's mountaiNvalley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Gertain building teatures also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The mosi significant view corridors have been adopted as part oi Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhaustive. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and other important man-made and natural elements that contribute to the sense of place associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. 12 i Development in Vail Viliage shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipai Code. Whether affecting adopted view �I corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from pedestrian ways and public i spaces must be identified and adciressatl where apprapriate. The Vail Land Use Plar�> the Tawn! i P�licies and tfie Urtsan Design} C�uide P,lans shaii be used ta he{p determina which �iews: m3y b� I affected. and �Qw ihey shaulcE. be atldressed< � � Section 3 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason hetd to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Gouncil hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4 Tne Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and weifare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shali not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeai of any provision hereby shail not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Councii of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. 13 � i I i ATTEST: Pamela A. Srandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDEf�ED PUBUSHED this day of , 199�. ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk c:bidbrd13.91 14 Margaret A. Osterfq�ss, Mayor �----- 0 , � i-�:-< i' �t,�� . � � J!t��.,a� � � � fl i✓�a y � � � �`:,�,r<s,r�I �n/�:. . .M 5/27/92 VIEW CORRIDORS - ADDL. MATERIAL TO BE PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 13, 199t NOTE: Ordinance No. 13, 1991 was first read on 5/7/91 and passed. There has not yet been a second reading. Please advise dd re: next reading of this ordinance. My notes indicate a 1992 ordinance number is to be assigned. First reading was over one year ago and it appears there will be numerous changes and additions to this ordinance. Section 18.73A20 - �imitations on Construction No part of a structure shall be permitted to encroach into any view corridor set forth in this ordinance unless a variation is approved in accordance with Section of this ordinance. Section 18J3.040 . Photographs on record with the Community Development Department and the following legal descriptions are hereby approved and adopted as official view corridors protecting views within the Town. Section 1 SJ3.050 - Amendments An amendment of the regulations of this Chapter including a change in view corridor boundaries; ihe creation or the repeai of view corridors may be initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Ptanning and Environmental Commission on its own motion, or by application of any resident or property owner in the Town, or by the Director of the Community Development Department or his designee. Section 18.73.060 - Application for Amendment I An application for the amendment of the provisions of this Chapter including the ; ,'s' ,,k. modification of a view corridor boundary or the creation or the repeal of a view corridor shall be ��s;- � � � � � filed with the Community Development Department on a form to be prescribed by the Director of the Community Development Department. The application shali include the following information: A) A summary or description of the proposed amendment. B) If the proposed amendment is for the change of any view corridor boundary or is proposing the addition of a new view corridor, a photograph of the proposed view to be protected. The point used as the view point origination and the height of the camera above existing grade or pavement at the time the photograph was taken shall be identifisd. The photograph or photographs shall be marked to show the boundary of the proposed view corridor or shall be marked to show the proposed improvements in relation to existing improvements and existing view corridor boundaries. C) The Community Development Department may require models, overlays, sketches, or other submittal requirements to show: ' 1. For a new view corridor, the potentiaf impact th� new view corridor could have on the development potential of surrounding properties; or 2. For a modification to a view corridor boundary,'the potential impact the change wouid have upon the protected view corridor. If the application is for the addition of a new view corridor or fqr the modification of the boundary of an existing view corridor, upon approva� of the amendment, �he applicant shall submit a legal description of the new view corridor or the amended boundary prepared in the same format as those set forth in Section of this ordinance and any other survey information deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. D. The Community Development Department, in i�s sole discretion, may determine that an application for an amendment if granted would have a�ignificant impact on the community. In this event, the Communiry Development Department rr�ay. have the application reviewed by planning or design consultants who are not Town employee�, and the applicant shall reimburse the Town for all expenses incurred by such review. Any such consultant retained to review an application for an amendment shall be selected by the Town. Subsequent to the submittal of an application for an amendment, the Community Develo�iment Department shail determine the necessity of utilizing the services of a consultant and shall estimate the amount of money needed to cover the cost of the utilization of the consultant. The estimated cost shall be paid to the Town by the applicant prior to any pubiic hearing on the �pplication. Any funds remaining after the review of an application by the consultant shall be re#urned to the applicant If the fee paid to the consultant is greater than that estimated by the Town, the additional amount shail be paid to the Town by the applicant prior to finat approval of the amendment. Section 18.73.070 - Procedures A) Upon the filing of an application for an amendment to I'this Chapter, or upon initiation of an amendment by the Town Council, Pianning and Environnnental Commission, or Community Development Director, the Community Development Director or his designee shall set a date for a public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission. Subsequent to the hearing, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make a recommendation for approval or denial to the Town Council. After considering the Plannia�g and Environmentaf Commission's recommendation, the Town Council shall make a final determination on the amendment at a public hearing. �% i I :: I . B) Notice for the pubiic hearing before the Planning and Environment Commission shali be given in accordance with Section 18.66.080 of this Code and the hearing shaA be conducted in conformity with Section 18.66.090 of this Code. - ,. Section 18.73.080 - Criteria The Town Council shall only approve an amendment to this Chapter adding a new view corridor, deleting an existing view corridor, or amending the boundary of an existing view corridor if the amendment is consistent with the policies and goals of the applicabie elements of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town Policies, and Urban Design Guide Plans, and meet all of the following criteria: 1) If the request for an amendment is for the addition of a view corridor or for i � the modification of a view corridor boundary which expands anj� existing view corridor. " ; Ia) That the proposed view corridor or ihe boundary amendment � � protects and perpetuates a view or views from pedestrian or public ways within the Town which � foster civic pride and �re in the public interest in the Town of Vail; � b) That the proposed view corridor or the modification of the boundary protects and enhances the Town's attraction to guests and visitors; c) That the proposed view corridor or boundary modification protects a view which is commonly recognized and has inherent qualities which rnake it more valuable to the Town than other more common views. 2) If the amendment is for the modification of a view corridor boundary which will reduce the view corridor or for the repeal of an existing view corridor. a) That the boundary modification or repeal will not reduce or eliminate any view which fosters civic pride; b) That the boundary modificatio� or repeal will not reduce the Town's attraction to guests and visitors, c} That the boundary modification or rep2al wili not diminish the integrity or quality, nor �ompromise the original intention of the existing view corridor. Section 18,73.090 - Encroachments +nto Existinq View Corridors � A� encroach�at:,to an existing view corridor may be permitted irr-ard8r to-prev�fi't unnecessary_Mardship. , „ , . _ , .: . r Section 18J3.100 - Application An application for an encroachment shall be made in accordance with Section 3 of this Chapter. I Section 18J3.110 - Notice and Hearin i ! Notice and hearing on an application for an encroachment into � shali be in accordance with Sections of this Chapter. - existing view corridor Section 18.73.120 - Criteria '! : No encroachment into an existing view corridor shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates by ciear and convincing evidence that the encroachment meets all of the foilowing criteria: 1) That the literal enforcement of Section would preclude a reasonabie development of a proposed structure on the applicanYs land. , . 2) That the development of the structure proposed by� the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this Chapter. 3) That the devetopment proposed by ihe applicant wauld not result in damage to neighboring properties or public lands. 4) That the development proposed by the applicant complies with applicable elements of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town Policies, and Urban Design �uide Plans. 5) That the proposed structure will not diminish thel integrity or quality nor compromise the original intention of the preserved view. Section 18.73.130 - Non-Conforminq Structures A) Any strur,ture which presently encroaches into an existing wiew corridor which was lawfully authorized by ordinances or regulations existing prior to the effective date of this ordinance may continue. However, such encroachments will be encour�ged to be removed as k'� part of any remodetling or reconstruction of the structure. `, '�'� il��. B) Structures lawfuliy estabfished prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter may be modified provided that such modification does not cause the structure to encroach inio a view corridor to a greater extent than the existing structure. C) Non-conforming structures may be maintained and repaired as necessary for the convenient, safe, or efficient operation or use provided that no such maintenance or repair shail cause the structure to encroach into a view corridor to a greater extent than the structure encroached prior to such maintenance and repair. D) Restoration: Whenever a non-conforming structure which does not conform with the provisions of this Chapter is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by Act of God, or by the 4 ,: i : _ ___ public enemy, its use may be resumed or the structure may be restored provided the restoration is commenced within one (1) year and diligently pursued to completion. The structure after such restoration shall not encroach into a view corridor to a greater degfee than the encroachment which existed prior to destruction. Section 18.73.140 - Heiqht Limitation If the maximum heignt allowed in any zone district within the Town differs from the height permitted by a view corridor, the more restrictive height limitation shall apply. C:IVIEWCORR.ORD I � i 5 __ 'i 013038275856 P. ;' ��e� � �' ��.HA �1�� To: From: Date: Vail Town Council cc: dd Jim Lamon# Tuesday, July 21, 1992 �l��II� �I+�I�T 3 pages including caver. �f yau do n�t receive al! pages, please contact:l Subject: � _ , _� ; East Vill�ge Hameowners Associ�tit�r� Prast Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado $1�5$ Phan� Number: 303-827-5G�0 Fax Number; 3Q3-827�585fi View Corridor t�rdinance Am�ndments Specia! Instruction: Would you pi�a�e forward #he attached memorandum to the Town Counci! and appropriate staff (as noted) prior to this ever�ings meeting. I wiJl Ieave word with the Community Development D�partment that th� memo has been sent. � 0 n Lr{; �� i�1 �� .� JSM LAMONT Ta: Vail Town Council From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Date: Ju�.y 22� 19�2 RE: E�s� Village Hameowners .AssQGiati View Curridor Amendm�nts �` 013038275856 r•�� - . � . � . . �,.-- �..--.,,�\� 4 �, �� .�� _�� j �.c.�-z.: � ��/ � `''� ��'✓ �.,t;�G 7j:a'✓1. ��,�,,,`"� '� l.�'v`''" =zx regards ta agenda items p� taining to vi�w Corridrsrs, �h� Board of Direatars o� the Eas viliage Homeowners A.ssoc3ation wish to bring the �ol owing concerns to yawc attention. 1. S�Ctions 18.73.050 (A)S ) and 1$.73.060 (A)(aj giVeS !f$�1�4! discretion to the commurilty Develppl[tGilt Department �.o det�rmine. if the application is to be r�vi�wed by planning ar design cansultants� The applicant must r�i,n�burse th� Tawn of V�.il f4r all expenses incurred by a consultant review. 'rhe �pplicant musi: �ay for t�,ese expenses befor� the a�plication begins the public revi�w process. The consultazat revi�ew provisiar� is similax� in lanc�u�ge to the reimbursement requirements in the zoning ordinance fox Env�irc�nmental Im�act statements. The review sub�ec�,.�.,_ required far E�vlr'oi'imental Impact stat errts `are �r�s y defined in the zoning ordinance (chapt 18.56) ,:'�� j��-� �!f`,� In the VieW Corridar O�dinance, subjeGt6 ��r�G�i`xi ult3nt review are r�ot as alear�� d�fine� and cauld become the cause o� i,rz-econc�lalale disput�s. Disputes betw�en an app7„icant and staff with nc� recourse oi appeal ta the Tawn C�uncil is a� less than satirfactary metkzad aP arbitration or reconciliat�,on. The "sole" disGretion lanquaqe in tha View carrid4r 4rdina,n�� a�pears �o disallow an appeal. The appeal af an administrative action should be extend�d to tri� view Garridor Ordinance. 2. S�ction 18.73.060-Encro�chments into Existinc� View Corx�idors, sets no upwarcl limits upon the degr�e o� an ene�o2►�h�ent. 2� appears tlnat an en�roachmen�t could e�c�ed �' the h�ight limitatian in a standard zane district. This p�ovisiati should nat b� used as a means to exGeed the � restrictive height limitations o� standard zoz�e distx'icts. ,�'' Fux�her, it app eaxs an enc�oachment could exceed heic�k�t limitation� if appii�d Por under ��geGial Dev�],Qpment District. The d�gree of an encraachment in a Speaia�. �"� ') Dev�elr�pment Dzstr3ct could potentially alZow a bui�.ding to �� , v' ,,� �-. ,�'' � i� , � i�"� a.� �1�:��"'i'� : . �ti �� . �� , � ,Z . li�' � �l � �� `� ,. � � ��i !j r `; �i� �� ti .J .`� � y�. JIM LAM�NT 613630275856 P.03 I _ I Vai]. Tcwn Counci2/�'im Lalaant Date: July 21, 1992 � RE: Eagt village i�omeowners Associatic�n - view Corridor Amendments PBq� 2 ! b2ock a s�gni�3cant portion of a view corridor. The degree to which a structare is p�rmitted tc �ncroach within a view cvrridor in a 5pe�ial Davelopment Distric� should havE gr�&'�er limitations ttxan a special D�velopment Distxiat not interfering with an established v��w c+orric4ars. Encroachakents withiri view corridors ahould be limited to architectural appurtenances and should nvt be us�d to increase development potential in standaxd zor�e districts ox- Sp�cial pevelopment Districts. To minimize cor�fusion r�qa�ding encroachments, ��architee�ural appurtenance�� shaul,d be spocifiaally defined in the ordinance. Architactural appurt�nancQS &re broadly defined as an appendag�s that are unique to an architectural sty],e (e.g. cupola) or necessary for venting ar utility service. cc: �ob GaZvin Bo$rd of Dir�ctors �is�an Pritz '� Andy Knudtsen I n � VAIL AS S O CIATES, INC. - ,_ CHRISTIANIA PARCEL VIEW CORRIDOR STUDY - February 24, 1992 _ � � Z E H R E N AND ASSOCiATES, INC. ARCHI7ECTURE • PIAMNING • INTERIORS � VAit, • SCOTTSDALE , : _ I i I _ - ; � Z E H R�' N ,�� ;��;�;��c �;�,rF�, �r�,c. VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. ' CHRISTIANIA LOT - VAIL : View Corridor Study � Projcet Number 92698.00 February 24, 1992 The fallowing analysis assumes that all thiree existing parcels (Lot P-3, "The Road" and Lot J) will be consolidated into one largie tract, dcsignated CCI. In addition to view corridor and zoning height restrictions, the c�evclopment potential of this site will also bc determined by thc lot area, allowablc dcnsity and site coverage control, setbacks, and parking/loading rcquirements. All of thcsc reslrictivc requircmcnts are set forth by the Town of Vail Zoning Code, and can be studied�iin further detail but are beyond the scope of this study. This particu[ar study only deals with the restrictions set forth by existing View Corridor #5, proposcd #4 and currcnt Town of Vail regulations for CCI-Zoning hcight limitations. Our findings indicate that cxisting View C�rridor #5 is much morc restrictive than thc proposcd Vicw Corridor #4. Due to its cl�sc proximity to the sitc and its vicw oricntation, Vicw Corridor #5 imposcs great limilations on the height of proposed development in thc central portion of the site. If the proposcd View Corridor #4 is approved, furthcn c�ight limitations will be located in two narrow sections that run along each sidc of Vicw Corridor #5. Whilc thcy arc not as restrictive as Vicw Corridor #5, they do limit thc buildablc height. Finally, thc roning height limitation comcs into play at both cnds o� thc site (43' max. hcight). For additianal information, rcference the site plan drawing. In order to cvaluatc the impact of pro�scl3 View Corridor #4 on the site, wc studied the site ihrough sections and 3D - compu'ler analysis. A11 lhree formats are necessary due to the complex nature of the problenei. What seems possible in a section may vary slightly in 3D and perspectivc vicws. The elcvations given on the site plan are co�ceptual in nature and as development becomes immanent f�rther surveying an�lysis should be done to verify that progosed site developr�ent does not encroach into the view corridors which impact the site. � �i:c i iirrc � t�i:i •��i �v��i�r,'r i;�; i rru >ii� ��v1 •��rc)i r�n;�.i� I'(: )_ I'��•: i')�-(�;A�.�� m, C� ��r.�tic� fil(�?O, (��U s)'J.}<) OJ_5� (h(1?i �)`!1 �1 3O1 FAk C3t)�'�1 `)4`i-IQfiO � � ------- --�— _ — — ---- _— _._.. _ __ _ ��, � � t� �i��y �� '�� ,� . : � b... � _ r k;9 � l' rr �3i. tp �� .. ' �._ . °� t� �. A-h��i*!}L€tii 5'�y,t �r `� �.}'3 -�� ' 4 s��» � ` ._........ ,_ .. —�.ks� x \ wT. F:� � _ . _ .. _... � � �*or�?e��i� �! �.;�..� s�ux,w „ � , � � i � � �r� � � A �,� , � ! 1 -> � - - _ _� ! F .� `�� i+; : `� y! F, i p _ }�`' i i .,r . } � s t' %.� ,:'� S� q.:, � 1 � � � 1 � �j; � S: '! :, , �r:� ��,�.;3 �� a �.r.+a��y i ., x � .: , �. . . `'�`F'�4 _a. _ . .. � . i �� y,�.' , `�� I �r� � � M �� s� � ,)�' ��+C ' �'" , � � �t.:.*"� `'N I'�� r 4 �l �� .E �{ M ;} , �. � � �� ; � i �� < � � $� � y � �, x: 'Yd' � � � �� 7�� :>� �"�`<`� � � � �. ��i �,r��° � ��,^��, x�;�`��s,� , � '�� .. � s�;�,`��' � - `��; s � " � ;x r � ` <�`".��.'� • �� , + 'i ��' ,tr : �� Fln� � � � '.��' M ,� `� �� T �� i "`�'#;�� " ; �u . � .R ., .. ,� . 4, . �f3 ::: Lr�_. . .,... �; � .,3� i ' ,� � ;:�F 4� �£ ';< .,.. �F �..r,s� 9 � � �� `� �;,�.? � �� :�- :, � [ ..� � :�� '� ""�:.!�. 1��`�� »> �� ; < �� ?� x � x� � � tM1 1h� fi � � � .� ::� c,.�� " � � �, r� t :��-. � . 1 1 „:� � � ` �ti�� 4�q "��5��; �' �^ �e j� x�� }'�"4.��.,,i +w+'„ _ �.,. _ �,� .,.��,. '�15`'�'�'^'+y 7 "�r g"u;,�i �C3°�°`�. +�.��.�.^,+`'� r � . � a3 '�x�� °r c � � r' , a .r � .�'�, ta�e� �u� �' � - � q r '9't v€.� +y � F ^�? �+ �' - vc ,�, . ,�,a t+�� 4 �t � '+t�'H �+`fi�` , �rt: _ J. d "�'+ �.�'� �' �� " �` ��'' � t j '-s� u.� � � •' �� . � � � �> ��" ; - _.. � � "��' �a t �` �>�� '� �� i�� ; ,� � , �r�.��c�+�a?,'a-aU � I, v�^"�r ' �'�;i'�, r �,.�x, c� 3taff Recommend�ion i �F ��t � � ��,� Y:� S' 25 height ,,,,/ ;' 50 mm lens ��t,� � � ��.. � :,. ^��;��'��' ,� � 4 � 4 i , ,� �� -� 1� � � \'�f � :\'��.(i( I'� I I `, I'J( . Christiania Lot - Vail Conceptual Analysis of Development Potentiat May 8, 1991 , The following brief analysis assumes that al( ihree existing parcels (Lot P-3, "The �I Road" and Lot J) will be consolidatcd into one large tract. In tcrms of zoning, I.ot P-3 � will need to remain as Parking only, due to deed restriction, bul it is assumed that "The � Road" and Lot J could be rezoned as commcrcial Core I(CC[) District. A variance ! would be required £or the CCI designation in order to allow on-site (below grade) I parking. I This analysis is cursory in nature, and does not factor in important critcria which will undoubtedly shape the development of this parcel. These factors include existing and pr�posed view corridors, Town of Vaii rcquiremcnts and cnncerns, coneerns of surrounding ncighbors, Vail Associatcs, Inc. and Christiania input. The Iollowing synopsis of dcvelopmcnt potential is based on allowable density of permittcd use.s for the CCI Zoning dcsignation as put forth in Town of Vail Zoning Code. A more detailed anatysis of c�evelopment constraints should be per[ormed in ordcr to fully undersiand the dcvelo�ment potcntial of the Christiania Lot. The impact of vicw corriclors, height restrictians, etc. must be examined bcfore the site's true potential can be defined. � � � � � � I I I _ j I � � � � ; ' 11.•i llll�� l,il:'I �I'i � il'J(� I:'!11I�Jf )1Z'; - ''' \II ' ;� ! 11 1 �,1 ) \I f !'( ). I,n•; �� .� � -\�'�m, t��ilt>r�l(In t11(> �fl, t i(I Sl �1,}�1 (1�'�i% ((�C)?) `)�31-1iU1 I��\ t:�O.i)'�)��I')-Itlf;O �- � � Christiania Lot - Potential Development Scenario Prepared for Leo Palmer (May 8, 1991) ! Below Gradc Parkin *- 2 Icveis x 30 cars cvcl = 0 total cars Proposed number of 6(1 cars is based pon a simple rectangular footprint extending across entire site (inc(uding L,ot �-3). Due to existing 12' grade change between Hanson R�►nch Road and Gore I, Crcek Drive, across ta the 2-level garage wou(d be relatively easy. ' Additional levels oE parking could be added to the project... however, this woutd require internal ramping within the garage which would add additional costs and also necessitate fewer cars per level due to the space required for the ramp. Parking is not a permittcd use within the �CI Zoning district... a variance wil( therefore be required in order to allow pakking below the site. Main L.eve) Footprint - Apnroximatelv 7,000 sq, ft, Commercial/Retail/Circulation uses are al�!owable at this level of the building. In addition, entrance lobby and circulatior� for residential unils tocated above would nced to be provided. The projected total of 7,000 sq. ft. is bascd on 10' setback from Hanson Ranch Road and Gdre Creek Drive and falls wilhin site coverage requircments of Town of Vail Zoning Code. Residential Condominium Units - Maximum No. � 8 vniis The mvrimum nvmber ot' units is dictated by the allowable density/acre which is 25 units/acre. It is impossible to speculate on the size of these units without studying the impaci of building massing, h�ight, and form as it relates to other factors, especially view corridors. . I BuildinQ SummarY ' I,evets 1 and 2 - Parking for 60 cars Level 3 - Commercial/Retail/Circulation - approximately 7,000 sq. fL L,evei 4& above -Residential Condominiumfi - maximum 8 units �: r- r �� - i�� ;��.�;i� .��,�,�,� i;,�i ��!� MEETING MINUTES PROJECI': Christiania - Gcnoa, Vail PROJECT NO. 91631.00 DATE: February 26, 1941 PRESENT: Jill Kammcrcr, Senior Planner (Town of Vail) Davc Arbo, Architcct (Zchrcn and Associ�ztcs) PROCESS AND TIMEFRAME FnR REPI.ATTING AND REZ�NING PARCEL #7-l: As outlincd by Jill, the following thrce-step process and associated timeframe will be required in order to reach the maximum site development potential for the ChristianiaN��il Associates parcel located bctween Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creck Drive in Vail. 'I'his dcvcloPmcnt p.�rcct has becn identifieci as Parcel #7-1 in the Vail Villagc Master Plan. STEP ONE Town of Vail to continue analysis and rescarch of various otltcr p�ucels locatcd within town (imits which have outstanding ownership questions between Town of Vail �nel Vail Associales (indudin� Parccl #7-1). Staff will bc Preparcd to givc rccommcndatic�n to Town Council rcg.ir�ling whethcr the ownership issucs related to this site should be resolved on an indivi�ival basis or colfcctively with the othcr parccls within anc month. According to Jill, it is probablc that staff recommendation ta Tawn Cr�uncil will he to collcctivcly resolve owncrship qucstions a! all remaining parccls. STEP TWO Scenario A 1f Town Council decides to include Parcct #7-1 along with the athcr parcels, Jill expccts that !he resolution of all outstanding ownership issues may take as long as six months. Oncc c�wnershi� issues have been clari�ed and resalved, Parccl #7-1 may bi; submitted to the Planning and Environmenta] Commission far rcplatting and re-zaninb. Scenario B If, however, Town Council elecls to review the ownership issues related ta Parcel #7-1 i��diviclually, the resotution of outstanding issues woulei probably occur within a mucl? shorter time-frame, perhaps within ane or two mc�nths. Praminent amang owncrship issues ta be resolved is ownership of the "Road" as platted, vcrsus the actual localian of the existing road surfacc �vhich , travcrscs Lot-P3 on the currcnt plat. STEP THREE Once al! ownership qucstions have been resoived with Vail Town Couneil, Paree! #7-1 sl�oulcJ be consolidatcd from thc currcntly platted thrcc lots with diffcrcnt (or l�ick ot) zoning �lcsignations into onc singulac lot with a reviscd zoning dc;signation. Thc zoning catcgorics which arc mosl applicabte to the re-zoned parcel arc Commercial Core I(CCI) and Public Accommoclation (PA). In ordcr to changc property boundaries and zoning dcsibnatians, a pctition must bc submittcd to the Planning and Environmenta! Cc�mmission (PEC). The PEC mccls on thc 2nc1 anel 4th Mondays �f cvcry month, and a pctition with ncccssary accamp�►nyins matcri.�l must hc suhmittc�l four wceks prior to the date of the mceEing. Followinb the YL-'C mectinb, aU amcndments to tha zaning ordin�ncc must bo to the Town Cauncil for Gn.il action. Approval of thc amcncimcnt to the zoning ordin��ncc would thcrcfc�rc takc a minimum of six wi;cl;s. � i::!�, i; i� •.� ... , .� �� .iii:�,.i �, ��;�� ;i,�t {' � �' . I'�"�I �.�n� ( �„�i.ul.�,�l�� .i �, ��'� �� 1i . ,�, � i��l i . ;� , _� , Mc;c;ting Minutes 226191 91fi31.i10 Pagc 2 SUMMARY , The most optimistic outlook in terms of the approval pr'pcess required to rcplat and re-zone Parccl #7-2 so that it coul� be uti(izecl to its grcatest develc�pment potential is a time-frame of three months minimum. If, howevcr, the Town Council requires the resotution of al! outsian�iing owncrship questions on various sites beforc proceedin� with the a��proval process on Parcel #7-1, the timc-frame far approvals may take up to nine months or lonber. OTHER ISSUES DISCUSSED Plat Map According to Jill, hcr recollection is that the east prt�perty line running adjacent to lhe Villa Valhalla as shown on a survey by Ea�le Valtey Engincering and Survcying date� 5/22/87 and revised 1/18/�1 is not correclly located. She stated Ihat, the property line had been revised to run in a straighl line lpproximating the location of the ex�sting fcnce adjacent to thc Vill.� Valhall�i sidewalk. Dave to rcvicw this issue with Dan Corcora'�n. Vicw Ccxridors I F�isting vicw corridors wcrc rcvicwed in tcrms of thcir impacts on Lot #7-l. Vicw corridors # 1 and #5 may have an impact an the developmcnt of lhis site. In particular, vicw corridor #5 which looks directly across the site from I-ianson Randl Road toward the Gorc range will have a definite impact on any proposed dcvclopment. Adclitionally, th�:rc is also anothcr proposcd vicw cc�rridur (#4) that may limit dcvelopmcnt on the site. Jill mac�e copics of thc three vicw corridocs with potential impact on the site so that Zehrcn and Associ:ates could study the implications further. ; , r , � REZONING CONSIDERATIONS In terms of thc replatting and rezonins caf t}ic Christiani.iN<<�1 Associates parcet, the most appropriate -r.oning distriets for consideration are Public Accommodation (PA) ancl Commercial Core [(CCl). Thc followinb tablc illustralcs thc di[lcrcnccs bctwccn thc ]'A <�r�a cci zonin� clesignations as lhcy rclate to key sita development issucs. � ISSUE Potential Devetopment Use L.at ArcalSite Dimensions Setbacks Height Density Site Coverage Parking and L.oading PA CCI GOMMENTS � * � * * Grcater number of permittcd, conditional and accessory uses. No restrictions for either PA ar CCI on this sitc. No required setbacks for CCI; 20' minimum setback on al! sidcs required for PA. Only 4�% of CCI buildinbs may be highec than 33', but not higher than 43'. The hcight of PA buildings may extend up to 48'. Total density of bath PA and CCI may not exceed 25 dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Buildings within CCI may cover up to 8Q% of the total site area. Buildings within PA may covcr only up to 50% of site arca. Within PA, 75% of required parking must be loc.ited on-site within the building, and nc� parkinS or loading aroa can be locatcd within a rcquired front sctback arca. Within CCt, no parkin�; is allowcd on-sitc; thereforc, developer must purchase ofE-site parkinb allocatians from the town parking fund. Issue of cxisling parking for Christiania needs to bc resolved. * indicates advAntagc of less restrictive requircmcnts wi�hin -r,nning designation. � � ._ _ _ j '.' tN � ��,� , • �. .,Y, ` iF_.. L.`.��. �� " ow� o�ai� �• ;. e�,��-�.�.j f; � 75 south troniage road :� � vail, colorado 81657 ', y x°;J �r � t. (303)479-2138 � ' � � :tp�t, .��-,��,,�: � � � � _.�� '� j� { S.-...� _ � . Z",l � � . t } •' d ' office of community development (303) 479-2139 . , F Y, , .._ - '� - ►�September 10, 1990 I � Mr. Jack Curtin � � 311 Bridge Street j Vail, CO 81657 i - _ l RE: New Viec,r Corridor over the Red �.;ion Building i Dear Jack: I wanted to write you a quick note cdncerning the view corridor over the Red Lion Building. As you know,',several months ago, the staff had a work session on this issue with th Planning and Enviranmental Commission. At that time, the staff was given general direction on how to handle the present view corri or ordinance and the view corridor over the Red Lion Building. Once the Red Lion Building roof and elevations are substantiall.y complete, I intend to make the necessa:ry changes to the view ordinance. The reason for waiting for the building to actually be constructed is to assure that the new corridor will align properly with th� newly constructed Red Lion building. I have also discussed thi� approach with Danny Carcoran, fram Eagle Valley Engineering, and w$ both concurred that this seemed to make the most sense. ! The other matter I would like to tel�. you about is the Village Streetscape project. An all day des�gn workshop is scheduled for September 27th. Yau will be receiving a notice of this meeting. If for some reason, this time is not cor�venient for you, please contact Mike Mollica in our office, and a separate meeting to gather your comments on the project could be sch duled. If you have any questions about thes two items, please feel free to contact me at 479-2138. Thanks for our support on the view corridor, '4 I also agree that it is very importar�t that this new corridor be adopted. �, Sincere7.y, � � �� ristan Pritz Community Development Director cc: Mike Mollica � I _ , ; _ _ : �, ' _ _ �_ _- - , _ _ � `_ y ^� , � ` r � �S � � � � ��: i 1 � � � i s, � �7�..( 5 i � �- i. � e t�`;. �sf? �,. ..' �.1 �it ' i{-� .✓i. � ' _ . . _ . _ _ ....... � —c ; ; i"� w * _ _ .''� ' .. ... �,�. .�_ � � , `SJ+...r \ : � � � � � - . . �. . ..._.. ......._._ ...._... {� g� ,, � ,�'j� .� ' g✓ � # i, j tij. � ,y � ; � � ;; -,�.� ` � `., , ... _ . .. . t � . y � � ' . .. � � � y �} , . ; � � F � �' . i �. I • , > ,t'� � k ('Y � j ,^ �' � i� {, {� �"'.^i j, ,, �� t if � f � � �� -+� i �'r'� _-� `^ i�ttg 5 •y , ) f �"; . ,. 1 "+..�.1,-k ? � �.".i � � ". i � . ... a 1 , . . L.F F. . . E. . �� .. .. . . j ... ; . . ... . .. � : � A . , . • � � `w �4 �-�-W' �"'�. .. �i.. . � '.... � �r.... �i .�,Y�.. .. l.... �tt .... 1^.� .... ;. ... � .. ��: � .. _. ......: ... .. � .. �...^ '� i � , Z n . ; t � jC . � . . . � }t 3� �r` ` � i S 'Y" rl t 1 /� w' Y � �� l � �✓ -3i � � lt� � . . .... . .. . ....... .. .... . . ... . .. . iq $ 1 • � � .,}� � !� ��"� :� _ �.. �;__ �,,.�.--.�;9 ��-�0 c _ %i,� . a.�E�'?`o . iw�w •r s,,�,, �� > i � ... l.�� ' j �� •4. _�i � � . ��}_ _ � ;; _ ti` r � � __ t� _ I � � f � j � : �� £i.. . �`c� ; � : a � Y � � �s r ,• _ �� yY`.� f� � } � . � �e-'�� .. � � f � � � _ ._. . ...... .f,,,,� _. .� . � � �� ..._.. �...?�.. `��„ __. `�`c �_._. ....__...... "� �� 1 t � � ��. > , k i _ i I�_...:. . _.. ... ._ ...�.. __ _`. .... ..... .:,.. ..:... .....�.... ...... .:._ ___. _..... r ' f , ,.r , f t " �_. � �' " ! n r � 'i 1 j� r - € � y � a'� l j �r`..-. � . f't � } `ya �� t �� i !( .�,�+ � � 3, � � j{� �� i `f� � �..1 t y �'.� + �, s4 `� �i � €_:.� " � ��11 1 . ,�� .�..`+.^^ � � �. . {,^' ��`yI 34. 4..f�..a � ,.�� , � ' � ; • . .�_.,�- �� `, � '� � �, ,� . , _. _ � � � . � . � . . � - t.� � , � .� . . � � � . . - .' ai: , . . . ! � � .. � .. . . . . . � . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .., i _ c"""°y ; . . k _, _ S ' . _'� _ � . _ _. 3 i -+. � .�`i� ...c',. �'sl�� it�1 -'" �±`� F�i \ �'}� � r � ��'� � �; R�r `,'��iP !.1 '� �. ! -• .'i. Yb#"""" .._:.. . ........ I,,� `' '� 3. ° � � � "'�. : � �' ' Y t J . �"� ". A: . . �.a-,i� t ; ' 3 _. r � g. _s.�.'-. � � y G:> i }' ..� . ._. ..: .._�T � .. .._._ ___ . � . . - . . .. _..... S �.. ....... . � �,.� < i , _ _ ___—_ , _. i _ __ _ Y�> q �,�.� � .. k ' 1 . . S ...I ., + �� '� � t '��r� 1 � . � S � '�"'� '(_ �` �±� � 4�i `� ';,.`.� xC�'' ; �� 1,,E , �� _. ` I . . f ,--�� r�• ^ � ` �. r ,�� . �..Y , e . � _ s : ,� _ � r : �� .�j ' r � i; ' _ !.' `._ , ,: ` `.: _. ... _ ._ . _ _._ �.. _ .:_. . ....._ . .._.r .. _,._.. . __..� _._ .,. . . , .. _ _ __ , f'. f: f . ,._. _ _ :. _ .. : �_ .: _. _: v ... : __ . . _., _ _ . . _ .. . __ _.. �... _ . _... C � , � ��.�� '�� i:�S �.�I '.�` .. �� `.� � a }='' ,�a' �='�" �s' y�;? �,i f,� �' �. �''� i� - --1` � .c. c-� .�,. ..fi- �= p x .. � .'. S�.i i � y? i �.s. •.. �. � � �"`"� t`�'#• .. "i''� �'• i°'S �i � �' er ?°?. ,�r � `� _ T`''3r (.SY3 �r' �..;� _ c.� ..i �% �1:� �'.1.� i. _;; °,. �' �I � �i.' ;,, x, ..._ ,, � �j is�r"3^ i �� =� <�. y � � � _, � `�? °YFrd Y'? '�- j� ��" � r S 41`, sl._�-��1 (,� R �T��'? rt'}r^ `�� ..�� € � �. g ! << i,? _y i`' �l '�'i C! p�. �' 7 r � `: C�i� i#. t _'.��.� � � � �: �. '� � �'1 ti�, � r �t r; .�L' �3 �'?. � �t � � �; ,- `':.� � � `� �"'�' = C� �� 3`f�Y ��r��y' ��?�� i � i�`t3��1��:. ��?°` '�'�E� :'��'Ci. ..;.� 1 �3 �? g'.� �. �. =� �. 2�3 �' � � � x+; � 7�`, .�"; � �:' � �� l �_' � r �, �_ �. ��°`- �. �, � � � ,�?'`� i��cs 3�.� t �� y��? �-,'�� '�'��:�: �?��.�~s �,,�� '�'+�, �� sasa� • � �r -�r, � , ,° < �a, �L, � 'c�s�. {� � � ��. � '`.3'� �; �,4. � �T � 'y'; � r� °..��°+� • � ; :' � , � ?•' �.? � � ' i .I, �s °: j� e? z�� r� � �` Z' �. � � �' ° C C} :�' �' � �. �` � .��. �.. � # �� .��'�^. �.�it�� J� �'"��': �rl.{�t�? �'3';' �s�� '. �? 1? �'` �,t. � � i. � � <`�..?'1 i_i � !t�T � �` Y�''•_ } ��°: � � �.�# � � �? �'' �.. � �."- �" � v �. ;°'.. ;� � • `?'�.�� "b'� � ��'?t�P7'�?.��,�� G?� � —�� 3 r � _ � � _��`s. � I � I ` � t � �� . .,_�., - �' r,._ . .� . - �� ,. �-� . � .�� ._ .. _ � �� _ �, .:� . .t,�� _.. r , .. 1, .._ _, , ,� �, .... w �� .. � _... ..,. . �., � _ . . , , �� i . . -Y, wi3'.�� -� _ . :. . ...--,.. ._.:_ ...,.: p � '�. ... , .- . ..' �. • � l ."+ v ?�%t � ,�. ... ., . _ , . -"'_y �"' �4! �'� .,. w � . w �, ,n ..._.. ......w. .:... . � 7" �. � i j .,,,,.•;, � 5,.+ � YnCC.P.;jc'� �'t.�� y �.. w'a, �A . . � '4.','� ♦ * ^.M S. `� 'J ..."•rt` (� t .S. � . �J �G:: .�} �, �' � � �.r � ,�' �..n i,. i !.3 �..?' ,�. � �� Y ' �� 1 �� .1_ �% � � ��f �� i"";r ' ,i' :�sn'� �_� =,,,3 u�,: (!j +.,,1� :c. i,: �..f- T"3 i' � " �r �^. �- r- ' g'3. ! _r •-,'� * .. . .. �,z:t i3'`� 'i l..r . . . s j i. f. .�.,. _ 5 {�°3 4 .,, i.. �i i x `i%' " �s ` .C.t � �' x� � �5 �3 d�` �' �x �:i a � #:.� >�F C �-�' � �` :�:. _. �t "� .:� K� .3; :� >:� .�`t �,� � ;r� ��_. T �" €� 0 __ _ . � �ow� af uaill� 75 south (rontage road vaii, coiorado 81657 (303) 479-2138 (303)479-2139 VIEW CORRIDOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED: Hill Building Plaza Lodge Rucksack Golden Peak Mill Creek Condo. Assoc. Rod Slifer Oscar Tang Jay Peterson Ron Riley Chuck Rosenquist Cyrano's Gretta Perks Christiana Red Lion One Vail Place The Lodge A & D Building Pepi Gramshammer Dave Gorsuch � office of community development PUBLIC NOTICE � NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail wili hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on July 9, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. Discussion of Fireplace Research - Air Quality 2. A request for an amendment to Section 18.13.080 (A), Density Control, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Correction of a typographical error in the Primary/Secondary zone district. Applicant: Town of Vail 3. A request for an exterior alteration an Lot 8, Block 1, Vail-Lionshead 3rd Filing, Montaneros - 641 W. Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Montaneros Condo. Assoc. 4. A work session on the_View Corridor;Ordinance amendment and establishment of a new view corridor in Vail Village at the southern portion of the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Town of Vail 5. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, Coldstream Condominiums in order to convert existing racquet ball facility into an employee housing unit, management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Ccndominium Association. 6. A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant 7. A request for a major subdivision, to approve the preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an appraximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department office. I `' , Town of Vail �`: ;`�"�� ^��d� `�f� � j � Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on June 22, 1990. � ---_ _ _ ------ _ --- _.. _ _ 6:30 P.M. 6:35 P.M. Steve Thompson 7:05 P.M. 7:30 P.M. 1 2 3. 4. 7:30 P.M. 1 7:35 P. M. 7:40 P.M. Gary Murrain VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1992 �a 6:30 P.M. EXPANDED AGENDA DRB Report. Presentation: Results of the Town of Vail 1992 Service Level Analysis. Action Reouested of Council: Provide direction to Town staff on desired changes and priorities for the 1993 budget process. Backqround Rationale: Resufts from the TOV 1992 Service Level Analysis recently completed by Council will be presented. The purpose of the presentation and ensuing discussion will be to formalize Council's direction to staff for construction of the 1993 budget. Discussion re: Evening meeting agenda. Adjoumment. 0�004004004000004��00 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1992 7:30 P.M. EXPANDED AGENDA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 2. Approval of June 30, 1992, Special Evening Meeting Minutes. 3. Appointment of Building Board of Appeals Members. Action Repuested of Council: Appoint 5 applicants to the Building Board of Appeals. Backqround Rationale: Bill Anderson, Robert L. Arnold, David M. Floyd, Mark J. Mueller, David M. Peel, and Saundra Spaeh were introduced to Council at the July 14, 1992, work session. Copies of these applicanYs letters of application are enclosed for review. 7:50 P.M. 4. Ordinance No. ii, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance Todd Oppenheimer amending Chapter 18.24 of the Municipai Code of the Town of Vail 0 by the addition of Section 18.24.058, controiling undesirabie plants within the Town, deciaring such plants a nuisance, setting forth ' penalties for the violation of this ordinance; and setting forth details ' in regard thereto. Action Requested of Councif: Approve/denylmodify Ordinance No, 11, Series of 1992, on first reading. Backqround Rationale: Coiorado Revised State Statute Section 35- 5.1-101 requires all municipalities to adopt a� "Undesirable Plant Management Plan." This ordinance meets requirements of the ' Statute. Mandatory weeds incfude Leafy Spurge and 3 species of Knapweed. This ordinance adds species of Thisde. � 8:05 P.M. 5. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance Andy Knudtsen amending Section G of the Vail Village urban design considerations relating to the protection of views within the Town of Vaii and creating a new chapter of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vaii to provide for the protection of certain views within the Town and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Action Requested of Council: Deny Ordinance No. 13, i991, on second reading. Backqround Rationale: On 5/7/91, Council passed Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, on first reading. That ordinance was similar to this one in that it created a new chapter in the Zoning Code and �� adopted a new view corridor. Since that time, staff has worked with concerned individuals and changed the wording of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, siqnificantiv. As a result, prior to making a , motion on Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992, (Item No. 5 on this agenda), Council will need to denv Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, on second reading. This wili allow staff to close the files on Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991. 8:15 P.M. 6. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance Andy Knudtsen amending Section G of the Vail Village urban design considerations relating to the protection of views within the Town of Vaii and creating a new chapter of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for the protection of certain views within the Town and setting forth the details in regard thereto. 9:15 P.M. 7 Tim Devlin Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992, on first reading. Backqround Rationale: For the past several months, staff has worked with the View Corridor Task Force to work out the appropriate wording and resolve differences of opinion regarding the proposed ordinance. After several meetings, staff believes the members have reached consensus regarding the proposed ordinance, including the proposed additional view corridor. The new view corridor begins near the northeast corner of the One Vail Piace building and extends east over the Red Lion and Christiania to the Gore Range. A new chapter to the Zoning Code addressing views and procedures has also been added. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No.18, Series of 1992, on first reading. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 16.24.010(G) of the Vail Municipal Code, setting 2 , i _ i � � � MINUTES ' VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING , MAY 1, 1990 II , 7:30 P.M. ' A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesda,�, May 1, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Uail Municipal Building.' MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Lynn Fritzlen Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem Charlie Wick, Assist�nt Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk ! The first item on the agenda was approval of minutes of the Apri1 3 and 17, 1990, � meetings. Rob LeVine moved to approve the minutes as presented, with a second coming from Lynn Fritzlen . A vote was taken and the vote pa5sed unanimously 5-0. At this point in the meeting Merv Lapin was absent. Item number two was Citizen Participation. There being no Citizen Participation, ' the council moved to item number three. �� Item number three was an appea7 of the Planning and Environmental Commission �-` decisions regarding the redevelopment of the Red Lion building (Conditional use z,, ` permit, Stream setback variance, Site coverage variance, and an Exterior alteration}. Kristan Pritz initiated the discussion by calling the Council's attentian to an April 27, 1990, memo from Community Developme�t in regard to the appeal of the Red Lion redevelopment approvals and Ordinance �Jo. 16, Series of 1990. She stated five separate motions eventually would be made to t1ea1 with various considerations before the council. To be considered prior to the reading of Ordinance 16, 1990, were the following: 1. A site coverage variance to permit a.25 percent increase in this property's site coverage. This request was approved by a Planning Commission 6-1 vote. A motion to uphold or overturn this request would be necessary. 2. A stream setback variance to allow a two foot encroachment into the required thirty foot stream setback. This request was approved by a 6-1 Planning Commission vote. A motion to uphold or overturn this request would be necessary. 3. A conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck on the east side of the Red Lion building. This request was approved by a 7-0 Planning Commission vote. A motion to uphold or overturn this request wauld be necessary. 4. An exterior alteration to add enclosed floor area to the Red Lion building. This request was approved by a 5-2 Planning Commission vote, with 11 conditions as outlined in the April 17, 1990, memorandum to the Town Council. The council asked the applicant to agree to a 12th condition at the May lst meeting. The 12th condition to be added to this approval would require the owner to pay an incremental increase in parking fees that may be esta6lished within two years from the time a building permit is issued for this project. A motion to uphold or overturn this request would be necessary. � Merv Lapin arrived at 7:55 P..M. Kristan further specified that if the Planning Commission's approval of these four requests were to be upheld by the Town Council, the Council should condition their i approval upon the passage of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, a modification of a , View Corridor #1. Kristan stated that the PEC recommended approval of the View ; ,: � _"' __-�-_'_..... __.__ . . ... __ . . ._ _l � a � Corridor amendment by a vote of 6-1 in favor, with two conditions. She further stated the Ordinance was approved by a 4-2 Council vote at the first reading in April, and a motion to approve or deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, with two recommended conditions as outlined in the April 17, 1990, memorandum, would be requested. Kristan advised Council to focus on the appeal of the entire project in consideration of each of the variances and the conditional use permit that were being requested in order to complete the project. The first area to be discussed was the exterior alteration review criteria. Included in this was the discussion of the urban design guide plan and urban design considerations which included the following: a: pedestriazation b: vehicular penetration c: streetscape framework d: street enclosure e: street edge f: building height g: views and focal point h: service and delivery i: sun/shade j: architectural and landscape consideration. All details were presented as described in the March 19th, 1990, memorandum from Community Development to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Information in regard to the Stream setback variance to allow a two foot encroachment into the required thirty foot stream setback was discussed next, with reference to the March 19, 1990, memorandum. Review criteria for each variance and the conditional use permit were presented for Council consideration. The third item to be considered was a �onditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck on the east side of the Red Lion building. The fourth item was a site coverage variance to allow for an entry on the east side of the Red Lion. Kristan explained that at the PEC's regular meeting, April 9, 1990, approvals were given on those items. PEC conditions of approval per the April 17th staff inemo for the project included: 1. As a part of this redevelopment, the applicants agree to point and repair the brick wall along Bridge Street and in the area of the small Plaza to the northwest corner of the site. Improvements to this Plaza may also include upgrading existing benches, planters, newspaper box and trash receptacle locations and landscaping. 2. The Streetscape improvements shown along Hanson Ranch Road are considered conceptual and the applicants sha11 agree to work with the Staff and Winston & Associates in refining this design relative to the Vail Village Streetscape Plan. This condition shall also apply to the Plaza area referenced in condition #1 and the landscape improvements proposed adjacent to Mill Creek. 3. All windows located on stucco wall plains shall be recessed a minimum of three inches. 4. State-of-the-art venting shall be used to reduce negative impact (smell, smoke, etc.) emanating from the site. 5. The owners/developers of the residential development on this site shall agree to permanently restrict gross residential floor area (GRFA), building height and density on this site to what is permitted by this approval. The Town of Vail shall be a party to this restriction and the restriction shall be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder's Office in Eagle County. These restrictions on GRFA density and height must be acceptable to the Town Attorney as submitted by the owner and approved before recording. 6. Any trees damaged or killed within two years of the completion of this project shall be replaced with similar size and type tree. 7. The Red Lion logo shall be retained as a part of this redevelopment in approximately the same size and location. 8. The developers/owners will be encouraged to participate in developing solutions to traffic, loading, and delivery problems in Uail Village. 9. The Rekord (or other type of window system installed) to the Red Lion Restaurant along Bridge Street, shall remain totally opened during business hours between June 15 and September 15 of each year. These windows may be opened at any other time during the year at the discretion of the restaurant management. 10. The applicant shall complete stream-bank stabilization work on both sides of Mill Creek over the entire length of the Red Lion property. The final design and implementation of these improvements shall be subject to review by the Staff and the Design Review Board. 11. The owners shall agree to participate in, and not remonstrate against, a Special Improvement District, if and when one is formed in the Village. 1Z. The owners/developers agree to pay any incremental increase in parking fees that may be established within two years from the time a building permit is issued for this project. (This condition was accepted by the applicant's representative, Jay Peterson, at the previous Town Council evening meeting on April 17, 1990.) 13. Approval of this exterior alteration, variances, and conditional use are contingent upon the Council giving final approval to Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990. Kristan explained that the PEC also recommended approval of the View Corridor Ordinance with the following conditions: 1. That the photo depicting View Corridor No. 1 be modified to reflect the new Red Lion Building at a time when the expansion is completed. The Commission preferred this alternative as opposed to modifying the line that delineates the View Corridor. -2- _ i i _ � - ---_ _ — ------ -- ------- _ ___ . � �� , ' 2. That the specific reasons justifying this request be included in the preamble of the ordinance authorizing this amendment At this point in the meeting discussion turned to Item five wlhich was Ordinance No: 16, Series of 1990, second reading, an Ordinance,amending Ord�nance No. 13, Series , �of 1983, in order to modify View Corridor No. l; and setting �orth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Kristan stated the current remodel falls within the height allowed in the zoning code and that Jeff Winston had stated that in coming up with the original View Corridors, th� consideration was to preserve the visual connection between the parking structure �nd the mountain and to maintain the views of the mountain, the Clocktower, and the R'�cksack Tower. It was Jeff Winston's feeling that the line could have been drawn at!,the Golden Peak House Ri;ige and the objective of this corridor would have been met. The proposed Red Lion Ridge would not diminish any view of Vail Mountain. In regar to the height of the building, the applicants had provided a cross section of the �illage from the Parking Structure to the Golden Peak House. This was done to demonstrate whether any other properties wouid encroach into the View Corridor, if they were redeveloped within the forty-three foot height limit. Larry Eskwith discUssed whether the nonconforming height of the Golden Peak House was legal and referenced 18.64.090 under the zoning code, restorations. Also, Larry pointed out a section on structures and site improvements and stated that a noncoriforming use cannot become more nonconforming through a remodel. However, the Golden Peak House could be built back to its existing height so long as the area of the roof that was nonconforming was not increased in area or height through a remodel. He st�ted that this decision regarding the Red Lion would not create a problem. Kent Rose stated he believed the amendment to the view corrid�r did not go against the intent of the ordinance or the purpose of this specific v ew corridor. Rob LeUine questioned Item No. 4 and the state-of-the-art venting'on the roof and received an explanation about the stacked chimney arrangement. Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, Frankie and Oscar Tang, presented additional information from individuals within the community. Jim Morter, acting as architect for the project and Dan Corcoran, field engineer, spoke on behaif of the project, with Dan Corcoran stating that as a PEC member at the time view corridors were first discussed in the Town of Vail, he had discussed the process u�ed in designations, their history, and their intent. His opinion was that the in�tent of the view corridor was being met. Further discussion from the audience included Ella Knox and Gordon Brittan, who spoke out against the granting of these v riances, the conditional use permit and the change or the modification in �he view corridor ordinance. 5peaking for the project were Oscar Tang, Diana D}�novan and Jack Curtin, representing Mrs. Cortlandt Hill. ' At this time, Merv Lapin moved to uphold the Planning Commisshon decision to allow the exterior alteration based on the staff inemorandum dated Abril 17, 1990, and incorporating conditions 1 through 13 as previously stated, ih his motion, with amended conditions as follows: 1. Amend condition 5 to say this agreement shall be submitted by the owner and approved by the Town Attorney before a building permit is released. 2. Amend condition # 8 to state if a central trash area is built in the Village, the owners would agree to use the trash facility and "wi11 be encouraged" changed to "will participate in." 3. Conditions # 12 and 13,as previously stated on page � of these minutes, are included. ' 4. Condition 14 was added to state, "The proposed addition of tfie enclosed deck along Bridge Street will have a glass roof and be as transparent as possible. This motion was seconded by Peg Osterfoss, a vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0 in favor. In regard to the stream setback variance to allow a 2 foot erucroachment into the required 30 foot stream setback, Peggy Osterfoss moved to grant this variance to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to approve, based on the fact this was not granting special privilege, was not detrimental to the h�alth, safety and welfare of the community, and there were extraordinary circumstances in that the Red Lion building is already located within the stream tract setback. Jim Gibson seconded this motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. -3- _ -- ------ . _ _ � . . � �� , � � �� _ � I � � � � .� �a � � � i � i� , � _ ��. m � � � � The third itern to be considered was the site coverage variance on the east side of the building. Rob LeVine moved to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation based on the April 17, 1990, memo and 6ased on findings that this did not grant special privilege, it was not detrimental or injurious to the public, and there were extraordinary circumstances that would warrant the granting of this motion. Peggy Osterfoss seconded this motion and the motion passed 5 to 1, with Merv Lapin voti�g against that motion. The last item to be discussed was the conditional use permit for an outdoor patio to the building in Vail Village. Peggy Osterfoss moved to approve the conditional use permit, stating all criteria in the staff inemo of April 17, 199�, were met. Merv Lapin seconded this motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. At this time, Merv Lapin moved to place a further condition on each of the variances and conditional use permit votes that had just been taken, stating that passage of each of these were conditional on passage of Ordinance 16, 1990. Peggy Osterfoss seconded this motion. A vote taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. '�'' ,ttem #4 on the Council agenda was Ordinance #16, Series of 1990, a second reading :..on the ordinance .amending Uiew Corridor #1.>' Peggy Osterfoss moved to pass this " ordinance on second reading, with Rob LeUine seconding that motiorr. Peggy stated �' the intent of the view corridor would be kept intact by modifying View Corridor #1, � and adding, there is a provision in the Ordinance for making minor changes to the view corridor and that the change was not specifically for this project. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2, with Merv Lapin and Jim Gibson voting against that motion. The means for amending the ridge line is stipulated in Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, Section L Given the late hour, a 10-minute break was taken. The next item on the agenda was Ordinance #17, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance #32, Series of 1987, to provide changes to Special Development District #16, that concern a reduction of the number of units permitted, adjusting the gross residential floor area per unit, employee dwelling units and architectural guidetines, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Mike Mollica handled the presentation on behalf of the staff. He stated the Planning Commission on April 9, 1990, had unanimously recommended approval of the amendment to SDD #16 and had unanimously approved the preliminary plan for the Elk Meadows Subdivision. Both were approved by vote 6-0. The applicant's requests were as follows: 1. The current proposal is for a subdivision of the 3.6 acre parcel into five building sites for envelopes. The envelopes would range in size from 3,397 square feet to 6,141 square feet and each envelope would be allowed one single family dwelling plus one employee restricted rental unit as defined in Section V,B,2 of the April 9th memo from Community Development Planning Commission. The remainder of the site would consist of 25,700 square feet for roadway and parking and 2.5 acres to be dedicated as open space. 2. The total gross residential floor area (GRFA) designated for Phase IiI in The Ualley is 16,000 square feet. This would allow each dwelling unit within the project a maximum of 3200 square feet of GRFA. 3. Access to Lots 1 through 4 would be via a private 22 foot wide common access drive off of Lion's Ridge Loop Road. This road is currently roughed in place. Access to lot 5 would be from an individuai driveway cut from Lion's Ridge Loop Road. The individual driveway cut would minimize the amount of asphalt paving in the open meadow. Mike went on to discuss the background for this particular project as well as an evaluation of the criteria for a major subdivision. He discussed Special Development District review criteria and included the following items: a. Reasons for an SDD zoning. b. Design standards which include: � � 1. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design scale, building heights, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity, and orientation. -4- _ � I _ _ : _ > ... . ,..:.. _..,_ � _ - -- I � � - 2. Uses, activity, and density, which provide a co�npatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 3. Compliance with parking and loading requirement� as outlined in Chapter 18.52. ' 4. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail'Comprehensive Plan Town Policies and Urban Design Plans. Specific�lly, he stated the Land Use Plan identifies this parcel as one whi h is suitable for medium density residential uses, allowing from � to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. ' 5. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which this Special Development District is proposed, further stating that the site is located within a high severity rock fall zone and specifying the mitigation methods to be used. 6. Site plan, building design and location, and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development, responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. 8. functional and aesthetic landscaping and open s�ace in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreathon, views, and functions. ' 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. He next compared the proposed SDD to underlying residential c'luster zone districts and went on to state that the staff recommendation was for apbroval of the preliminary plan of a major subdivision and the revisions to 5DD #16 for Elk Meadows. The staff recommendation for approval of this preli�ninary plan for the major subdivision includes the following conditions: 1. The development of each building envelope will comply with the rockfall mitigation reports prepared by Nicholas Lampires, project geologist and Donald G. Pettygrove, P.E., project manager with Ban�er Associates, Inc. Such reports are dated February 23, 1987, February Z'5, 1987, June 12, 1987, June 15, 1987, July 22, 1987, and March 12, 1990, and will be kept on file in the Town's Community Development Offices. Each individual lot owner will be responsible for completing the hazard mitigation for their lot per the a6ove-named reports. This restriction shall be noted on the final plat. ' 2. The staff recommendation for approval of the major amendment to SDD #16 included the following conditions: a. That approval of this major amendment to SDD �16 be contingent upon PEC approval of the finat plat for the subdivision, and b. That the developer construct a minimum of one (1) employee dwelling unit and that said employee dwelling unit be a part of either the first or second building permit for the project. All employee dwelling units shall meet the criteria listed in Sections U,B,2 of this memo. No portion of the building may overlap the building envelope. Mike further stated prior to the recordation of the final pl�t, a written agreement between the Town and the subdivider will be required in orde�' to guarantee the construction and maintenance of the proposed improvements. This agreement shall be in accordance with Section 17.16.Z50 of the Town Subdivision Regulations, and following discussion it was decided a letter of credit would suffice. It was also noted that in respect to SDD approvals the applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within three (3) years from the time of the project's final approval, according to Section 18.40.120 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. -5- _ __ _ _---- I_ ___ _ _ ____ ---- -- -- �—_ ___ , - .• � � At this time, Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance #17, Series of 1990, and Lynn Fritzlen seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the vote was 5-0 in favor of this motion. At this point, Merv Lapin had stepped out of the room. There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, � -e�' '� J c Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: ��vu.�.t�.�q. �Nr�-u--d,uc.u,(�...� Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Pam Brandmeyer " � ; ; i i _ -6- ! �— -- —_ _ � �,.. .__-__ �IJ�/� . � � � S � � �� ( f . ru-,� �Q�,- • •V � ` 8 �165 � ^�� J��TR=_R� CH1-I-ECTS RED LION REb10DEL Mill Creek Court ' Condominium Association c/o Vail ilome Rentals 143 E. Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Golden Peak - Condominium Association 278 Fianson Ranc}i Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Cyranos Margretta B. Parks P.O. Box 37312 Denver, Colorado 80237 Cortlandt Hill ' 311 Bridge Street Vail, Colorado 81657 Vail Ski Rental Jack Curtin 254 Bridge Street Vail, Colorado 81657 Clark Willingham Plaza Lodge 291 Bridge Street Vail, Colorado 81657 Frankie & Oscar Tang: Plaza Lodge 291 Bridge Street Vail, Colorado 81657 Robert Hoerle 1158 5th Avenue New York, New York 10029 Shirley Young > General Motors Corp. 3044 W. Grand Blvd. Detroit, Michigan 48202 � � re.'�-n. �i v.. � A ° NAMES OF OWNERS QF ALL PROPERTY ADJACEN' TO SUBJECT PROPERTY Landmark Commerc'al � Development Comp ny c/o Rosenquist & Associates P.O. Box 686 Vail, Colorado 1658 John Dowling ;;i 7 Gracy Square New York, New York 10028 �� `�,.�. ��-ks�-�-w{- �• (`�.s-1 �� I`��ul�c�l�� Q.O. �'��.�, b�1 �t��s , ih�R�G�r � , C-�. �a��.ck ��s�mlAfl�; �� i� �c%�. � �� {o« gtb��-. . l !!� � j' � . 11��.��,. �,-� �"'�" 3��a 51�'��'�!�� CD. S, �U� �� . `m�1{�!� ��-�� .�16ti�--�,�t--�. �c� ; �� ! 6 �t , �i-�ar �n ,Q � N-�•-� �� ,. �" �_,e s � }-�.�, '`� �� C�r �,,.� A�,�e -C�..R�w _!i-. .. !',:�. L� l�� a��.� S f* '`,',`'°� 4` IiR-lC„ �o X1�¢i� -. i�v,, I�� r�l��. � Q o � �u 1 Zsa l�lrC� � '' C � � I�S�' �te; G��w�.w : Z� I C. C.>._;,-�. G�--k t�.� c� N-� � � c,o �, s s� I a 3 cr .r-� C...�-� k ;�,. ; � , . - 3 �� r��Ot " � F # _ JP«, c� �t 16s 7 `�` �`� �' � �-�� I � o �� , ' �� :� ; , � � � ��z��,r,1��.� ��,�.�c,: , _ . . . ; -� , , ,.. � �- � � � -� `. . � _� � :�.� �� ,;_ - �.� �.,. �� _ \ r-� - . .__�-� -- -��-- __ . . _ _ _��._- _ _ � � � ' � : { ` u : - � � z I PG.+.km�> : ° -• °: _ _ � L . — .. _ . -- - _ � __ . M T' - � . �' ` � �,.� �� Z �.�.�n, �--1 �-� .� . �. ,: _ ��_� . � . _ _.. �L . � . � . . _ � � ... . � � Z3FL ' - ..`�� \---• v. _.. .. . . . .. _ _ � --...- � . '. ..� u.�..i�.`. �i r.�....:_ _.. .. v . .. � �. _.. I�� 'M , $ ' . . '. a� .. � .. " ' � _ �. ..._ . - I1 ..- . � . � .. .. . ' . . � . � ' . . ......... ....._. �.� . . ....:.. ....._... I �...._�_...�- ...� ...-.. . �.. . . " , c ' � , � n�.�� , , __. ._. :�� _ _ �� ,�, _ _. . � ? v�� v_ .. . r . � _ _ _ _ . . � ._ __. �. �. . ,: .� �- �, fi,��,��;� �� :� �'� R� , -- � � 1 r � �;� _ : • r "�� ^ , � . t � � '� � i�' \� � . . �� ...........-....... ...........� :I� . .. .. ._. �� . , .__.A l � � ; �� #I �� ._ , I � _ _ 3 25 �� ;°�-� „ . , . . �; _ _, , � ; � . -- _ ___. . . . �I r ' �/�� ' � �I��S�7 . _ , , . _ � E � . --- . _ . . . _ _ . _. � �...� � , �� . I i � . �� ., � _ . �;�� .��:�� (, . , . . " . i /��, , �� , . . . , ..-z.... : - - - _. .. _ . �. � � � a 'i ��'� ��- ��- �... . � _ . . . � . Gr� � �'`l�.s%'' � . . _ �. . .. .... � . . . r . , . , ,., � . . I . . _. . ,�.. . �. . . ,. . .. .. . , �• �y`..� • �t�#� � I ' ,�,�°°" � '�;,� f .,.:�". . � � � ,.-, ,.!" , �. .:A - �..`. ' 1 � � .. � ' . . , ., . , ... , .. - . .. ... .. . .a+�� .. �� ,. _ _� . { r �.� '�+' ., , , l/,CI ,�` ;.,, � ; .; . . � .. fi�'i��_ G.-.. �.r�� . � T�.. , .. . . � . _ : ,.. ; i Gc�r!'' �'L�c.�;f�� :: � . C.�.�.f -��=t� : _ ��5-,..�� c;� �.�..�" ; � Po./� 7 . . . ��...�....:�� . w . � ��.� , � ; . � �� . , `' `/� �/� .� � 5� t � _ . . .. .. . , . ... .. . . . . � . . .. � , �� . .. , • � z¢`t� y, . . . . . , ......_. . .. _ . .... . . il.� �4� �. � , . ... . P'��i ~ �:k ^F�' �y� �1�^� z, �` - � . �'1�r`\ � �� .7�y _'� „\ . . . ..... �i� i��.. .. .. .. • ; � � ;� � `—�' � � � � ��-%��''� ��'J��. i�, �5� � �,�r��; � �(� , . . ,� t�b f 1 ...^,... ., . - - , . ��.. ... ..... ... ...... . . .. .. .. S 1 . .�.. � ... . I _ ....,�•.,;.� c_..,,,,,-�_ � .. .... .., ..��. _ Y � "�, ��- �� . ^ ; � p„� � . ----�..`._...,��---- _ ,;,'��".� �!'�G� '��iV'+��r� ._ . �-��.. . .. . _ . '(�� . (y',,� E t.. ,... a..i� �� , k.% ( T ~ � . . . '� 4 �y�� . .! 71w �� f . ,.. . T. • M � � t � �' ' � .:a� . > �s F ,,� .-1J' „ , � 1 a.� � �E._ . . "' . . , , �� . �. '. � . . ........ . .. .. ... . . .� . . . . ... .� . ...�,. .. .. k:�So '`,��. _ . . � �,,.„,F.�:.�,;,:..�r� ..,.�.. .. ...... ' � . ., ,: —= , � .�...�—,_�..,,, �..,�-- - � �'~-.�..... C�` �l'''' -....,._ �.,�.,._ .��.�., .. . .. . . . . .. : � � � . . ' ��1,, �� (��: �� 1 ` � � � , � i �' i� L.1,.n�i C _ t � t � � . ;i . . � . ... � . .. .. ... . .�........ ,_ . . .th� ! ` : ,�' . . . . �\�`��1� �� ^.�., ._ � ... � ., . . .. y � \ y �f t � � 1 ` . ��• ..t^v ...`� :. '_. 4, . _ 5 �i y 4 °( § �- pt ' �j�ra �.,.__ ,r_ _ � ;, . _ , � � `' ` ' -.3 a + •t . �� , , ._. .. r, - � i '1 � °- �—�� !a; _ .. • ' � FK.'Y.:�.. , ,.. _. . _ . ,�� . � �. �� , . , . _ . . . . t , . .. �.�j 1 , . . '. . . . .. . � � iJ�'�X 1�� "w��_ � � �. . I . . ... . ; . �� av�.� ��, �--.. , ._. .. � � �`��c�'� �.�� f . � � f `�, . . . .. _ ] 'S. � � /�� (�. . ( � . .. y ` , - '.. - . . . . , . � . . .. . .. . . .. . . . � \� ��l�u� � l ..-��J ll'"'r. .. _ I i . 1 '�• .. ""�� . v('� �' L�t� , > � �. f , s�:,- � . ' .t�} ''�,; , ��.. ..;1.,.:.�V�x�q { �:. � c,.r� .. 3 J 1�-. 1'1 � � I ��,� �� . �`� �J�� ;-� �i�`�' , ! , . . � � . . �� . I; �� `` � � ��c�-E.� � , ; � �; ...... ....:. ............:..... ..:.:. :...:...... ' _---� ij ��r� <..�1'3�Y1��{ ' � �- I�'�',`�-�- � . ` _ ! I �- �u � . � �� '. C��'�`�,�.z`-.e-�� f � �' �� ; j . .� .� ` : � � � � �=� ' �l � i �-�`��u � �'-�-!`'- _ . ��;s� �,�� ^�:c� � J .��';�j�� + ;` : (-?t i�v��. f : .. / 4 i ,. . `�?�`�`3� I` C/`,/,KrV��i-/� T . . .. ... ..�'i/�7Fr-s! ^"..'. \'��,� . . . . . �., � ,.y �g �. �� i . . �I ' � \r'��L-'-.Y""*� — �-� / � � � � � I �; . . . . .. . . �. �.. ,,.:.... . . . . . . . . . I ' i . �� 2- /��2-�- _ . . . . . . . ,. . . . I �' � a� z �. . ; . . � , .�. __.� ._. .. ...,. . ,� ; �� . _�J / � '' '��=�-':/1.. V . � . 4�L-�+�• �- L�� r. � .�!'�"�� :�.3 � '±�� : � . . � �. . .. � . . .. �. . . . . ' ,. t L-�2G.Q/�,-- j ��.P.� , 1 �, � � ��-�,�-� . , ; ,; �,�2. i � � , .. � , � � ;,._�s�..� �,/?� ��,��, . ��v ��U 1 � s� �� • �.��'�� , . , � � � �� ; , . .. �� C7�� ,. � �; _ . , � �� `; ' , � L��-�-� � � , �c�� . . I . � r ��J� . � �//!�!`±±'e�� . . { �� . . . /�I� � F ' . � i+� � �� .. . . . .. � � �n�� • ; � � + �� . �� .s�� _� ��- � : ' ��=��" ,, - . � . ...��u�L ��_§ �`;� . --- ;_. ��i/� �Sj- , ` � J�� GL2� � 3 k�� ,.�-� �.�1. '/� �'��..�� , �� , , , _, ,�-.:-:----:; ��l -.------------------_ -----. - j f�-�--'—"--'--- � a��o �( ,� . . . I'�, . .. . ; -- y . � ! �� / _ _.. _ , f . _ . _.� _ . : , ,I ' _. •�.2 ; :.. L :. `- / � �r. ��./ L'! .0 (_..- �( � ( _��'-� � . , / r'. , . ._ . � . r . � � I j � . �L J ' � ..._ { - — �7. ✓ � !. � � �.. . . � �.... � .. ; . .. i... �-�- �— � �— . � . � . ,. . c ._ . .,r- NEl��URAt�� U,�4 ia: FP,CP� Di,TE : Tovm Council ard Planning a�� Environm�r�tal Comm;ssicn Ccrranunity Dev�lopment Gepart�n�'nt �,pri 1 8, 1982 SUQ,JECT; D�scussion of view corridors for Vail Vi�iage Since tlie last m2eting ar view c�rridors, tf�e sta�f has been rev�ewing the opfio�l sugg�s�ed by several members of To.>rn Counci7 ard the P7�nni►�g and Environmen�al Cor�mission, �+ter discussing t?�;s ;;�tt; th� To:�rn Attorneys we aa°e presenting �:h"e° options for your review. 1, A11 views �ocume�ited by pnoto�raphs ��culd co�re under the def�inition noted below, The lir,es on phoiographs v�ould be on struc�ures. Ercroachment into the designatcd view corridors �nay be accep±able u�on der�onstration that tne overa7l quality of the v��a is not reduced. Emphasis should be upon framin3 and enharcing 4�ie�� corridors raiher than protrudinc direc±ly inte them, F �'i { L� � �r�� . � r�r.�{pj. �r� fi%1 ` �} {v i I E � _- t I � � � . Vie;vs of focal points should be preserved. Ta assure the vievi �ualit�es : in Uail, subnittals far all proposed exterior buildin9 maditications, whether in des;gr,ated vie�;� corridors er not, s��ould inclu�e a vis�aal ir�pact analysis �o demonstrate the i�npact on views from pedestrian wdys in the vicinity of the projec�. This analysis ceuid be in the form of sketches, photographic overla;�s, photographic touch ups, models, er other simulation techniques. A means of demonstrating in th�e fieid (on site) the impact on vietivs may also be ►�equired by the zoning administra�or. Concerns of the staff witH this approach are as follows: a, Must be vrilling to accept change in all v;etiv corridors. At the meeting there avas st�ll discussion that some should not change, anc+ the staf� could tell an applicant this viet�r corridor should nct have any encroach- ment, Under 0 zion nl al� vietiv corr�dors cou3d have encroachment./�JU b, The photos do not include every view in the Village, c� Must have predictabiiity. After revieti,� of photographs,-the Town Cottncil and Planning Commission m�ay want to de�ete or add new view corridors or focal points, _.. _ _ -- - ---- � � View CorriU��r•s 2- 2, If there are vie��s that should have n� encroach�7�ni, V;? should re�exariine the major/minor desi5r+ati�ns. Again, he lines on photos ti•�ould be placed next to the buil�ings. Toti�m C�uncil a�d the Plan►tipg and Environmental Commission can reduce the number of ma'or ar minor vie4r corridor P�Ott};at or change som° of the mGjor to minor. If there a+,e some �r,ajor view� should n�t have any encroachment, �ve m.st note this up front, so a developer does n�t get mislead. View corridors have been classified in o tl�ao categor�ies: t��ajor and minor and have been documented on photograph . Najor view corri�ors are vievrs of important vis�.�al features which ar� already wei1 framed and any furtner encroachment into the vie�,r would signi'�ficanily reduce its quality. P� p�oposed exterior buildin�h�_n�ps wh;'��h would en�roach int�,or alter, the designated major view corridors willl be unacceptable, except for minor modifications to the roof line or possi y new or mo 7�ed focal points. l � Minor vieVr corridors are views into which some encroachment would not I significantly reduce th? quaiity of thll,e view. Encroachr�ents inta the � designated m.inor view corridors may b�' acceptable upon demanstration thai k the overall quality of the view is no�, reduced. Emphasis should be upon J�J� �-��.� � framing and enhancing view corridars r±ather than protruding directly into em. ;:, :c�.�.�; Views of focal points as designated on the view corridor photos should . !� be preserved. To assure the view qualities in Vail, submittals for all proposed exterior building r�odifications, whether in designated view corridors or not, shou7d include a visual impact analysis to d m�nstrate the impact an viears from � ped°strian ways in the vicinity of th project. This analysis could �e in ihe form of sketches,%photographic ovet°lays, photcgrapnic touch ups, models;.�or other sir�ulation tect�nique . A means of demonstrating in the field (on site) the impact on views may also be required by the zonir,g administrator. /--i-�!'L<� e - s. �� .�.,�".� � 1Lr l .a � . `��"� 1 ^�� 1 ;��- � ,.�.. � 1,.va 3 . Concerns of the staff titi�ith this appro�ch are as follows: a. Possibly too difficult to disi��guish major f rom minor. b. Can't include all view corridor c. Too restrictive on major view c rridors and potentially reduces creati v i ty. J�.�-,�`.:� �2.�� -�.} a .:,��.� �, ;T �"i c,,� �'� � . Essential views of impor�ant visual f�atures have been defined on the photographs. Development up to the d�sigiiated line will be acceptable so long as it meets other criteria of',the Urban Desigi� Guide P7an and Design Considerations. Any proposed building changes which wil� encroach above or alter the designated view corridor wili require a revision to the plan (prior to approval of a specific proposal). Minor modifications to existing roof lines will be accept�d, . I � ,ievt Corridors �3- Concerns a. Difficult to agree on where the iines should be b, Too re5trictive c. Potentially reduce or eliminate cr�ativity d, Can`t include ali view corridors At the meeting, vre shouid focus on one of the options, reviev� the photographs and any other issues regarding views in Vail Village. i . - ,�� ,�,-� ' , ,,.�--� � s � ; � � L � � ��;�`} � ..�'` ��✓-� .-� � � � f . /r-�-i: -i,�r^ � ,..�� =�-'"� ; �--�j,� � �, e�-��-�' ° '�� --1 • �� ,�, �_ � � I� � ��-�'' r �c,�c .C'.�c.�`�.' �`" . f ,��%u-, �'e�-"� � �,�,.�,.`��z--�✓ J � ��, �,.,,��,,,.,, i �..�-�9�' � �_-��' � ,�,,� ��- . � ^.�.� ;��' �-}.� .�--� � �^ f - �...:� -��` � ��--'--� �' `� .,c-.-� ;�::,.� � -� I °`r'` . ,f ,�'--' � _ � , � .1= � � ��'�-,.-� iy U•-�°..-,,,� �''� � 1'Cz C� .�'! �' � ...[-C"' � .t. �¢ �ry z"i � y r -Z+y-,+"" _ _ ''v L.e�� 1 1 �r',L�-�ti.t� { �� • F � �� .�� G��! � �`.--t `;, � '� � 1 a'� �� `'��' .� ^ �.��-` � � z � � �'�' � -=__._` ' _ _ _ _. _l