HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 5 BLOCK 5A LOT K GALATYN LODGE FKA GARDEN OF THE GODS 3 SDD AGREEMENTS-1 LEGALo
AMENDED OWNER IMPROVEMENT AGREEI'{ENT
THIS AMENDED AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of
I L992, by and between THE MARGARET HILL MARITAL TRUST,(hereinafter called the rrownerrr), and the TOWN oF VAIL, (hereinafter
called the rrTownrr) .
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Owner and Town entered into an Owner Inprovement
Agreement on the _ day of , L992; and
WHEREAS, the owner and Town desire to amend such agreementpursuant to paragraph 8 of the Owner Improvement Agreement, as setforth below.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual covenants
and agreements, the owner and the Town agree as follows to thefollowing anendments to the Owner Improvement Agreement:
l-. The owner hereby agtrees, at its sole cost and expense, tofurnish all equipment and material necessary to perform and cornplete,
on or before Septernber 30, L992 all improvements listed below:
OFFSITE,/EAST SIDE OF
VAIL VALMY DRIVE3
Improvements
1. Type L3 Curb Inlet2. Curb and cutter3. Drainage Cross Pan4. Concrete Sidewalk5. Asphalt Patch (incJ-uding sawcut and rernoval)6. Stone Planters7. Const. Staking & Testing
OFFSITE,/WEST SIDE OF
VAIL VALLEY DRIVE:
Improvements
L. Paver Sidewalk2. Bus Stop Bench3. Relocated Bus Stop Sign Post
t
N=X!.E:
1. AII public walkways and ramps
2. The owner hereby agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to
furnish all eguiproent and roaterial necessary to provide for and
complete, on or before october 15, 1992 all onsite improvements as setforth in the owner Improvenent Agreement, except such items listed
above in paragraph 1, which will be completed on or before SeptenberL, L992.
3. Except as herein specified, all terms and conditions of the
Ortner Improvement Agreenent shall remain in full force and effect,
provided that if the provisions of this Anended owner rmprovement
Agreement shall in any way effect the provisions of such Owner
Improvement Agreement, the provisions of this Amended onner
Improvement Agreement shall control .
Dated the day and year first above written.
OWNER:
ATTEST:
STATE OF
COT'NTY OF
The
before rne
as
cor,,oRADo/r
it /cutn
foregoing^ ownerthisSJll-, day
SS.
fnproJ me,nt Agreement was
, L992 byof
of Margaret Hill
Witness my hand and official seal .
My conuaission expires on: lO'J 42-,
acknowledged
Notary
STATE OD COTORADO )) ss.
COUNTY OF EAGI,E )
The foregoing Owner Improvement Agreement was acknowledged
before me this _ day of
as andof the Town of Vail .
I{itness ny hand and official seal .
uy connission expires on:
, 1991 by
as
Notary Public
(reina
AMENDED OWNER IMPROVEI{ENT AGREEMENT
\,/-S-THIS AI,IENDED AGREEMENT, nade and entered into this c>{\ day of
_, L992, by and bethreen THE I,IARGARET HILL MARITAL TRUST,ter called the rrOwnerrt), and the TOWN OF VAIL, (hereinafter
e trTownrr )
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the
Agreement on the
OwrQr and Townof , L992; and
WHEREAS, the Owner and Town desire to arnend such agreenentpursuant to paragraph I of the Owner fmprovenent Agreenent, as setforth below.
Now THEREFORE, i., .orrJiaeration of the following mutual covenants
and agreements, the Owner and the Town agree as follows to thefollowing amendments to the Owner Irnprovernent Agreement:
day
l-. The Owner hereby ag'rees,furnish all eguiprnent and rnaterialon or before September L, L992 all
OFFSITE,/EAST STDE OF
VAIL VALLEY DRIVE:
Irnprovements
l-. Type 13 Curb Inlet2. Curb and Gutter3. Drainage Cross Pan4. Concrete Sidewalk5. Asphalt Patch (including sawcut6. Stone Planters7. Const. Staking & Testing
OFFSITE/WEST SIDE OF
VAIL VALLEY DRIVE:
Improvements
1. Paver Sidewalk2. Bus Stop Bench3. Relocated Bus Stop Sign Post
entered into an Owner Improvement
at its sole cost and expense, to
necessary to perforn and cornplete,
inprovenents listed below:
and renoval )
oNslqEr
1. all publlc lralkways and rarnpa
2' aho owrrer -l:"*!I.ugroes,.al: lts sore cost anct.expense, tofurniah arr eoulpment oi.to 'maieit*i-neJi^I;il ";r. provlrre for andcomplet,o, on oi uirtoro o.IJrer-:-i, 1992 aII onirt" improvshgnte ae setforth ln *)e owner rnrprov.nent -agreonre;t; ;;;;;; such rterns rlsredi:'l;r;l parasraph r, i'ntcir'wtir r!" ;;^pi6t"i"ii.,"o, berore seprember
- l: Excepl:. ae hereln spr,rolfled, al)owner r$provsment Agreernont "fioir rernajnprovlded that ir.tfre p.""fof"iii ot thtsAgroemen! shal] ln ani, way--uir"ct thnfrnprovement, Agreenent,- ilr6 piovl"tonerrnprovement agieemerit,lrrari"jon[ror .
torrns and condltiorre of theln full forde rnd etrei[.Anended owner rrnprovtrnen[provlelorrs of subn ownerof t-hle Anenoed ownir
Dated tlre day and year flrst ubovo wrltten.
Ol{NEIr r
TOW|{ oF vAIt
lly r
9TAT8 OF COI,ORADO
ATTESTt
couNrv oF EL P*o
Tlre foregolng
"Owner fmprovomentbefore ne thle 2:i;n!.day oi '- 7":1;4-ag_t*,. *€e_. oFTfi'eTiF
Wltnsee my hand tnd otflclal eon]. z
l{y conmleelon oxplres on, lo-d-qL-,
8f!,
Agrecrnent, ltae
::--.... t 1992 bYI.targaret ttl1l
acknowledged
./u.a qatu*
Uaritay trueil
STATE OF COLORADO )) ss.
couNTY oF EAGLE )
The foregoing Owner Inprovement Agreement was acknowledgedbefore rne this _ day of
as andor EnE-TowiJffiTt.
$Iitness ny hand and official seal .
My cornrqission expires on:
Notary Public
, 1991 by
as
OWNER II,IPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THrs AGREEMENT, nade and entered into this ,J*u., otdJv*,^lrut,
1992, by and among THE I,LARGARET HILL UARITAL SRUST' (hereinaftdr
called Lhe ,'Owner"l, and the TOWN OF VAIL, (hereinafter called the
nTownrr).
I{ITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Owner as a condition of approval of the Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy (hereinafter called the rrT.C.O.rr), wishes to
enter into an owner ImProvement Agreementi and
WHEREAS, the Owner is obligated to provide security or
collateral sufficient in the judgrment of the Town to urake reasonable
provisions for conpletion of certain improvements set forth belowi and
WHEREAS, the Owner wishes to provide collateral to guarantee
performance of this agreement, including construction of the above-
referenced improvernents by means of the following:
Owner agrees to have issued an irrevocable letter of credit in a
dollar amount as set forth beJ.ow, such letter of credit shall
provide security for the following:
OFFSITE/EAST SIDE OF
VAIL VALLEY DRIVE:
ouantitv Unit PriceInprovements
1. Type L3 Curb Inlet l- S1,5oo.oolea.2. Curb and Gutter 90 L.F. I 14.AO/L.F.
3. Drainage Cross Pan 200 L.F. $ 33.8O/L-F-
4. Concrete Sidewalk 275 S.F. $ 3.81-lS.F.
5. Asphalt Patch (including
sawcut and removal) 20o S.F. $ 4.30lS.F-
6. Stone Planters 2 S2,5ao.oo/ea.7. Const. Staking &
Testing $1,000.00
Cost
$ 1,5OO. OO
$ 1,296.OO
I 676.0O
s 1, 058.75
$ 860.00
$ 5, OOO. OO
$ 1, OOO. O0
OFFSITE/WEST SIDE OF
VAIL VALLEY DRIVE:
fmprovenents
l-. Paver sideltalk
2. Bus stop bench
3. Relocated Bus StoP
Sign Post
TOTAL OFFSITE
ONSITE:
Improvements
L. Trench drains
2. Entry drive/parking3. Walks & ramps
4. Steps5. Boulders5. Landscaping
7. Swinming pool deck
6. liliscellaneous
TOTAL ONSITE
TOTAL OFFSITE
GRAND TOTAL
ouantitv Unit Price
L636 S.F.
I
90 L.F.
3550 S.F.
635 S.F.
245 S.r.
lump sum
lump sum
l_500 s. F.
I 7.r.o/s.r.
$ 35o. Oo/ea.
s soo.oo
Cost
11, 452 . 00
350.00
500.00
23,692.75
Cost
$ 1, L25.00
$ 19,525.00
i 2 ,413.009 2,278.50
$ L2 , OO0. o0
$ 60,O00.00
$ 5,750.00s r.. 500.00
$107 , 091. 50
5 23,692.75
$L29 ,284.25
$
s
s
s
Ouantitv Unit Price
$
$
s
$
$
L2.5O/L.F.
5.5O/L.F .
9. 3ols. F.
9. 30lS. F.
4.5O/5.F.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual covenants
and agreements, the owner and the Toltn agree as follorts:
L. The owner hereby agrees, at its sole cost and exPense, to
furnish all equipment and naterial necessary to perform and complete'
on or before August l-, L992 all improvements listed above-
The Owner shall conplete, in a good workmanlike manner' all
improvements as listed above, in accordance with all plans and
spLcifications filed in the office of the Comrnunity Development
Dlpartment, the Town of Vail, and to do all work incidental thereto
according to and in compliance ltith the following:
a. AII laws of the united states of America, state of colorado
or the Town of VaiI and its respective agencies, affected
special districts and,/or service districts.
b. Such other designs, drawings, maps' specifications,
sketches, and other matter subrnitted by the Owner to be
approved by any of the above-referenced governnental
e-ntities. aff slid work shall be done under the inspection
of, and to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, the Town
nuilding Official , or other official from the Town of VaiI'
affectei special districts or service districts, as their
respective interest nay appear, and shall not be deemed
compl_ete untit approved and accepted as completed by - the
Town of Vail Comrnunity Development Department and I}ublic
Works Department.
2. Ttre total estirnated cost of said work and irnprovements is
the sum of $l-29,284.25.
To secure and guarantee performance of its obligations as set
forth herein, the Owner agrees to provide security and collateral
as follows:
A letter of credit in such anount
the attached Exhibit rrArt.
in substantial confornitY to
3. The Owner may at any tirne substitute the collateral
originally set forth above for another form of collateral acceptable
to ihe Town to guarantee the faithful cornpletion of those improvements
referred to herein and the performance of the terms of this Agreement.
Such acceptance by the Town of alternative collateral shal.l be at the
Torrn I s sole discretion.
4. The Tovitn shall not, nor shall any officer or enployee
thereofi be liable or resPonsible for any accident, loss or danage
happening or occurring to the work specified in this Agreement prior
to the conpletion and acceptance of the same, nor shal1 the Town' nor
any officei or employee thereof, be liable for any Persons or property
inJured by reason of the nature of said work, but all of said
fiabilities shall and are hereby assumed by the owner.
The Owner hereby agrees to indennify and hold harmless the
Town, and any of itl oificers, agents and enployees against any
losses, ctaims, damages, or liabitities to which the Tohln or any such
of its officers, agents, or employees may becone subject to, ^insofaras any such losset, ciairns, dfunages or liabilities (or actions in
respect thereof) that arise out of or are based upon any Performance
Uy tne Owner hereundert and the Owner shall reinburse the Town
for any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by the
Town in connection with investigating or defending any such loss,
claim, damage, liability or action. This indernnity provision shall be
in addition to any other liability which the owner may have.
5. It is rnutually agreed that the Owner nay apply to the Tonn
and the Town shall authorize for partial release of the letter of
credit for each category of irnprovement at such tine as such
irnprovements are constructed in comPliance with all plans and
specifications as referenced hereunder and accepted by the Town. By
wly of example, upon completion and acceptance by the Town of the
paver siaewilk to be constructed on the west side of Vail Val1ey Drive
ihe surn of $I-0rOOO.OO shall be reduced fron the letter of credit if so
requested by the Owner.
6. If the Town deterurines that any of such inprovement as
contemplated hereunder are not constructed in conplialce with the
plans and specifications set forth herein, it shall furnish the Owner
i fist of specific deficiencies and shall be entitled to continue to
withhold collateral to insure such compliance. If the Town determines
that the Owner will not construct any or all of the iroprovements in
accordance with all of the specifications and time tables as set forth
herein, the Town nay give the owner r^tritten notice and unless such
improvenents are cornptetea by the dates as set forth above or within a
reisonable period atter such date if weather does not pgrnit the
cornpletion of such inprovements, the Town nay draw upon the letter of
credit such funds as may be necessary to conplete the unfinished
improvements but not in an arnount greater than the amount as set forth
opposite the category listed above.
7. The owner warrants all work and material for a period of
one year after acceptance of all work referred to in this Agreement by
the Town if such work is located on fotrtn of VaiI land or road
right-of-way.
8. The partj_es hereto mutually agree that this Agreement may.be
amended frorn time to time, provided that such amendments be in writing
and executed by all parties hereto.
Dated the day and year first above written.
OWNER:
STATE OF COIORADO
COUNTY OF
The foregoing Owner
before me tbis )1 dayas Trustee
ss.
Agreement was acknowledged
. L992 by Marear
oi tf,6-tF{Margaret Hill Marital Trust.
Witness ny hand and official seal.
l.!y
STATE OF COI.,ORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
ss.
of the Town of Vail.
Witness my hand and official seal .
l,ly comnission expires on:
URAtttlE S. 0Ef0' t',lotafy Publlc
mv Cormisdm Expires September 26' 19!15- 75S. F ontageRoad, Vti|, C0 81657
The foregoing owner Improvement Agreement was
before me this Jl day of Ftdevte-Y , L99L by
as Town Manager
-and-
PanE[a-T. BiEndmeyer as
acknowledged
Rondall V. Phlllips
Town Clerk
Notary Public
o b\G
OWNER IIIPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
sand entered into this lJ-aay or
I.I,ARGARET HILL I.{ARITAL TRUST,
the TowN oF VAIL, (hereinafter
(hereinaftdr
called the
THIS AGREEMENT, made
L992, by and anong THE
called the rrownerrr) , andtrTownrr).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the owner as a condition of approval of the TemPorary
Certificate of occupancy (hereinafter caLled the I'T.c.o.rr), wishes to
enter into an owner Improvenent Agreementi and
WHEREAS, the Owner is obligated to provide security or
collateral sufficient in the judgment of the Town to make reasonable
provisions for conpletion of certain irnprovernents set forth below; and
WHEREAS, the Owner wishes
performance of this agreement,
referenced inprovements by means
to provide collateral to guarantee
including construction of the above-
of the following:
owner agrees to have issued an irrevocable letter of credit in a
dolLar imount as set forth below, such. Ietter of credit shall
provide security for the following:
OFFSITE/EAST SIDE OF
VATL VAI,LEY DRIVE:
Inprovenents Ouantitv Unit Price
L. Type 13 Curb Inlet l- $1,500.Oo/ea.2. Curb and Gutter 90 L.F. S 14.4O/L.F.
3. Drainage Cross Pan 200 L.F. $ 33.go/L.F.
4. Concrete Sidewalk 275 s.F. S 3.8Lls.F.
5. Asphalt Patch (including
sawcut and removal) 2o0 S.F. $ 4.3OIS.F.
6. stone Planters 2 $2,5oo.oo/ea.7. const. Staking &Testing $1, ooo. oo
Cost
$ 1,500. oo
$ 1,296.OO
s 676. OO
$ 1, 058. 75
$ 860. oo
$ 5, 000. 00
I 1, 000. 00
\
OFFSITE,/I{EST SIDE OF
@:
fmprovements
1. Paver sidewalk2. Bus stop bench3. Relocated Bus Stop
Sign Post
TOTAL OFFSTTE
ONSfTE 3
Inprovements
1. Trench drains
2. Entry drive/parking3. l{alks & ramps4. Steps5. Boulders6. Landscaping?. Swinning pool deck6. Miscellaneous
TOTAL ONSITE
TOTAL OFFSITE
GRAND TOTAL
ouantitv Unit Price
1536 S.F. I 7.10lS.F.r- $ 350. 00/ea.
$ s00. 00
ouantitv Unit Price
90 L.F.
3550 S.F',.
635 S.F.
245 S.F.
lunrp sun
Iunp sun
1500 s.F.
L2.5O/L.F.
5.sO/L.F .
9 .3O/5.F.
9.30/5.F.
4.5O/S.F .
Cost
t_l,452 . 00
350.00
500.00
23 ,692.75
Cost
$ 1,125. Oo
$ 19,525.O0
I 2,41-3. OO
9 2,278.50
i L2,000. OO
$ 6O,OO0.0O
$ 6,750. 0Os 1. soo. 00
$1O7, 09L. 50
s 23.692.75
ii,29 ,284.25
$
$
$
s
$
$I
$
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual covenants
and agreements, the Owner and the Town agree as follows:
l-. The owner hereby agtrees, at its sole cost and expense, tofurnish all eguipment and rnaterial necessary to perfonn and complete,
on or before August L, 1992 all improvements listed above.
The owner shall complete, in a good workmanlike manner, all
improvements as listed above, in accordance with all plans andspecifications filed in the office of the Community Development
Department, the Town of Vail, and to do all work incidental thereto
according to and in compliance with the following:
a. AII laws of the United States of America, State of Colorado
or the Town of VaiI and its respective agencies, affectedspecial districts and/or service districts.
o
b. Such other designs, drawings, maps, specifications,
sketches, and other matter subnitted by the ohtner to be
approved by a.!ly of the above-referenced governmental
eirtities. lff tiia worf shalt be done under the inspection
of, and to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, the Town
Building Official , or other official fron the Town of Vail'
affected special districts or service districts, as their
respective interest may aPpear, and shall not be deemed
complete until approved and accepted as conpleted by the
Town of VaiI Couununity Developrnent Department and Public
I{orks Department.
2. The total estimated cost of said work and improvements is
the surn of 9L29,284.25.
To secure and guarantee performance of its obligations as set
forth herein, the Owner agrees to provide security and collateral
as follows:
A letter of credit in such anount in substantial conformity to
the attached Exhibit rrArr.
3. The Owner may at any tirne substitute the collateral
originally set forth above for another form of collateral acceptable
to the Town to guarantee the faithful cornpletion of those improvements
referred to herein and the performance of the tenns of this Agreement.
Such acceptance by the Town of alternative collateral shall be at the
Townrs sole discretion.
4. The Town shall not, nor shalL any officer or ernployee
thereofi be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage
happening or occurring to the work'specified in this Agreenent prior
to the conpletion and acceptance of the same, nor shall the Town, nor
any officer or ernployee thereof, be liable'for any persons or property
injured by reason of the nature of said work, but all of said
liabilities shall and are hereby assurned by the owner.
The owner hereby agrees to indernnify and hold harmless the
Town. and any of its o-ficers, agents and employees against any
losses, clairn-, damages, or liabilities to which the Town or any such
of its officers, agents, or ernployees may becorne subject to, .insofaras any such lossel, ciairns, aarnages or liabilities (or actions in
respect thereof) that arise out of or are based upon any perfornance
Uy the Owner hereunder; and the Owner shall reirnburse the Town
for any and all J.egal or other expenses reasonably incurred by the
Town in connection with investigating or defending any such loss,
claim, damage, Iiability or action. This indernnity provision shall be
in addition to any other liability which the owner may have.
c
5. It is mutually agreed that the owner nay apply to the Toun
and the Town shall authorize for partial release of the letter of
credit for each category of inprovenent at such tirne as such
improvements are construAted in cornpliance with aII plans and
splcifications as referenced hereunder and accepted by the Town. By
wiy of example, upon comptetion and acceptance by the- Town of- the
pai"r sidewilk-to be constructed on the west side of vail valley Drive
ihe s,t. of gi.0,ooo.oo shall be reduced from the letter of credit if so
requested by the ottner.
6. If the Town deternines that any of such improvement as
contemplated hereunder are not constructed in conpliance with the
plans lnd specifications set forth herein, it shalt furnish the Owner
i fi"t of s-pecific deficiencies and shall be entitled to continue to
withhold collateral to insure such compliance. If the Town determines
that the Owner will not construct any or all of the improvenents in
accordance with all of the specifications and tine tables as set forth
herein, the Town may give the Owner written notice and unless such
improvements are comptetea by the dates as set forth above or within a
reisonable period after such date if weather does not permit the
cornpletion of such improvements, the Town may draw upon the letter of
cre-dit such funds as- may be necessary to cornplete the unfinished
improvements but not in an amount greater than the amount as set forth
opposite the category listed above.
7. The Owner warrants all work and material for a Period of
one year after acceptance of aII work referred to in this Agreement by
the Town if such work is located on Town of Vail land or road
right-of-way.
8. The parties hereto mutually agree that this Agreement rnay be
amended from t-ime to tirne, provided that such amendments be in writing
and executed by all parties hereto.
Dated the day and year first above written.
OWNER:
d
STATE OF COLoRADO
COUNTY OF
Myc
STATE OF
COUNTY OF EAGLE
ss.
The foregoi-ng Owner Improvernent Agreement was acknowledgedbefore ne this J'{ day of f, aptt,MLi , Lggz by Marearet Hunt Hinas Trustee of the The'Margaret Hill Marital Trust.
Witness my hand and officiaL seal .
)) ss.
)
The foregoing Owner Inprovenent Agreement wasbefore ne this J7 day of Fte tuan-y , ]-ggL byas r o\"rn ltanager and parnela A. Brandmeyer asot Erre roTn oi-vafr.
acknowledged
Rondall V, Phillips
Town Clerk
Witness rny hand and official seal .
My conrnission expires on:
DORlA,t'ttlE S. DEIO, Notary Public
W Commission Expkes Sept€mber 26, 1995
75 S. Fronlage Road, Val, C0 81657
-./ ,? /// // ./-/\L/,,4,u-+tit"t' tLLh)Notary Publ.ic
Dlotary
EA\{t( ON{
Letters of Credit Department
Bank One, Texas, NA
P.O. Box 655415, Dallas, Texas 75265-5415
o *'.'&i"* ilil n'JlH" :; H81,"'lif lt
SWIFT BONE US 4D
/2
February 18, 7992
Torn of Vall
75 South Frontage Road llest
Vail, Colorado 41657
6entl.emen:
l{e hereby open our Irrevocable Letter of Gredlt 1n your favor
available by draft or drafte at eight dravn on BANK ONE, TEXAS' HA
for any tum or sums not exceeding J.n total the sum of ONE HUNDRED
THIRTY THOUSAND AND NO,/1OO U.5. DOLLARS (US513O,OOO.OO).
Thj.s Letter of Cred1t ls for the account of }largaret HilI lllarltal
Trust, 5OOO Thankegiving Tower, Dallae, Texas 75247.
The purpose of this Letter of Credit is to guarantee performance
for its certain Developer fmprovement Agreement betveen I'largaret
HiII llaritaL Trust and the Tovn of Vai-l dated February \B' 1992
( t fnprovement Agreementt ).
\This Letter of Cred1t may be drarn upon by the Torn of Vail upon
presentment to BANK ONE, TEXAS. NA, L7L7 llaj-n Street, Dallae, Texag
732OI a etatement ei.gned by the Tovn l'lanager of the Tovn of VaiI
verl'fying that l'largaret HiIl l,tarl.ta]' Trust j.e l-n defau1t under the
Irnprovement Agreement.
The draft dravn on BANK BNE, TEXAS, NA shall be endorsed on the
reverse side of thie Letter of Credlt and bear upon lts face "Dravnunder Letter of Credit No.5146851004-lB, dated February lB, 7992,
of BANX ONE, TEXAS, NA.
This Letter of Credlt shaLl expire on November Ol, 1992.
BANK ONE, TEXAS, NA agrees vlth the draners, endorgere and bonafide
holders of draft dravn and negotlated in compllance vlth the terms
of this Letter of Credlt that euch draft vLLl be duly honored upon
due presentation at the counter of thie Bank.
BANK ONE, TEXAS, NA representr and rarrants to the Totrn of Va1l.
that it has the f u.11. authority and pover to 16sue this Letter of
Credit to the Tovn of Va1]-, in the total amount and for the period
of tine stated herein; said authorlty beJ.ng pursuant to the lavs of
the United States, or the state or terrltory vhJ'ch governs the
establishrnent and regulatlon of BANK ONE, TEXAS, NA and BANK ONE,
TEXAS, NA's charter. by-Iavs, and other applicable rules and
Rr 10307-D Nl (2Bl )
' ' banw oue' Letters of Credit Department
' Bank One, Texas, NA
' P.O. Box 655415, Dallas. Texas 75265-5415
.I --
cooes: Peterson Tnrro |}ourrn Eurtrons
TELEX 163102 Answer-Back BONE US 4D
SWIFT BONE US 4D
SEAUENCE HO. 2/2
LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 5T46S5100A-IS
regulatlone adopted pursuant thereto. ShouLd lt be neceeeary for
the Torn of Val.l to file Bult In an effort to enforce th16
Irrevocable Letter of CredJ-t, BANK OilE, TEXAS, HA hereby rives all
venue rlghte end submJ-ts to the Jur1sdlctJ'on of the D1strict Court
J.n and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
ALl drafte hereunder ahall be honored durlng the term ea Bet forth
above.
Si.ncereIy,
TEXAS,
8110307-0 Nl eBr)
.(. .
r\ .' a-''{. - |
t?2-/l 4A9882 8-59.3 F-786. JOHNN€TTE FHILLIPS
n{-
4lao -
JJ,/O7/,92 JJ:OS FG I OF 4 REC
EBGLE COUNTY CLERK, COLORADO 2O.OO
t>0c
o.00
DECIARATTON OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTTONS
FOR SHORT TERl.l RENTAL ttNITS
This Declaratigq of Covenants,entered into this 6q auy of ba-z
onditions and Restrictions is
, 1991 by the I.IARGARET HrLL
UARITAL TRUST, WHOSE TRUSTEE-GARET HITNT ltILL, (hereinafter
referred to as the rrOwnern),
WIIEREAS, the Orrner onns the property known as I.ot K, Block 5A,Vail Village Fifth Filing, County of Eagle, State of Colorado(hereinafter referred to as the rrsubject Propertyrr); and
WHEREAS, the Owner wishes to place certain restrictions,
covenants and conditions on the use of a portion of the SubjectProperty for the benefit of the Owner and the Town of Vail(hereinafter referred to as the trTowntr).
NOW, THEREFORE the Onner does trereby impose, establish,
acknowledge, and declare for the benefit of all persons who mayhereinafter purchase, lease or hold the Subject Property or anyportion thereof, the following restrictions, covenants and conditionsall of which shall run with the land and inure to the benefit and bebinding upon the owner, its respective grantees, successors andassigns.
1. The Subject Property shall contain eleven (11) accommodationunits designated as 210,2L4,2L7, 2261 229t 2321 3L6,3L9,327, 330
and 333 on the Second Floor Plan and Third Floor Plan Sheets A5 and A6dated February L4, 1991, Snowden and Hopkins Architects; four (4)
acconmodation unit lock-offs designated as 2OO, 236, 312 and 337 onthe Second Floor Plan and Third Floor Plan Sheets A5 and A5 dated
February L4, 1991", Snowden and Hopkins Architectsi and three (3)dwelling units designated as 2A, 28 and 3A, on the Second Floor Plan
and Third floor Plan, Sheets A5 and A6, dated February L4, L99L,
Snowden Hopkins Architects. Such sheets being on file in the
Community Development Department of the Town of Vail. Such designated
acconnodation units, Iock-off units and dwelling units (hereinafter
collectively referred to as rrshort Terrn Rental Unitsrr) are herebyrestricted and nade subject to the following:
a. An ownerrs personal use of his or her Short Tera Rental Unitshall be restricted to 28 days during the seasonal period of
December 24th to January lst and February lst to March 20th.This seasonal period is trereinafter referred to as rrHigh
Seasonrr. rlOwnerrs personal uselr shall be defined as ownerrs
occupancy of a Short Term Rental Unit or non-paying guest of
!5
?t
.j
J
489882 8*593 P-786 lJ/O9/92 11:OS FG2OF4
the Owner or taking the Short Tetm Renta1 Unit off of therental market during the seasonal periods referred to hereinfor any reason other than for Decessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which may nake a Short lerm Rental Unitunrentable. Occupancy of a Short Tern Rental Unit by ananager or staff enployed by the Ohmer to run the subJectproperty, houever, shall not be restricted by this
Agreenent.
A violation of thie Agreement by the Orrner shall subJect the
Owner to daily assessnent rate by the Town of Vail of threetines the rate considered to be a reasonable daily rentalfor the Short Term Rental Unit at the tine of the vl.olationwhich assessment when paid shall be a fine belonging to theTown. AII sums assessed against the Owner for the violationof the Oqrnerrs personal use restriction and which remainsunpaid shall constitute a lLen for the benefit of the Townon the subject property, vhich lien shal.l be evidenced by awritten notice, placed of record, in the office of the Clerk
and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado and which may becollected by foreclosure on the Subject Property by the Townof Vail in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on theSubject Property. In the event litigation results from the
enforcement of a restriction as part of its reward to theprevaiJ.ing party the court shall award said party its courtcosts together with reasonable attorneyrs fees incurred.
The Town of VaiI shall have the right to require of the
Owner an annual report of the Ownerrs personal use duringthe High Season for all the Short Ter.m Rental Units.
The Short Term Rental Units shall not be used as permanentresidences. For the purposes of this sub-paragraph aperson shal.l be presuned to be a pernanent resident if suchperson has resided in the Short Tern Rental Unlt for sixconsecutive months, notwithstanding fron tine to tine,during such six month period the person may briefly dwell inotber places.'
The Short Tern Rental Units shall remain available to ageneral tourist market. lhis requirenent rnay be net byinclusion of a Short Tern Rental Units at comparable ratesin any local reservation systen for the rental of lodge orcondominiun units in the Town of Vail .
The restrictions in this Agreement shall be nodified orterminated to be of no further force and effect if SectionL7.26.075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail has
I
b.
d.
e.
f.
i 489882 8-593 P-786 JJ,/O9192 tJ:OS PG3OF4
expired or been, finalry deternined to be invalid by a courtof conpetent Jurl.sdiction or anended in such a Danner as topernit removal or nodlfication of such restrictidr.- --
2. The short Term Rental units shall not be divided lnto anyforn of tineshares, Lnterval ownersnrp oi--racitonar ree ownei;hip.
4- The conditions, restrictions, stipulatr.ons and agreenentscontained hereLn shall r.tot be waived, aiana"iJa, -ierninated or amendedaccept as set forth herein or by written con-tnt-of both the Town ofVail and the Owner.
TIIE TOTIN VATL,a Munic Corpora
lI v.l1 Ps,Town lfanager ?t
\rJHILL IiIARITAL TRUST,IS I,IARGARET HUNT
STATE OF TE-TAS
COUNTY OF DALq6
)) ss.
)
,.\" ,f:"?soirg^I5. acknowtedged before ne this /^ aay ot441-, L99r by Margaret Hunt Hir] as TrusEFor ihe t{argaretMarital Trust as the said property orners.
Witness ny hand and official seal .
l,!y connission o<pires on:
;ffi$ii$-
o
l""*":nirBlti"iff 13fi 'y?F'a?i?**of
-\i,!t"t"
ny hand and offlcLal eeal.
S"":"Yi.t:ion er<P!'res on: % J4 t'ts+
i,x. t': ri ' ,'i'zi:,
4Ag882 8-593 P-786 lJ,/o9,/92 Jl:O5 Fg40F4
luA^t$L S. pa!*rr-
a'a
STATE OF COIORADo
COUNTY OF E.AGI..E
Corpora
)) ss.
)
trrts l?* aay
as1, a ltunl.cipal
il
)\
it
':,2,t ct["
7l'E -
'rl a3gaat B-59J F-7a5 lJ,/09,/92 1J:oS
JOHNNETTE FHILLIPS EAGLF COLINTY CLERK'
F6 I i,- J
coL0f':.:';D0
RFC
15.o0
DOC
County of Eagle,to as trsubject
DECIARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICITONS
FOR EI,TPIPYEE DIYELLTNG UNITS
r*t
These Restrictive covenants nade and entered Lnto this (.,P dayof ?'It+a.ztl, , 1991 by the Margaret Hlll ltarital TruFElwhoseTrustee is Uargaret Hunt HiIl (hereinafter referred to as the
rOwnerrr ) .
WIIEREAS, the Owner owns the property described as folloss:
I.,ot K, Block 5A, Vail Village Fifth Filing,State of Colorado, (hereinafter referred
Propertyrr) ; and
WHEREAS, the owner wishes to place certain restrictions on the
use of certain areas of the improvements located on the SubjectProperty for the benefit of the Owner and the Town of Vail(hereinafter referred to as the ttTownrr) .
Now, THEREFORE the owner does hereby impose, establish,
acknowledge, and declare for the benefit of all persons who may
hereinafter purchase, lease or hold the Subject Property or portionsthereof, the following restrictions, covenants and conditions shall
run with the land and inure to the benefit and be binding upon the
owner, its respective grantees, successors and assigns.
1. The Subject Property shall contain two restricted employeedwelling units in the approxinate size of 900 square feet each. Therestricted enployee units located on the subject property are
designated as Suite 18 and Suite lC on the First Floor Plan, SheetA-3, dated February 14, 1991, Snowden and Hopkins Architects. SuchfLoor plans are on fil,e in the Conrrunity Developnent Department of the
Town of Vail.
2. The restricted enployee dwelling units shall not be leasedor rented for any period of less than thirty (3O) consecutive days,
and if it shall be rented, shall be rented only to tenants who arefull tine employees of the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valleyshall be deemed to include the core VaIIey, llinturn, Redcliff, Gilman,Eagle-Vail and Avon and the surrounding areas. A full tine enployeeis person who works an average of thirty (30) hours per week.
3. The restricted enployee dwelling units shall not be dividedinto any forur of tineshares, interval ownership or fractional fee
ownership.
4. The provisions hereof may be enforced by the Ormer or the
Town, although the Town shall have no obligation to enforce these
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
?5
?l
;j
5. The conditions, restrictLons, stlpulatLons and agreements
contained herej-n shall not be waived, abandoned, terminated or amended
accept by written consent of both the Town and the Orrner of therestricted eurployee dwelling units.
OF VAIL,
THE ITARGARET HII,L I.IARITAL TRUST,
I{IIOSE TRUSTEE IS I{ARGARET HT'NT
o
Y
LO
d
STATE OF TE,*S
couNlY oF DALL4S
ss.
The fo egoing was
, 1991Trust as
Wltness rny hand and official seal .
My connission expires
./acknowledged before ne this lla day ofby Dtargaret Hunt HiIl as Trustfe of the Dlargaretthe said property owners.
;ffi,fi$l
THE TOWN
v.
48ga8t 8*593 F'785 11,'/09,/92 1J:03 FG2OF3
I t'.
I
l
l
:*a
ETATE OF COI'RADO
CPUII] T OF EAGIIE
)) ss.
)
0m,r'nolTrlF"i"*"?'f .91?lf Fi:i,F*'"*t".Jcdavof
inrnicipar
tlLtneEe ny hand and offlclal eeal.
l.ty connlselon ex2lres on3 0*01tttq+
-Ut *4
-S=.
Brtat*,ItotarT lrubllc
?-(o
4a9AAl a-59.5 P_7f.5 rJ/09/92 tl:03 P€3OF3
7)'s
,&"lt
.V\.' 4iltll B-st4 p-gIl| \J/tJ/g2 t2:21 p6 I 0f J EEc- JOI/'{I{EIIT PHILLUS f,hlLl COUilft CLERi,, Cr/Lr,RADfl 15.00
00c
0.00
EASEMENT DEED
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THAT THE UARGARET HILL MARITAL TRUST (hereinafter referred to asItGrantorrr), for Ten Dollars ($fO.OOl and other good and valuableconsideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, herebygrants and conveys to THE TOWN OF VAIL, a Col-orado MunicipalCorporation, whose legal address is P.O. Box LOO, Vail, Colorado81658, (hereinafter referred to as rrcranteerr), the following realproperty situate i.n the corrnty of Eagle, State of Colorado, to-wit:
A perpetual non-exclusive pedestrian easement for the right ofingress and egress over the property described on the attachedExhibit rrArr (the ItEasementrr).
THE Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, does herebygrant and convey the same in manner and forrn as aforesaid, subject to
those easements, restrictions, covenants and rights-of-way of record,if any. Said easement to rernain in the quiet and peaceable possession
of Grantee, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or
persons lawfully claining the whole or any part thereof, by or through
the Grantor, which crantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND.
crantor shaLl be entitled to place improvements on the Easenent,
such as paved walkways, benches or signs.
Acceptance of this easement by crantee shall constitute its
agreement and consent as follows:
l-. At such time and in the event that the easement described
herein shalI be abandoned, Granteers real property interest in the
easement shall irnmediately revert to and be thereaft-er merged with theservient estate.
2. Grantee agrees to properly maintain, repa.Lr and replace, if
necessary, irnprovements whether now or hereafter constructed on the
Easement.
srcNED AND DELIVERED this i5 a"y ot feAAt*ul , Lss2.
GRANTOR:
t:
rl
o
471101 8-574 p-988 03/tl/92 t2:27 pe 2 0f J
GRANTEE:
TOWN OF VAIL, a colorado
ATTEST:Munici Corporation
By:
LO
tlO
(;lss.
instrument was acknowledged before
1-992 by Margaret Hill as Trustee
me this c-l 5 dayof The Margaret
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
SS.
of
as
as
Town Clerk
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF
{he foregoingof tEB Rt.ra'2 r-l ,HiIl Marital frust.
Witness my hand and official seal .
lres on:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before rne this J7 day
, 1992 by Rondall V. Philltps
Town clerk of the Tohrn of Vail, a Colorado Municipal
Witness ny hand and official seal .
My cornrnission expires on:
47tt|l8-571 p-eis 0J/Jil92 tz:27 PSIOFJ
EXITIBIT A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
That part of L.,ot kt Block 5-A, Vail- Village, Fifth Filing'
according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle
County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows:
Beginning at the most easterly corner of said Lot k, said corner
being a point of curve at the north end of a 20 foot radius curve
and the south end of a I22.38 foot long tangent line; thence, alongthe easterly line of said Lot k. l-0.11 feet along said curve t,o theright, having a radius of 2O.00 feet,, a central angle of 28'57'18"r
and a chord that bears 506'28'39"W L0.00 feet; thence, departing
said easterly line, N6Lo14'23"W 9.36 feet; thence NOB'00 3L.00
feet; thence N13"44'l-B"E 27.00 feet to the easterly line of said
Lot k; thence, along said easterly line, S08'00'00,'E 52.00 feet to
the Point of Beginning, containing 463 square feet, more or less.
DaLez .7-t4- e?
SCALE: l" .30
so8(,00'oo"E
52.OO'
POINT OF BEGINNING
R . 2O.OO'
A: e8o57'18"
L: lO.ll'
CH: S 06o28'39"w,
ro,oo'
11
)
)
Stan Hogf
Colorado
N t3044' r8" E
27,OO'
LOT
NO80 00'OO" W
3r.oo
N6tot4'23" W
9,36'
-!
Present
Chuck Gist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Ludwig Kurz
Kathy Langenwalter
Jim Shearer
Gena Whittcn
F[t: . , -lf
PLANMNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 12,l99l
Staff
Kristan Prie
Mike Mollica
JiIl Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
Amber Blecker
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at 2:05PM-
Shelly Mello explained the staff approval stemmed from discrepancies between the original
suryey, completed by Eagle Valley Surveying, and the Improvement Location Certificatc
g.L.C.) by Robitlard Associates. Pam Hopkins, represcnting thc applicant, said the new
building had been located per the survey conducted by Dan Corcoran. They used Robillard
and Associates because they were conducting the on-site road improvemcnt survcys and
where thus more casily accessible. Pam and Shelly both suted the building appeared to be
sited correctly, ard the disoepancies werc related to lot line lengths.
Kristan Pritz explained one survey needed to be chosen for use as the legal description for the
SDD Ordinance. Kathy Langenwalter agreed, stating there was a need for documentation.
Diana Donovan was concemed how the discrepancies might affect the ridge line height and
the corresponding view corridor. Krisun said staff felt the building was in the right location,
but staff
"eeacA
only one base map document. Staff would have the ridge elevation shot
when appropriate from the original view corridor location. Shelly indicated a third survey to
be performed would determine the survey of record, since neither of the two previous
su*eyots could find fault with their original surveys. Diana stated there was a need to find
the mistake and establish a legal desoiption. Kathy suggested researching to determine if
there was morc than one title report for the property, and if perhaps that could have been the
basis for any discrepancies. Pam agreed to do that research.
t
Kathy Langenwalter movcd to apprcve thc staffs approval of a minor amendment to
Community Development Department No. 22, Gardcn of the fu$ Lot K, Block 5A, Vail
Village 5th Filing/365 Vail Valley Drivc with thc condition thu the disorpancies between the
survcys be resolved- Ludwig Kurz sccondcd the motion. It was approved 60-1, wittt Connie
Knight abstaining.
2. A rpouest for a fr,ont sctback variance for thc Tuov Residcncc. Lot 33. Buffehr Geek
Resubdivision/I90l Chamonix Lane.
Aoplicant Lcon Tupv
Planner: Andv Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen explained thc changes from the prcvious hearing on the request, and
introduced into the record a petition ftrom thc ncighborhood asking the Commission to deny
the request for a sctback variance. Staff recommendcd approval of the variance with
conditions as listed in the mcmo.
E.J. Meade, architect for the applicant, explained that ttre most significant change from the
previous hearing was that the primary unit had been moved to the west, out of the setback,
and the gamge doms had also been shiftcd to the west. Thesc changes resulted in a decrcase
of 100 sq. ft. from the building. Another improvement was the landscaping location, which
would decrcase the visual impact of the structure. Addrcssing the safety issue, E.J. indicated
the building would not block the view from thc interscction. E.J. stated thc owners had no
intention of developing the portion of the lot on the other side of the creck, further reducing
the impacts of thc development.
Since flooding had been an issue raised at the previous PEC meeting, the owners werc
working with engineen and a hydrologist to protect not only the Tupy rcsidence, but the
neighbors as well. Mitigation bcing proposed includcd a berm along the side of the structure
and the placement of a gravel swale.
A neighbor asked if cars would be able to turn around in the driveway, or if they would have
to back out. E.J. indicated they would back out, similar to the adjacent lot to the south.
Neighbor Clnthia Steiu asked what the ft,ont wall was for. E.J. said it was terraced to
prcvent erosion.
Ioyette Goodell, a neighbor, said that although staff had lookcd at the development potential
during the summer, there were winter impacts as well. Specifically, the Town uses the lot for
dumping snow. In addition, it had been indicated o the neighbors previously that the lot was
unbuildable.
Another neighbor, Marka Moser, was concerned with the safety, given that the lot was being
developed in this manner. She said the addition of trees and the fact the zun would no longcr
warm the road to the same extent in thc winter cr€ated safety and visibility problems for the
I
Planning and Environnent Connission
Corurrunity Development Departnent
l,[arch 26, 1990
A reguest to amend Speclal Developmentvail village 5th Flling, the Garden ofApplicant: !!rs. A. c. Hill Fanily
On February L2, 1990, the PEC reviewed this request. The
applicant tabled the iten in order to work with the adjacent
property owners on the View irnpact of the project. Since thattime, the applicant has amended the request by slightly changing
the location of the proposed building. Below is a comparison ofthe setbacks due to the change in building location:
Setbacks
REVISED
FEBRUARY 25
SITE PIAN EXISTING
the wording of the
indicated in bold tlPe
recommendation is for
TO:
rROM:
DATE:
RE:
EAST
WEST
NORTH
SOUTH
I1District #Jdthe Gods Lodge.
FEBRUARY 12
SITE PI,AN
20 FEET1 FOOT
3 FEET8 FEET
20 FEET2 FEET4.5 FEET8 FEET
20 FEET.2 FEET
1.4 FEET9 FEET
The Vail Valley Drive entry has been noved further southto allow access through the parte-cochere. This change
necessitates the need to move the bus stop to the south.
the previous proposal (Feb. 12), four trees will need to
replanted or replaced.
in order
As wlth
be
There have also been some ninor changes to
conditions of approval . These changes areprtut and all capital letters. Tbe staff
approval of the project.
*A revised letter fron Eagle valley Engineering is enclosed for
the roof ridge.
TO:
FROM:
DATE!
SUB.TECT:
eranninfnd Environrnental coroniss{
Connunity Development Department
IiARCIT 26'' L99O
A request to amend Special Development District #18,vail Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the Gods Lodge.Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hill Fanily
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
This project has received one Special Developnent District
approval in 1987. The approved SDD was then revised in the
summer of 1989. Honever, the applicant never pursued final
approval fron the Town Council. Under each of the previous
SDD requests, the applicant proposed to remodel the existingbuilding. with the present request, the applicant would liketo denolish the existing building and construct a newbuilding in the approximate original building's footprintwith a few modifications. The request to rebuild the Gardenof the Gods includes:
A. 6 dwelling units = L2t548 sq.ft. of GRFA.
B. 11 accommodation units e 41085 sq.ft. GRFA
4 acconmodation unit lock-offs e Lr725 sq.ft. GRFA
TOTAL: 15 accommodation units € 5,812 sq.ft. GRFA
I.
c. An increase in
dwelling unitscalls for I au
730 sq. ft.
D. An increase in
3,575 sq. ft. to
square footage devoted to 2 enployee
= 1,802 sq.ft. of GRFA. The existing SDD
and I du having a total square footage of
conmon area from the existing anount of
3,712 sq. ft.
E. Construct sidewalks along both sides of VaiI ValleyDrive. New planters wiII be built adjacent to the
parking lot on the east side of Vail VaIIey Drive (P-2
Parcel) .
F. Underground parking of 15 spaces. The underground
parking allows for the removal of 2 surface spaces on
the east side and 2 surface spaces on the south side(Tivo1i side) of the project. 2 spaces are renoved from
the parking lot on the east side of vail Valley Drive to
allow for the sidewalk and planters. Landscaping is
proposed for the areas where surface parking is renoved.
The parking requirement is net.
Build a public bus pull-off with bench on the southeast
corner of the property.
The existing heiqht of the building is approxinately 4l
feet (ridge-elevition 8219 ft). The proposed height on
the north end of the building wilt be 43 ft 6 inches
(ridge elevation 8219 ft { inches). The south half of
itre fuitaing has a height ot 47 feet (ridge elevatJ-on
8223 ft). itre existing zoning of the property (public
accornmodation zonlng) allows for a 48 ft. height for a
sloping roof. The designated vj-ew corrldor #5 is not
irnpacted by this proposal .
* All ridge elevations are Deasured to the final
finished roof includlng any roof cap' etc. IIEIGETS
ASSttl,IE BASE ELEIIATION Of 8176 rEBT.
The applicant proposes to restrict all of the 11
accorurodation units (5812 sg.ft.) as well as 4
acconmodation unit lock-offs and 3 dwelling units (2882
s.f.) as short tern rentals on a perllanent basis.
All of the restricted acconmodation units and a-u.
lock-offs shall be made available to the short-term
rental program.
Definltions:d.u. = dwelling unit or living unit with kitchen
a.u. = acconnodation unit or lodge roona.u. lock-off : A drrelling unit may include one attached
accommodation lock-off or lodge room.
**Please see the attached zoning analysis and unit use analysis
charts.
II. REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST
The Garden of the Gods project is located in the Public
Accornmodation zone district. The existing soo zoning that
sas obtained in 1987 was originally reguested because the
project did not neet the definition of a lodge, was over the
iltowaUte density by .S dwelling unite and had a total conmon
area that exceeded the allowable. In respect to all other
zoning standards the project rnet the requirements of the
Publi; Acconmodation lone district. This new Special
Developnent District request differs fron the PubIic
Acconmodation zoning and existing SDD in the following ways
G.
H.
I.
A.Definition of Lodcle:
The proposal does not neet the definition of a lodge.
According to the zoning code, SectLon 18.04.2Lo,Definition of a Lodge:
rrA lodge neans a building or group of associatedbuildings designed for occupancy primarily as the
tenporary lodging place of individuals or fanllies,either in acconnodatlon units or dwelling units, ln
which the gross reEidential floor area devoted to
acconnodation unlts exceeds the gross residentialfloor area devoted to dwelling units, and Ln whichall such unitE are operated under a single
manaltenent providing the occupants thereof
custornary hotel serivlces and facilities.r
The Public Acconmodation zone requires that, at a
minirnum, 51* of the total CRFA be devoted to
acconmodation units. 53t of the GRFA is in
acconnodation units in the existing building. The
approved Special Development District allocated 278 oftotal GRFA to acconnodation units. In other words,
there is a 4* increase in cnre devoted to a.u.'s when
comparJ.ng the o1d SDD to the proposed SDD.
GRFA:
The new SDD has a total GRFA of 18,460 sguare feet. The
proposed GRFA is 865 Equare feet over the allowabl-e.
The existing sDD is under the allowable GRFA by 857
square feet. The PA zone allows for L7 1594 square feet.
Setbacks:
In previous sDD reviews, the existing building was
nroposed to be renodeled so tlre setbacks were not
Lna-ngea. In this request, the building will be
cornpletely rebuilt. For this reason, the setbacks are
no longer a given. The existing building encroachesinto the west, north and south setbacks. Below is a
summary of how the existing building setbacks conpare to
B.
c.
New SDD
East 2O ftWest 2 ft
North 4.5 EI
South 8 ft
A. Uses:
Please see Section fV.B
B. Densitv,/GRFA:
Please see Section Iv.B
Existinq
East 2O ft
West .2 ft
North 1.4 ft
Souttr 9 ft
In respect to all of the other zoning standards and parking,
the project meets the requirements of the Public
Accornnodation zone district.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS REIATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL
c.
D.
Setbacks
See Section Iv.F
Heiqht
The height proposed is withl'n the maxinum allowed
feet for a sloping roof.
Site Coveraqe
The site coverage is below the allowable of 9'677
feet. The proposed site coverage is 7,787-square
feet.
Parkinq
Parking reguirernents are met for this proposal .
of 48
square
E.
F.
IV.
CRITERIA
A.
ative
B.
The architecture of the building ls sJ-gnlficantl.y
upgraded by this proposal. The use of Etone and stucco
additlonal landscaping, renoval of slx surface parking
apaces and underground parking wlll J.nprove the
appearance of the building. The roof has been designed
so that there will be no lnpacte on the designated vl.ew
corridor. The building locatlon ls basically the eane.
However, areas wlrere the bulldlng encroached into the
setbacks have been decreaeed slightly at the closestpoints (north and west setbacks). The proposal wiII
trave a positive impact on the character of the
neighborhood.
Density
The proposal is one du under the allowable density for
the Public Acconmodation zone district. For PA
zoning, 12.5 dwelling units (d.u.) are allowed. 11.5
dwelling units are proposed. (Please rernember 2
acconmodation units = I dwelling unit). It is positive
that the proJect is actually under the allowable
density.
Lodae Definltion
Sirnilar to the approved sDD, the amended SDD falls short
of neeting the definitlon of a lodge which would reguire
that more than 5Ot of the GRFA be devoted to
accommodation units (a.u.'s). Hohtever' the new SDD
actually allocates nore GRFA (11216 sq ft) to
acconmodation units than the exlsting SDD. The average
size of the acconmodation unit is also increased in the
new proposal from 287 sguare feet (existing SDD) to 372
sguare feet. The nurnber of accomodation units does
decrease fron 15 (accornmodation units plus accommodationunit lock-offs--old sDD) to 15 accomnodation units and
acconrnodation unit lock-offs in the new proposal . Also,
the nunber of dwelling unlts has been decreased fron 8
d.u.'s to 6 d.u.'s in the new proposal . Holtever, the
GRFA for the dwelling units has lncreased fron L2,L4L
square feet (old sDD) to L2'648 Bquare feet in the new
SDD for d.u.'s.
In general, the new sDD is an inprovement over the
existing SDD in that the number of d.u.'s is decreased,
the sizi of the acconmodation unit is increased, and the
project is no longer over the allowable density. The
lfight increase in cnfa (866 s.f.) does not have a rnaJor
negative inpact on the project or surrounding
properties.
RestrLcted Units
As stated in the prevlous SDD memo' the Ramshorn project
was considered to-be a simiLar proposal to the Garden of
the Gods. In analyzing this tlpe of request, the staff
has taken the position that naintaining rental
restricted units for the bed base is positive for the
connunity. The intent of the reguirenent that a
rnajority of the project square footage be devoted to
accornmodation units is to naintain the purpose of the
Public Accommodation district as a rrsite for lodges and
residential acconnodations for visitors.rt (Section
18.22.110)
Due to the fact that Special Development District zoning
is once again requested, there is sone flexibility in
how the intent of tne Public Accomnodation zone district
may be naintained without neeting the precise
requirement to have a najority of sguare footage devoted
to accomrnodation units. The staff originally analyzed
this project in terrns of available rental units orttkeysrrt i.e., au's or du'E that are available for rent.
The new proposal has 21 nkeystr available for guests.
This nurnber of trkeys( is based on the fact that 15
accornmodation units and 6 dwelling units are available
as POTENTIAL short term rental units for guests. Of the
21 ilotentlaf rentable units, 18 will be restricted as
stroit tern rentals inctuding a dwelling units- The
percent of units available for short term rental
increases frorn 7ot or 17 rrkeysrr to 868 or 18 rrkeys.rt
GRFA
The additional GRFA (866 square feet) is due certainly
to the fact that units area being expanded, but also
because the circulation within the structure has been
desl.gned in a more efficient manner.
Enployee Housinq
The applicant has also agreed to improve the existing
employee unit situation for the building. Two enployee
I
c.
D.
units will be added havlng a total square footage of
1,802 square feet. The total existlng square footage
devoted to ernployee units vill be increased by Lo72
square feet when compared to the existing SDD.
All parking requirenents are !net.
I,AND USE PI,AN
The Land use Plan also supports this proposal in the
following ways:
1.3 Ttre guality of developnent should be naintained and
upgraded whenever possible.
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used
nore efficiently.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best
locatl-on for hotels to serve the future needs of
the destination skiers.
3.3 Hotels are inportant to the continued success of
the Town of VaiI, therefore conversion to
condoniniurns should be discouraged.
4.2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable
so long as the existing character of each area is
presenred through inplenentatLon of the Urban
Design Guide Plan and the vail Village l{aster
Plan.
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to
occur prinarily in existing, platted areas and as
appropriate in nelt areas where high hazards do notexist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be nade
available through private efforts, assisted by
lirnited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail,rith appropriate restrictions.
5.5 The existing enployee housing base should be
preserrred and upgraded. Additional enpLoyee
Lousing needs Ehould be accornmodated at variedsites throughout the conrnunitY
E.
F.
o
on and
onal devel
eaturesof tbe
or both icles
cG.The
Not appticable.
an, buil
ons
Iation
The applicant has developed a site plan that is
functional and has a hlgh level of aesthetic quality.
The amount of open space, mass and bulk of the building
and pedestrian/vehicular circulation have been.plannedin a- sensitive manner. An irnportant question is why is
it appropriate to allow the new building to encroach
into the 20 foot setbacks? These encroachments are
supportable, as the configuration of the building,
acLess, and parking are made nore functional with some
flexibitity for tha 20 foot setbacks. The building
could be pushed into the norttreast corner of the site
which would create probleus for traffic circulation,
separate the building fron pool anenities and possibly
impact the Vorlaufer to a greater degree.
under the new sDD, the building will continue to
encroach into a drainage and utility easement. All of
ttre utilities except for the cable TV have vacated the
easement. Public Works witl agree to vacate ALL oR A
PORTIoN OF TIIE drainage easement as long as the
applicant agrees to construct curb, gutter, and other
n-Lessary diainage inprovenents to the east, nortb and
south sides of the propertY.
desi
estrcirculation.
address
The Rarnshorn has built a sidewalk along the south west
side of their property that also extends over to Golden
Peak. It nakes sense for the Garden of the Gods to add
the two sidewalks, as pedestrians coning from ttre
transportation center till walk along both sides of Vail
valfey Drive. Guests of the Garden of the Gods will
also use the sidewalk.
The present bus stop is located at the northeast corner
of tle property. TLe nen southwest location is better
for the ouners of the Garden of the Gods in that the bus
stop does not block the viEibllity of their site. (Four
treeE will need to be relocated due to the new bus
stop. ) In additlon, safety ls increased for vehicles
entering and existing off the Garden of the Gods
property as well as for the general public. It is very
ieaionable and appropriate to request that the applicant
make these inprovenents given the request for an sDD.
The proJect proposal includes the following landscape
inprovements:
* new planters along the west side of the pool* landscape buffer along west side of property* existing spa by pool replaced by landscaping,, 4 on-site surface parking spaces replaced by
landscaping* 2 parking spaces on P-2 parcel removed and replaced
by sidewalk and Planters* curb and gutter and any asphalt work necessary to
handte the drainage problenE will be rebuilt
The landscaping proposal is extremely positive and will
add to an already well landscaped project. The only
area of concern is that 4 trees will need to be
relocated or replaced to allow for the bus stop.
Not applicable.
summer of 1991.
The entire project is to be built the
V. VAIL VILIAGE UASTER PIAN AIIALYSIS
Below is a surnmary of how the Vail Village llaster PLan
reLates to this ProPosal .
H.
I.
A.Illustrative Pl,ans:1. Iand Use Plan:
The Garden of the Gods property is indicated astrnediun/high density residentialrr. This section
states that a naJority of the Village's lodge rooms
and condominiun units are located in this land usecategory. The goal of the p}an is to naintain
these aieas as predominantly I'lodging oriented withretail developnent linited to snall amounts ofrraccessory retailtrn.
The proposal generally conplies with this
description of the land use category.
Open Space PIan:
This plan calls for planting buffers along the east
side of Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the surface
parking on the P-2 Parcel .
The applicant has worked with the Planning
Departnent and Town engineer to arrive at a
solutLon that removes the existing planters andprivate parking from the pubJ.ic right-of-way to
allow space for a new sidewalk and planters.
Parking and Circulation Plan:
This plan caLlE for sidewalks along both sides of
Vail Valley Drive.
Sidewalks are included in the proposal .
conceptual Building Height Plan:
This property falls within the three to four
rnaxirnun lange of building stories. A story is
defined as nine feet of height with no roof
included. The proposed height falls under the
public accornrnodation zoning naxinun for a sloping
roof of 48 feet. There are no inpacts on the
designated view corridor #5. Please Eee the
attached letter fron Eagle Valley Engineering and
photo of the view corridor.
sub-area Concepts
The Garden of the Gods falls under the east village sub-
area No.7. fhis plan states that the nost inportantpublic improvemenLs in the sub-area relate to pedestrian
3.
4.
B.
and bicycle safety. fhe public right-of-way should be
maintained and expanded for public use wheneverpossible. sub-area 7-3 and 7-4 relate specifJ-cally to
this property. llhe PIan states:
1. #7-3 Vail Valley Drive Sidewalk - A sidewalk
(separated fron the road where possible) through
the sub-area linking the Golden Peak base facility
with the vail Transportation Center. Landscape
improvements and pedestrian crosswalks to be
incluaea as required to neet demands of pedestrian
traffic. Special enphasis on 3.1, 3.4.
2. *7-4 Parking Lot Infill - Presently utilized as
parking for adjacent properties. t{hile zoned for
parking (covenant restrictions also linit use of
this parcel to parking), this site could
acconnodate a smal1 1odge. Practical difficuLties
in developing this site include the covenantrestrictions in naintaining on-site parking forexisting and future demand. Possible public usesfor this site include pedestrian and buscirculation inproveroents. Special enphasis on 2.1'
2.3, 2.6, 3.1r 5.3, and 5.4.
The proposal complies with sub-Area 7-3 and does not
prohibit the eventual inptenentation of 7-4.
c.vail vil e l{aste Goals, Ob
ction Ste t applv to f the
Below is a sunmary of the goals, objectives, and
policies that relate to the Garden of the Gods
proposal:
GOAL #1:
ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVEIPPT'IENT WHII,E PRESERVING
TH8 UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCAIJ OF TIIE VILI,AGE IN ORDER
TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COI,TMT'NITY AND IDENTITY.
L.3 obiective:
Enhance new development and redevelopnent through public
irnprovements done by private developers working in
cooperation with the Town.
Proposal.
1.3.1 Policv:
Public improvements shall be developed with theparticipation of the private Eector working with the
Town.
GOAL #2:
TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURTST TNDUSTRY AND PROI{OTE YEAR
ROUND ECONOUIC HEAIJTH N{D VIABILITY FOR THE VII,IAGE AND
THE COUIIIT'NITY AS A WHOLE.
2.3 obiective:
fncrease the nunber of residential units available for
short term overnight accommodations.
2.3.1 Policy:
The development of short ter:m acconmodation units is
strongly encouraged. Residential units developed above
existing density levels are required to be designed or
managed in a rnanner that nakes them availabLe for short
tern overnight rental .
2.5 obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations and
rnaintenince of existing lodging and commercialfacilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
2.5.1 Po1icv:
Recreational amenities, conmon areas, rneeting facilities
and other anenities strall be preserved and enhanced aspart of any redevelopnent of lodging properties.
2.6 Obiective:
Encourage the developnent of affordable housing units
through the efforts of the private sector.
2.6.1 Policv:
Enployee housing units nay be reguired as part of any
new or redevelopnent project reguesting density over the
allowable by existing zoning.
2.6.2 Policv
Hnployee housing shall be developed with appropriate
restrictions so as to ensure their availability and
affordability to the local work force.
2.6.3 Policv
The Town of Vail nay facilitate the development of
affordable housing by providing linited assistance.
GOAL #3:
TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY TITE ENEANCING OF THE
WALIGNG EXPERIENCE T}IROUGHOTIT THE VILIAGE.
3.1 obiective:
Physically inprove the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
3.1.1 Policv:
Private development projects shall incorporate
streetscape improvements (such as paver treatnents,
landscaping, lighting and seating areas) along adjacent
pedestrian rtays.
3.4 obiective:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only wallalays
and accessible greenspace areas, including pocket parks
and stream access.
3.4.2 Policv:
Private development projects shall be reguired to
incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to theproject as designated in the Vall Village ltaster PIan
and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan.
coAL #4:
TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS Al{D EXPAND
GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES.
4.1.1 Policv:
Active recreational facilities shall be preserved (or
relocated to accessible locations elsewhere in theVillage) in any developrnent or redevelopment of property
in Vail Vlllage.
GOAL #5:
INCREASE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND II.IPROVE
AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCITLATION SYSTEI'I
TTIROUGHOUT THE VIIJ,AGE.
5. 1. 5 Poll-cy:
Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to
provide underground or visually concealed parking.
5.4 oblective:
Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors
throughout the ViIIage.
5.4.2 Policv:
Medians and rights-of-ways shall be landscaped.
For the sake of brevity, staff wiII not address each goal'
policy, and obJective separately. The project suPPorts the
village Plan in the following ways:
1. The redevelopment is a high quality proposal that
maintains architectural scale as nell as almost all the
zonJ-ng standards for the underlying PA zoning.
2. Significant public inprovements are incorporated into
the redeveloprnent such as sidewalks, the bus stop, and
landscaping.
3. Short-term acconmodation units are upgraded.
4. Large and more functional ernployee housing units are
proposed.
5. The pedestrian experience is enhanced by sidewalk and
landscape improvenents.
Underground parklng is included, while surface ePaces
are removed. The remaining parking is visually
screened. The project neets its required parking.
Pubtic transportation ls inproved and made safer as a
result of the new bus stoP.
IV. STAFF RECOI'II.TENDATION
The staff reconnends approval of the proposal . Basically,
our position is very sinilar to our recomnendatlon on the
Ramshorn proJect. As stated previously: trAlthough theinability of the end product to meet the etrict definltion of
a lodge is not what we would ideally like to see, we feelthat the property will continue to function as a lodge and
meet the intent of provlding high quality gruest
accomnrodations in the Publlc Accornrnodation zone dl.strict.rl
The appllcant has provided significant improvements through
the redevelopnent which will benefit both guests and ownersof the carden of the Gods, as well as the general public.
The proposal meets the criteria outlined in the Special
Developnent District review' goals of the Land Use Plan, as
well as Vail village llaster PIan.
Staff approval is contingent upon the applicant neeting the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall subnit a revised enployee housing
agreenent with a floor ptan that clearly indicates tbe
location, tlpe of unit, and square footage for each
employee housing unit. The two ernployee housing units
shall be restricted E49g!!y. The agreernent shall be
subnitted and approved by the owner and the Town of Vail
before a building permit is issued for the project.
SEETION 18.13.080 SEAI.I, B8 I'SED TOR TEE I|ORDING FOR TIIE
AGREEI{ENT EXCEPT ItsAT TBE T'NITS SEAI.L BE EI'IPI'YEA
EOUSING PERUANENTLY.
2. The applicant shall submit a written stateuent aqreeing
to restrict the proposed accornrnodation units,
acconrnodation unit lock-offs and three dwelling units
as short term rental units on a pernanent basis. Even
if the proJect is conduminiunized, these units shall
remaln as short term rentals. This written agreenent
shall be subnitted by the owner and approved by the
staff before a building pernit is issued for theproject. TBIS AGREEI{EI|T SHAIi BE RECoRDED AS A
OOIIVENAIIT TAAT SNAI.,L Rt'N WITIT THE IAI|D.
3. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct a
sidewalk and bus stop on the east side of their
6.
7.
4.
property as well as a sidertalk and pLanters adjacent to
the FROTfTAGE OF TIIB P-2 PIRCEIJ ALIOCATED TO TIIE GARDEN
OF TIIE eolts. The final design for the sidewalks,planters, and bus stop shall be submitted by the
lppticant to the Publlc Works Department and Cornnunity
Oeveloprnent Departroent for approval . The sidewalks,
planters and bus stop shall be constructed subsequent to
the issuance of the buitding pemit and prior to the
issuance of a ternporary certificate of occupancy for the
project. The applicant shall subnit a written statement-greeing to this condition for the Town attorney's
approval before a building pernit is released for the
project.
If needed, the Garden of the Gods shall also provide a
public easement for the bus stop, sidewalk, and signage.
fhe applicant shall subnit the easement agreenent to the
town iltorney and Town council for approval before a
temporary certificate of occuPancy is released for the
project.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct
curb and gutter as well as any other drainage (asphalt
work etc.l improvements necessary along the.north,
south, anb eait sides of their property. Final design
for tire drainage inprovements shall be submitted by the
applicant to the PuLIic Works Department for final
approval. These improvements shall be constructed
sirl="guent to the ilsuance of a building pernit and
prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of
occupancy.
A revocable right-of-way agreernent shall be conpleted
for any encroa6hnents on the pubJ-ic right-of-y"y.- This
agreem-ent must be subnitted to the Conmunity Developnent
D6partrnent and approved before a building perrnit will be
rel.eased on the project.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall subrnit a
utility and drainage easement vacation to the Town
counci-I for approvil before a building pernit nay be
released for the Project.
AI,L FIREPIACES SITAI,L BE GAS AND }IEET TEE TOTff OF \IAIL
ORDINAI{CE @VER}TIIfG GAS FIREPHCES.
RT'}T-OFT CDNTROL & POIIIIIION C!}ITROL DSI'ICES SHAI.L BE
INCORPORATED INBO ITIE SI'RFACE PERKING IOCS. TIIIS ISSI'E
SEAI.L BE ADDRESSED AT lUE DRB REIVEW OF IHE PRA'EET Al{D
INCII'DBD IN TITE H'TLDING PENUIT PI,AI|S.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.The vent on the west side of the pool should be
renOVEd OR SCREE}TED BY IA}TDSCAPING.
The north elevation of the building should have more
transparency.
2.
3. llhe four trees that rlll be elther nlocatcd or replaced
due to the constnrctlon of ttre bus rtop ehould be
addressed. If tlre treee nuet be rcDoved, landecapingthat has eubstantl.ally the rauc poel.tlve inpact lhould
be requlred.
,.1 i.':i'.t'. t.1: ?.i 'r o
Restricted euployee
I DU equals 2 AU
I{INTER 19.90
GARDEN OF TIIE @DS
ZONING AIYALY$S
uBlts are oot counted towalds deosity or GlfA.-., -Z e'\./ ' ir"t'" 2 / ' -7, ) ' (' '/ '/ t /f.': - l"
**
*** Staadard Palklug requj'remeots applled
**** A DU 1o a uultl-faolly buildlng Eay fuclude one atlached accon-
todatloo uale (AU locl-off) no-larger rbatr oue tblrd of the total
floor erea of ifre OU. A lock-off ls oot couated for denslty. Lock-
offGRFAlsaadedtothetotalDUGSFA.Parklngforalock.offls
calculated by addlng the AU locb-off to the DU GRFA' The DU
parklng requileueats are applted to the total GMA for the DU
plus AU lock-off.
51% GRFA IN AU'S
16@7/4?SO.FT.10 AU
6 AU LOCK Qf,PgTTOT
16 @ 4596SqE_
II AU
4 AU LOCK OFFS
15 @ 5812SO. FT.
NA 2 @ 6745 SO. FT.g @ tztll Sq.Fr.6 @ r2648SQ. FT.
NA
1 AU 610 SO. FT.
1 DU 515 SO. FT.
1.5" @ 1125SO. FT.
r ouzrsso. FT.
r DU515SO. FT.
2 @ 730 sq.Fr.
1 DU 901
r 0u 901
zDU @1802 SO. FT.
TOTAL:GRFA 14%Sg. FT.14s43 SO. FT.-J6737 so,FT.18460SO. FT.
TOTAL DENSTTY f 12.5 0U r0 0u Ts 0u (AUs + DUS)1.5 DU (AUS + DUS)
COMMON ABEA 4399-80. FT.3s75 SO. FT.E4eo SQ. FT.37i2 so.FT.
45 FT. FI,AT ROOF
48 FT. SLOPE HOOF
42Fr.SAME i3FT. 6" NORTS END
47 Ft. SourB ElrD
20F1.EAST 2O.O FT.
WEST.2 FT.
NORTH 1.4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
EAST 2O.O FT.
WEST.2 FT.
NOFTH 1.4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
EAST 2O.O FT.
WEST LFT.
NORTH 4.5FT.
SOUTH 8 FT
SITECOVERAGE r2096'SQ. FT.6363 SO. FT.6831 SO. FT.7214 so.FT.
LANDSCAPING'6598i SQ. FT.OK OK OK
22 REOD.
28:EX19 r
27 REOD.
28 PROPOSED
26 REQD:
29 pnoposEo
fl"rlnER 199.0
GARDEN OF THE @DS
TJNTT USE AIYALYSIS
* Al1 AU aad
through out
AU lock-offs
the year.
shal1 be used for short-tertu rental
PAZONE EOSNNG ,..1.:::iiiil NE:W SDD i,:;
51%53%
t7 tXo
AVG. AU 287S.F.
3rz
AVG. Au372 S.P.
49 0/6 47 o/b 73%69%
NA 0
'16AUS@4s96
1 DU @ rrgl
. 5730 S.F.OR 34%
15 AUS 5812'l
3 DUS 2882.5
8595 s.F.oR 47 qo
'i:l:tiTOTAL KF/S ::irrrr NA 18 24 2I
NA 0 17 KEYS OR 70 %18 KF/S OR 862
tih,
February 12, 1990
I{s. Pan Hopklns
Snovden & Hopklns ArchitectE
201 Gore Greek DrlveVall, CO 81557
Re: Garden of the Gods Expansion
Dear Pan,
Per_your request I have reviesed the lnpact the above rnentloned expanslonvould have on the Tovn of Vall viev corridor fron Viev polnt t5. Theelevatlon of the hlghest extstlng north-Eouth ri.dge llne of the structureis 8219.0 teet.If the north end of the extEtlng ridie yas noved to the eastlteven feet the nev ridge line could be bullt to in elevatlon of 8219.0feet. -If the approxlnate mid-point of the existlng rldge vas noved to theeast flve feet the nev ridge could be bullt to an ilevation of 0219.{ feet.Nelther of the nev proposed rldge elevations vould encroach lnto thedeflned viev corridor.
Please carl lf r can be of any further asslstance on this project.
S incere ly,
Valley Surveylng, Inc.
Dan Corcoran, P.L.S
Pres ldent
, t 199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagte-Vail
Post Otfice Box 1230
Edwards, CO 81632
303-949-1406
eK 'r ia n.cte'..e6
PIJANNING AND ENVIRON!,TENTAI' COI{!{ISSION
l,tARCH 26, 1990
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie l{night
Ludwig KurzJin Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Willians
StaffKristan Pritz
Ton Braun
Shelly Me1lo
Betsy Rosolack
Penny Perry
The Planning and Environnental Connlssion neetJ.ng was called toorder at 3:OO p.n. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson.
Iten No. 1: Approval of mLnutes for l[arch 12, 1990 Eeetinct.
Diana Donovan asked that, on the top of page 13, the wording be
cbanged to rrthe applicants should help find a solutionrr.
Motion for apnroval of ninutes with corrections was made bv
Jim Shearer and seconded bv Dalton Williams.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR.
ftem No. 2: A request for a side yard setback variance and a
strearn setback variance for Lot 9. Block 3. Vail
Row Houses (Unit #9).
Applicant: l{a1ter Gramm
Tom Braun presented the proposal for the staff explaining tbatthe applicant was proposing a najor remodel to Unit 9 of the Vail
Row Houses. The renodet included a reconfigurration of theexisting floor layout, an increase in the building roof height by
approxirnatety 11 feet and the addition of window seats on thenorth and south eLevations. The proposal did not include a
reguest for any additional GRFA over the allowable. The units
hrere zero setback. The granting of the variance would notconstitute a grant of special privilege and would not bedetrinental to the public health, safety or welfare. The staff
reconmended approval of bottr ttre side setback variance and the
stream setback variance.
Diana Donovan asked if there rras an applicantrs presentation.
Ned Gwathney explained that he was avaitable for questions. Hefelt the staff did an adequate presentation of the proposal .
Greta Parks, an ortner at 3O3 Gore Creek Drive, speaking for Units1-5 explained that after talking sith Ned and looking at the blueprints, she had no objections. Greta asked the board to consider
sending public notices to the neighborhood owners, not sinplydirectly adjacent property owners. She felt projects in the
Cornmercial Core I affected the whole neighborhood.
Chuck Crist asked about the roof uaterial. He explained that theplans called for shake and he felt that a gravel roof night be
more fitting with the adjacent properties. Ned responded thatthe pitch of the roof restricted this posstbiltty. Ned explainedthat there was another shake roof in the row of buildings. Chuckthen comnented that naybe this was a Design Review Board issue.
Jin Shearer asked about the flood plain and Tom explained thatthis was a request for a strean setback and that flood plain wasnot affected.
Motion for approval per the staff meno and the
recornmendation that the Desiqn Review Board exanine the roofmaterial was made bv Dalton willians and seconded bv Connie
Knight.
VOTE: 7-OTNFAVOR.
Item No. 3: A recruest for a setback variance for theconstruction of a garage on Lot 20, 8lock 7, VailVillage lst Fillnq.Applicant: Peter Tufo
Tom Braun nade the presentation for the Etaff explaining that the
applicant was requesting a variance from the front setback
requirement in order to construct a garage additLon. The request
was to allow a garage to be built within 3 feet of the frontproperty line along Forest Road. The requlred front setback forthis lot is 2o feet. Surface parking was presently being used inthis area. The proposed plan had received conceptual approval
from the Design Review Board. The Etaff recornmendation was for
approval . The staff believed that the siting of the garage had
been designed in the nost sensltive manner possible, given the
steep topography and large pine tree (to be saved). The staff
recomnended approval with the following condition:
That a revocable right-of-way permit be obtained for any andatl irnprovements on Town right-of-way before a buildlngpermit is released for the garage.
Tim Driscall, son of the ohrner of the home to the west, expressed
concern sith tbe square footage and height of the garage. Dr.Driscall, owner of the hone to the west, asked what rras theheight. Tom Braun explained that the height was withln the 33foot linit altowed and invited the Driscalls to review the plans.
Diana questioned what the difference was between the blue and
ribbons and Gordon Pierce, the applicantrs representative,
explained that the red ribbons were the original proposal andblue ribbons uere what was suggested by Stan Berrlman.
red
the
Jirn Shearer asked if they vere planning to cantilever the garage
so as not to hurt the pine tree. Gordon Plerce answered, rtyesrt.
Connie Knight asked if they could gruarantee that they were notgoing to hurt the roots of the tree. Gordon Pierce e:rplainedthat by using piers they hope to decrease the possibility thebest they could.
Diana Donovan suggested to Dr. Driscall that he be aware of the
DRB neeting regarding his concerns over the height.
Ludwig Kurz asked where the applicants planned to allow foradditional parking and cordon Pierce explained that there was no
contingency plan in this area.
Connie lhight asked the staff for clarificatl.on of the 3Ot zoning
code rule and Tom explained that if the slope vere 3ot or nore,the applicant would not need a variance. Connie then continuedto explain that she could not approve a 17 I setback.
Ludrrig Kurz pointed out that the cars were now practically
parking in the street. Gordon explained that the house was builtin 1962 prior to the strict zoning codes and presently a non-
conforning use. Connie conmented that the plans for the garage
should have been presented at the time of the remodel last year.
Kathy warren suggested that the cantilevering of the building be
a condition of approval .
A motion for aoproval ner the staff meno with the followinq
conditions was nade bv Ludwia Kurz and seconded bv Jim
Shearer:
1. That a revocable right-of-way pernit be obtained for
any and all inprovements on Town right-of-way before abuilding pernit is released for the garage.
2. That the 2 trees to the north side of the garageremain. If they were damaged they nould be replacedwith nature trees within 2 years.
3. The garage building be cantilevered in the effort toprotect the above nentioned trees.
VOTE: 6 - 1 TN FAVOR I{ITH CONNIE KNIGHT OPPOSED.
ftem No. 4:A recruest for a height variance in order to add
dorrrers to the upoer floor of the Mountain Haus at
Tom Braun presented the proposal explaining that the applicant isrequesting a height variance in order to add dormers across the
south elevation of the building. The dotners nould be added tothe 7th floor roof area and would replace existing l8'r windows.
Because the building the constructed prior to the adoption of the
Townrs zoning code, the building is considered a pre-existing ,non-conforming use. Any reguest would increase the non-
conforming use. The staff reconnendation nas for denial of the
requested height variance. The staff believed that approval ofthe request would be a grant of special privilege and that thevariance would not be in conpliance with the approved VailVillage Master Plan. The staff also believed that a physical
hardship did not exist and therefore the request should be
denied.
Mark Mueller, acting on behalf of the Condominium Association,
stated that the dormers were on the ?th floor not the 8th. Allthe rooms affected were bedroons and currently had 3r X 6l
windows. The existing building was 74' tall. He didn't feel
they were asking for a height variance. They were seeking to
improve the roof. At present, the windows did not neet the
Uniform Building Code. The dotmers would not raise the height,did not affect any view corridors, and would not create avisibility problen to pedestrians. The issue at hand seened to
be the fact that no hardship could be found. He felt that, if
the building was not a non-conforming use, the PEC would be
happy to see the positive changes. Dtark then introduced Jerry
Marinonte on behalf of the Condominium Association.
292 E. lteadow Dr. (Part of Tract B. Vail VillageFirst FilinqlApplicant: Rich Brown/Mountain Haus Condo Assoc.
terry addressed the Board e:<plaining that he had been exaniningthe Unlforn Building Code. He questioned whether the Mountaln
Haus, by definition, was actually adding height. Jerry statedthat according to the UBC definltlon of height, the Dtountain Haus
would not be adding height. He continued to state tbat buildingsthat rere non-conforning were allowed to present these kinds of
Lnprovenents as long as there was no discrepancy. They did not
aee a discrepancy.
Diana explained that ttre Board left the decision as to who did
and did not need a variance to the staff.
Ton explained that anything above the 48r allowance whether non-
conforming or not still needed a variance.
Jerry argrued that he felt the board should consider the existingheight not ttrat which is nallowedfr.
Kathy l{arren explained that she understood what Jerry was saying.
However, allowable Deasurements were what was considered. She
gave an exanple of a building that added height that was in anexisting sLde setback would still require a side setback varl.ance
even though the footprint of the building was not changed.
Jerry then asked if the Board would not approve ttre dormers, what
would they suggest?
Kathy suggested skylights and Jerry felt that skylights would add
height.
Dalton t{illians guestioned the flre fightJ.ng capabilities in abuilding of this height and Mark Mueller explained that they had
been working with cary uurrain, the Chief Building official , onthis issue. The building currentty didnrt conforn to code.
However, Gary would allow a non-cornbustible wood. They could
consider putting sprinklers on the South side of the Building.
Dalton then asked why not the north side of the building and Mark
explained that they were only proposing the changes to the South
Side of the building at this tine.
Ludwig didntt see an overall iurpact. llhe only place the dor:mers
were vlsible were fron the mountain and would increase thettvability of tbe units. He would be in favor.
Chuck Crist asked if they would redo the whole roof with non-
conbustible naterial . l{ark stated that they would do Just theroof portion along where the addition was. If they usedsprinklers they would not need the non-cornbustible material .
Kathy warren conmented that she did not see a physical hardship.
She could not see uaklng a bad situation wor6e. She agreed withthe staff.
Jim Shearer didnrt feel that the dormers nade a big enough inpactto justify the variance. He could not support the variance.
VOTE: 4 - 3 FOR DENIAL WrTfi CIIUCK. DALTON, N{D LUD!{IG
AGAINST DENIAL.
Iten No. 5: A recmest for a conditional use permit to exoand a
orooosed parkino structure for the Vail Valley
uedicaL Center on Lots # and F. Vail Village 2ndFilLno at 181 t{est Meadow Drive.Appticants vall vallev uedical center.
Kristan Pritz explained that the Vail Valley ltedical Center had
requested to table this itern to the Aprll 9, 1990 meeting.
A rnotion to table the proposal to the 4/9./90 meetinq was
made bv Kathy Warren and seconded bv Chuck crist.
VOTE: 7 - O IN FAVOR OF TABI,ING
Iten No. 6:
structures on Lots 3, 4, and 5. Vail Vallev ThirdFiling.Applicant: Deborah l{. and Robert 9larner
Tom Braun explained that the proposal was reviewed at the MarchLzt L99o neeting and that at that tine, the Planning Connlssion
voted unaninously to recornnend denial to the Town Council. The
applicants had amended their propoeal with regard to the three
secondary units. The applicants had agreed to place a deedrestriction on the three lots that would require the secondaryunits to be rented on a long term basis to enployees of the upper
Eagle valley. The fact remained that any site plannLng or design
aspects of the proposal could be accompliEhed under existingzoning. The SDD was proposed as a uay to circumvent the
underlying prtmary/secondary development standards with regard tosite coverage and GRFA. The enployee units were being offered as
a concession for the density increase. The staff recognized the
value of the enployee units, but was unable to support the
proposal offered.
Bob Warner, the applicant, wished to apologize for not beingpresent at the last neeting. He wanted to give the board sorne
background on the proJect. Last surnmer he decided to nake Vail apernanent home. He found he could not find any sl-ngle-fanilylots. Instead, they found and bought the 3 adJacent lots. He
had developed for 20 years and his archl.tect, ilim Junge, for over
30 years. He was now here to plead with the board. They started
by asking the staff for direction. They had tried to work withthe staff. l,tr. l{arner stated that his wife had a chronically bad
back (he showed a doctors statenent prescribing daily swinming astreatnent). He had problens understanding the SDD purpose andconcept. He felt that what they were proposing could not be donewithin the existing zoning. He presented the analogy that it
would be like preparing taxes without taking deductions. He felt
they were making good trade-offs. He pointed out that he hadcontinually been told what a great design they had presented.
They had been looking at the project as three lots as a whole.
This was why they felt the SDD process was appropriate. He
explained that Gary Dlurrain, chief Building official, ttas anxiousfor thern to get started due to the level of the water table.
They are anxious as well and felt that the staff direction had
slowed the tine table.He reguested approval .
Jin Junge, architect for the appticant, conmented on the staffrs
concerns with the SDD purpose. He felt that the sDD purpose wasto encourage flexibility and this nas nhat they had done. Asolution could be acconplished under existing zoning but not
necessarily the nost positive solution. What they had proposed
had no irnpacts on neighboring properties. They felt they wereoffering the Town many benefits in exchange for the densitytransfer as followed: (He showed a list on the flip chart)1. No 5Ol40 prinary/secondary split.2. L,ow Profile3. Luxury Homes4. 3 enployee units.
Ton Braun stated that he took strong opposition with theapplicants statenent that the staff held up the process. All
avenues were reviewed with the applicant Lncluding the pros and
cons of each alternative. He stated the staff told theapplicantrs l-n writing on October 27 that support of an SDD uas
unlikely.
Kathy warren connented that she felt that nothing had really
changed. She still felt that the SDD purpose and integrlty nust
be naintained. The pool could be permitted by deducting GRFAelsewhere. There were other avenues that the applicant had not
explored.
Jin Shearer had no conment.
Connie Knight concurred with Kathy.
Ludwig Kurz felt that Kathy expressed how he felt very well. Hedidnrt feel he could approve the project.
Dalton tlillians concurred.
Chuck asked what the specific reasons for denial sere at the last
neetl-ng? Had it had anything to do with enployee housing and
asked why they came back. Jln itunge explained that they felt the
change of restrictions on the secondary unit was a benefit to theTown. Chuck didnrt feel thls SDD should be used with trade-offs.
Tom Braun explained that this was how the SDD process worked. It
was a give and take process.
chuck asked if there were enough trade-offs, would it be
acceptable?
Kathy Warren conmented that a SDD is not appropriate per the lastneeting issues. No nuuber of trade-off would be rnake the project
acceptable.
Mr. Warner explained that the enployee housing sas always part ofthe plan. Under strict zoning, Vail wouldntt get the benefits aspointed out earlier by Mr. Junge. He felt the enployee units
were a great benefit, He felt they worked out a great solution
and that the enployee housing should warrant a favorable
response.
Dalton Willians didn't believe that enpJ-oyee housing units were
a good tradeoff. A large house was not a reason for creating an
SDD. The point of being on the Planning and Environmental
Connission Board was to ensure that rules were applied aswritten.
Diana exptained that if they took the extra 804 square feet of
GRFA away, she would come close to approving the proposal . Shefelt it nas a great project and encouraged then to proceed to
Council.
Kristan Pritz wished to point out that the fact that the housing
study nas not conplete was not the reason the staff was
reconmending denial .
Diana stated that she did not wish to set a standard before the
standards were set. She could support the project lf the GRFA
was a total wash. She feLt the trade-offs offered were positive.
A motion for reconnrendation of denial to the Town Council
oer the staff nerno was nade bv Connie lt(niqht and seconded by
Kathv l|arren.
VOTE: 7 - 0 for recornnendation of denial to Town Council
Item No. 7:
Filing No. 3.Applicant: Mr. Pat Dauphlnais, Dauphinais-Moseley
Construction.
Kristan Pritz explained that the developer was reqluesting to rnake
adjustnents to the najor subdivision and Special DeveloprnentDistrict No. 22 for the property. The project currently
consisted of 24 single fanily lots, an open space tract, and a
new public road, Lionsridge Lane.
changes to tot sizes, setbacks, curb cuts, enployee dwellingunits, architectural guidelines, and the phasing plan were
proposed.
In general, the changes to the proposal did not have any maJor
impacts on the subdivision criteria. Due to the fact that the
proposal represented a resubdivision of an existing approved
subdivision, a reduction in allowable density, had no significant
environnental inpacts and was compatible with surrounding low to
medium density residential uses, the proposed plan was
supportable.
The Staff recornrnended approval of the prelirninary plan for thenajor subdivision and the revisions to Special DevelopnentDistrict No. 22 for the property. The reguested changesgenerally improved ttre subdivision and nould allow for a more
architecturalLy pleasing developnrent of the property. The
conditions of approval for the Special Developnent District and
l,[ajor Subdivision were listed in the staff memo. It vas also
deemed very positive that enployee housing was being added.
Chuck Crist guestioned whose responsibility j-t was to work the
parking problen out wittr Solar Crest. Kristan responded thatstaff had suqqested that Dauphinais work with solar Crest.
Ilowever, it was not a requirenent. The probleD was Solarcrestrs. They had been parking on ttre applicantrs land.
A requeEt for an amendment to Special DevelonmentDistrict No. 22 and a maior subdivision for
resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridqe
Kathy l{arren asked for clarification of the GRFA regarding the
employee units. Was it in additlon to all.owed GRFA rtith the site
coverage and any other requl.rements still intact? Kristan
replied that she was correct. Kathy then asked when the employeeunits rrere required to be bul.lt? At build-out? Kristan
answered, nyesrr. Kathy then coDnented that there was apossibility that the proJect could never reach bul-ld-out and
therefore the Town sould never have the employee unl-ts. Pat
stated that he would be bappy to put sone tlpe of restriction on
phasing of the employee units for exanple 1 per 4 free rnarket
units.
Kathy then expressed concern over the dralnage pLan. Pat
explained that his and the Townrs engJ.neers felt they had found abetter solution. They had revised the plans to take allnitigation off-site by diverting the sater back behind BufferCreek. Agreenents would be in place prior to final plat
approval . He could not pull any pemits until a down palment ora letter of credit had been issued for hiE financialresponsibility on the drainage plan.
Buff Arnold, architect, explained that they had increased
setbacks on the lots on whlch they were asking for additionalcuts. They increased the lots bordering the highway side and
increased 35 to 55 ' aetbacks off the ridge.
Dalton asked what the reason was behind the setback encroachnentof 5 ft. for the decks and Kristan explained that generally,
decks were allowed to encroach L/2 Lnto the setback (notmally 7
L/2 feet). The staff felt that it would be reasonable to allow a5' deck (at grade, unenclosed) encroachnent under the
circumstance.
Buff Arnold expl.alned that there were only 2 issues in which they
were not in agreenent with the staff. The first was the
additional road cuts. The staff had quoted Public Work's concernwith safety as the nain reason for reconnending denial of thisportion of the proposal . Buff explained that for safety reasons,
they would be able to nake roon for naneuvering to allow a driverto pull out onto L,ionsrldge LooP. The driveways would be Level
so as to avoid any sliding/stopping hazards.
Kathy llarren asked if they would consider conbining access to twolots. A driveway every 60 feet didnrt allow much roon for snow
rernoval , storage, or landscaping. Pat explained that there were
two driveways close together and then a large distance betweenthe others.
Da1ton comnented that the kide would have a safe side of thestreet (on the new public road) if they allowed the 4 new road
cuts on Lionsridge L,oop. He felt thiE would be safer.
10
Chuck Crist asked if allowing the cuts on Lionsridge Loop would
clrange the front setback and KriEtan explained that the front is
deternined by where the access to the hone was located. Buff
stated they were not asking for any clranges in the setbacks.
Chuck conrnented that if they were to access the homes from
Lionsridge Lane (the new public road), the homes would actually
be closer to Lionsridge Ioop due to the snaller rear setback.
chuck felt he could approve the nes curb cuts.
Kathy felt strongly that she would like to see the tso end
driveways conbined to one. She asked staff shat the najor
concern was. Kristan replied, ttsafetyrr. Public works would not
allow large trees. Kristan felt that a landscape buffer nould
look nicer and would break up a line of homes al.ong LionsridgeLoop. She suggested that if the Conmission approved the new 4
cuts, they conbine some of the 5 already approved.
Kathy warren felt that if the total 9 drives could be conbined to
7 drives she could approve the cuts. Pat responded stating that
the essence of a single-fanily home was degraded by having
shared drivenays. Kathy said that one could use the sane
argrument to ask that the original 5 approved cuts be moved to the
inside. Pat felt that they could do a good Job nitigatinq the
curb cuts.
Jin asked the applicant lf they would agree to conbine the closer
drivewaysr entrance to one but access the hones separately. Pat
explained that the cuts were based on the orientation of the
hones.
Connle Knight fett that the drop from 38 to 24 units was
welcomed. She didn't want to thwart the proJect, rather
encourage it. she felt it was an undue hardship. Driveways were
an unnecessary evil . She would vote for approval of the driveway
cuts.
Ludwig felt he could approve the 9 driveway cuts. He could think
of a lot nore things that could be done with all the driveways
facing the same direction.
Diana felt that the new driveway cuts would be better for theproject and bad for the Public.
Diana asked for an infomal vote to see rthere the board stood on
the driveway cuts. There ltere 4 for the proposed new road cuts
and 3 against.
11
Buff Arnold explained that the enployee units were proposed overthe garage on the larger units. lhey vould like the opportunityto buitd thern on as nany units as possible rather than just the
15 allowed per the proposal. They felt they could do it by
increasing the smaller unit garage by 4r. They did intend to
nake the enployee unitE part of the deed restrlctions.
Diana sunreyed the Connisslon regardlng the enployee units aspresented in the memo. They agreed lt rras acceptable. Diana
continued by asking Krlstan lf it ltas appropriate to discuss theissue of the employee units being located on tlre smaller lots.Kristan replied that they could continue lf they wished.
However, the staff would not want to Eee the applicant ask for avariance to allow for the enployee unit and Pat didnrt feel thatit would cause a problen with the exception of a few lots.
Kristan felt there would be no problen nith the enployee units on
any lot as long as the enployee housing units fell within the
confines of the SOO requirenents.
Katby felt it nas appropriate to require 6 and have a maxinun of
15 enployee units on any lot in the subdlvision as long as the
horne fell within the confines of the SDD. She would like to have
seen a phasing plan of enployee unitE to be built at a ninirnum of
1 Per 4 buildings.
Pat explained that he would like to come back if he built all 15
and wanted nore and Diana explained that he couLd always cone
back.
Kathy Warren suggested that, if Pat decided to sel.l the lots andnot build hirnself, that they require hin to cone back and
designate ernployee housing lots.
Diana asked about the phasing plan. She felt that the ptan
should be in sone pattern, not split up. Pat explained that he
does not intend to break up the homes, but that he could notpredict what would happen.
Diana requested a sidewalk and bus shelter and Pat asked if thenorth side of Lionsridge Lane to the entry would be okay?
Diana explained that she didnrt feel that it had to be a 5r valk,
simply a nice walk and that the shelter should be on the same
side of the street. Pat agreed.
Dj-ana asked if the footprlnt of each home would be substantiallythe same and Pat explained that the footprint wil-I be asdifferent as the lot and setbacks would allow.
L2
Ludwig Kurz had no Dore connents.
A motion was nade bv Kathy l{arren and seconded by Chuckcrist for approval of the amendment to tlre sDD per thefindinq of the staff nemo and conditions listed therein withthe foltowinq chanqes and additions:
Diana asked if the Tonn was a party to all covenants so the Town
would have right to litigate as party to the agreement andKristan answered that the enployee dwelling unit restrictions andthe architectural gruidelines would be restricted with the Town asa party to the agreements. The restrictions would be recorded at
Eagle County and run with the land.
Kristan pointed out that the garage could not be separated fromthe unit.
Chuck Criet had no more conments.
Dalton wLshed to express thanks, that he felt the project was
good for Vail.
1. The employee units shall be allowed on AEy lot
including a minfunum of 6 and a maxinrum of 15 as long asthe building was built within the zoning confines i.e.,
variances not requested to allow enployee units.
2. The 4 additional proposed driveway cuts be allowed.
3. A sidewalk separate fron the street be incorporated onthe north side of Lionsridge Lane along with a covered
bus shelter to be located at the project entrance onthe same side of the street as the sidewalk.
4. Drainage Plan be approved per the Town Staff.
5. Phasing plan for the enployee units include a minimumof 1 in the Phase I and 1 in every 4 structures
thereafter.
6. Exterior decks be alloued to encroach 5f into the rear
setback and 2r into the side setbacks and on grade only
on Lots 1-14.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR
A motion sas made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Dalton
Willlarns that the orelininarv plan for a naior subdivision
Development District Anendnent.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR
be approved per the findinqs of the staff nemo and
condltions listed therein with the chanqes and additions asllsted in the conditions of anoroval for the Special
13
Item No. 8:
Faroilv.
Connie f<night renoved herself fron the board due to a conflict of
interest.
Kristan Prltz presented a Bummary of the changes uade to the
proJ ect.
Don Hare exlrlained that there vere no new conments.
Mickey cannon fron the Vall TraLl Chalets ercplained that he felt
a view btockage would result fron the building orientation andsetbacks. He felt that if the bullding Is going to be torn down
and rebuilt, it should be treated as a new development and builtwithin the present zoning restrictions.
Aprll carol , a Vorlaufer owner, asked lf the north side of the
building, which is now a barren wall, could be structurally
changed in order to make the wall nore aesthetically appealing?
Parn Hopkins, architect, stated she would study the l-ssue and
present changes to the Deslgn Review Board.
Art carol , representing the vorlaufer, etated that the nain
concerns were the view inpact and the increase in GRFA. He feltthat the Garden of the Gods did their homework when asking for
additional GRFA in conjunction with an enployee unlt. Tttls
seemed to be the rnanner in which nost increases were aPproved.
He felt that the staff had written the neno in a biased nanner
and not sinply stated the facts. He felt the wording was
nisleading.
Diana responded in the defense of the staff stating that SDDs
tlpically give additional GRFA devoted to enployee units.
Mickey cannon then questioned the SDD purpose to rrallow
flexibilityrr. He felt this waE a general conrnent. Diana
responded that the reason behind allowing the flexibility wasttrat tf the Garden of the Gods were to be torn down and rebuilt
within the setbacks, it would hurt the Vorlauferrs view and not
change the view of the Vail lrail Chalets. The staff felt that
it showed sensitivity on behalf of the Garden of the Gods to
inpact as few buildings as possible.
14
Greta Parks, a residential owner on Gore Creek Drive, didnrt wantto stand in opposition to any one epecific proJect. She feltthere was a county wide problen that needed to be addressed. Shefelt they were talking about obeying ruleE or naking exception toa changing situation. The quality of life was philosophical and
legal . She was not an adJacent owner but definitely a neighbor.
As long as the building was being torn down, she would like to
see the new bullding conply with all regulations. She statedthat she would also like to see Dore conmunity input. She feltthe public notification process should be expanded to include the
neighborhood, not slnply the adjacent owners.
Diana suggested that the CondoninLun Assoclations deslgnate asingle person to be responsible for keeping up with theactivities within the Town. one way this could be acconplished
would be to subscribe to the vail Trail newspaper in which allnotices are published, In regard to the private views, Diana
suggested the possibility of approaching the Town Council to
adopt legislation.
Mickey Cannon reitereated that when he invested in property in
Vail , he 'rexpectedrr the zoning to be upheld.
Connie Knight wished to clarify that she could appropriately askquestions and make conments as a nember of tbe public and not a
board member.
Diana explained that since she trad excused herself from the
board, she was considered public.
Connie lhight, as a Vorlaufer owner, stated that if the
acconmodation units were decreasingf as stated in the LodgeDefinition section on page 6 of the metno, this was in discrepancywith the lrlaster Planrs eoal #2, Section 2.3 objective listed on
page 13 of the memo to rrlncrease the nunber of residential unitsavailable for short term overnight acconmodations.rr She feltthat this was defeating the purpose. Diana e:cplained the rrkey
conceptrr to Connie.
Kristan wished to help clarify the issue. Presently, there were
15 accommodation units. The proposal was for 18 acconnodationunits which represented a combination of aurs and durs as well as
lock-offs restricted for short term rental permanently.
15
Krlstan Pritz, in response to Ur. Cannon, stated that an
SDD is a legal zoning alternative. In response to Mr. carol , she
explained that staff did not rewrlte the nemo. ft was the sarne
neno that was presented in 8ebruary. The staff did not get
involved with private views. She wanted !lr. cannon to understandthat the staff nas not trying to slant the reguest. The stafffelt that it vas inportant to present the project in black and
white.
Jin Shearer liked the eafety iasue, bus access' underground
parkl.ng, green area, landscaping, and the enployee units and feltpart of the trade-offs and reason for the SDD was the employeeunits. He felt the designer had been sensitive, especlally since
the issue had been in front of the Conmission tine after tine.
Chuck Crist concurred with the board.
Dalton Williarns concurred.
Ludwig Kurz concurred wlth Jin shearer. He felt the tine spent
working with adJacent ormerE showed sensitivity. He felt thearchitect had exercl-sed restralnt.
Doris, with public connent, asked, if the SDD had not been
requested, the building torn down and replaced within the current
zoning, would it have inpacted the Vorlaufer nore?
Diana explained that, yes it probabJ.y would have. The architect
had been sensitive. The placement of the building would not have
changed tbe view irnpact of any other adJacent properties due to
the height. In this particular case, they had worked to the
advantage of the greatest number of people. She lf,as supportiveof the project. t{ithout an SDD, ttre Tonn would lose gutters,
landscaping, underground parking' and nuch nore.
Kathy warren stated that if the building were built within the
present zoning code restrictions, the building could actually be
nuch larger in bulk. There was approxinately 2000 square feet insite coverage not used. she felt that the SDD sas bringingpositive changes to the Town. If an 800 s.f. enployee unit was
the trade-off for a parking structure, gutters, bus stop, and
improved landscaping, she was in approval . Holf,ever, she did hope
to see the zoning regulations cleaned up concerning GRFA.
A notion to recommend approval of a new Special DevelopmentDistrict to the Town Council per the staff meno with a
reconmendation to the Desiqn Review Board to reviert the
desicrn (transnarencvl of the north elevation wall was made
bv Kathy Warren and seconded bv Jim Shearer.
VOTE: 6 - O WITH CONNTE KNTGHT ABSTAINING.
16
Connie lGight asked what process should be used to begin private
view legislation and Dl.ana explained that interested partles
sbould Etart by calllng their Council nenbers. Dalton conmentedthat a private view easement could be purchased.
Art Carol asked when the Garden of the Gods issue would go beforethe Town Council and Kristan ansrrered that it would be on tbe
agenda a week from Suesday and the neeting started at 7:30 p.m.
Iten No. 9: Appoint PEC representatlve for the April - June.
1990 DRB tern.
Ludwig Kurz volunteered.
The neeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.n.
L7
'
1.
2nd Revision
PUBLIC NOTICE
NoTIcE IS IIEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental
Conmission of the Town of vail will hold a public hearing in
accord.ance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the
Town of Vail on March 19, L99o at 3:00 p.n. in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
A request for an exterior alteration, strean setback
variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage variance,
and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoorpatio for the Red Lion Building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties
A Work Session on Air guality
A request for a side setback variance for Lot 6' Block 2,vail village Sixth Filing.Applicant: Clinton G. Anes, Jr.
A request for a conditional use pernit to expand a proposed
parking structure for the vail Valley Medical Center on Lots
E and F, Vai.l Viltage 2nd Filing at 181 West Meadow Drive.Applicant: vail valley Medical Center
A reguest for a Special Development District for the Gardenof the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth Filing at
365 Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. HilJ- Fanily
The applications and information about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the Connunity Development
Departnent office.
Town of VaiL
Connunity Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on March 2' L99o.
2.
2
4.
)-"-
oo
dd rnF.l tr \oJt! Fl
.1, .'l 6.E!dodr{ O> tr co c)Ernd(Jl--.t+ FlFIO X.ri.r{ \ O O>()Fq>
Eoeo
.9o
aEE}enE
TEE
E€E
EEEi:gR!E
.E
-E
,*at
o o
2.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environmental
Cornmission of the Tonn of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with section L8.66.050 of the nunicipal code of tbe
Town of Vail on t{arch 26, 1990 at 3:oo p.n. ln the Toltn of vail
tlunicipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A Work Session on Air QuaIitY
A reguest for a conditional use per:nrit to nodify.an outdoor
dinirig deck, an amendment to restrictions regar!1ng tlo
"rpi"i"" unit=, and a reguest for an exterior alteration, a
neight variance, a site Coverage variance and a landscape
vari.nce ln order to construct an additlon to the Bell Tower
Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive.
applicait: Clark Willingharn / BeII Tower Associates, Ltd'
A reguest for a Special Development District at the Garden
of tbe Gods on toi r, Block 5,-Vail Village Fifth Filing at
365 Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill Farnily
A request for a setback variance for the construction of a
g"ra{" on Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Vi}Iage lst Fi}ing'
Applicant: Peter Tufo
A request for a height variance in order to add dormers to
the ripper floor of ttre Mountain Haus at 292 E' Meadow Dr'
(Part -of rract B, Vail village First Filing)
ipplicant: Rich Brown/Mountain Haus condo' Assoc'
A request for an amendment to special Development District
Uo. fZ and a naJor subdivision for resubdivision of Lots 1-
1-9, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No- 3.
Applicant: !tr. Pat D;uphinais, Dauphinais - Moseley
Construction
A reguest for a side yard setback variance and a stream
l"tUi"f variance for Lot 9, Block 3, VaiI Row Houses (Unit
X,
4.
5.
6.
7.
#e).Applicant: Walter Grarnm
The apptications and infornation about the proposals are
avaitilte for public inspection in the Conmunity DeveloPment
Department office.
Town of Vail
Conununity DeveloPment Department
Publishei in the-VaiI Trail on March 9, 1990'
E
-3rz>t.
=|i
/r{\q"ry
g6 d
8nPsi=gFi
=oo< JtoFQoL{;€B
o'o
q
oE
3o3
!',
2
C)
7,K\\t\
a"t+aAq?\,F \ }.\ Zn:, \r\,.-- \ .- q.=iff1[ \ -4" \$
\ \l- \ rL1. -\,-\% \ t "e\'..z'<\ T\ P' 6\ \\:\ >-.\ \
\ n1 \ "-{ \\ +t .-\ r \\FA\\
"' \f\ \ \F \\\\Fi
FHr
{
wH
-\5
(A
P
z
Hg
u)
tri
Ed s.Or-crJ|rtt s:
F4ez
c) vl
(-|)FazN 14,
PI-,ANNING AND ENVIRON!,TENTAL COI.IMISSION
February 12, t99O
Minutes
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie lhight
Ludwig Kurz
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton l{iltians
staffKristan Pritzllike uollica
Shelly Mello
Tom Braun
Betsy Rosolack
The Planning and Environmental Conmission neeting began at
approximately 3:oo p.n. following Site Visits which started at
12:OO p.n. The meeting nas called to order by the vice-
chairperson, Diana Donovan.
Iten No. 1: Appointrnent of PEC chairperson and
vice-chairnerson.
Kathy warren rnoved to annoint Diana Donovan as chairperson.
Chuck Crist seconded the notion.
VOTE:5-OINFAVOR.
Jin Shearer moved to appoint Chuck Crist as vice-
chairnerson.
VOTE:6-OTNFAVOR.
ftem no. 2:A request for an amendnent to Special Developnent
District 23 and a parkinq variance to allow for an
office exoansion, to the Vail National Bank
Buildinq, 1.08 S. Frontacre Road a resubdivision of
nart of Lot D, Block 2, VaiI Village 2nd.Applicant: vail National Bank BldC'- corp-
Jirn Shearer excused hirnself fron this item due to conflict of
interest.
Tom Braun rerninded the Board that this was a reconmendation to
the Town Council. He explained the proposaL by stating that
there were tlto parts to it. one was an anendment to the approved
ptan to allow for the enclosure of two decks on the third floorof the structure and the second part was a reguest for an
amendment to the parking standards to allow parking for the
addition within the parking structure at the vail Valley Medical
Center. Tom reviewed the criteria for najor anendments to SDDrs
and then listed several concerns of the staff. He stated that
the staff recommended denial of the request.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained the original
reguests fron the hospltal and frorn the Doubl.etree regardingparking and the proposed hospltal parking structure. Jay pointed
out that the Doubletree had arnended their SDD even though theparking structure was not Etarted and no condition was placed on
the Doubletree at that tine. Jay stated that the hospital has
agreed to add tcwo t/2 levels, 35 irnnediately for parking and 35at the present would be used for other things to maxinize thespace. He said that the past two approvals were not conditional
upon the parking agreement.
He suggested to the Plannlng Connission that they could approvethe reguest with conditions concerning the start of constructionof the Hospital parking structure. Jay said the Vail Nationaf
Bank qranted to start construction May first. They would be donein JuIy or August. The conditions could state that the parking
structure nust be started by August 1 so the Planning Conmission
would know whether or not there would indeed be parking
available.
Jay explained that they do have a temporary titning problem prior
to the conpletion of the parking structure. He explained that if
one assumed the Hospital did not build their parking structure
the Town could revoke the ternporary C.O. and he would sign aletter regarding that.
Tom pointed out that the approved parking structure does not have
excess parking spaces but only meets the denand of the Doubletree
and the hospital . The proposed additional parking spaces have
not yet been approved.
Kristan Pritz added that at best, there night be one excess
parking spot. She also added that, although the town issupportive of adding the two t/2 Levels, the Highttay Department
would need to be contacted for approval of the additional parking
spaces because they would contribute to additional traffic. She
continued to explain that the issue is adjacent property owners
wanting additional devel.opment without the parking in place.
Connie Knight stated that she felt the Present vail National Bank
parking was atrocious and would reconmend denial .
Kathy warren stated that until sonething concrete was in place
with the hospital parking structure, she felt that the Bank
should provide sorne temporary parking. Also, that the existing
parking should be addressed because, at present, it is already a
problen.
Jay stated that the Bank did rneet parking reguirements now.
chuck asked if the Bank wanted to purchase additional parking
spaces that were going to be constructed but were not yet
approved. When he was told that was correct, he wondered what
wouLd happen if the structure was not constructed. Jay stated
that the Vail Natlonal Bank would have to exercise their optionfor the additional spaces that they were renting before receiving
a building pernit. Chuck felt that with that restriction, he
would vote for the request.
Dal.ton stated that he had wanted to lease a sPace in the Vail
National Bank for his business but he could not get parking along
with it. He asked if they could reguest a parkinq study to see
exactly what the needs really were at the vail National BankBuilding. Dalton wondered if they were too prernature in trying
to vote on the project. Perhaps the hospital could come in with
the proposal for the additional parking first.
Kristan felt that they were prernature but that it was an issue
for the Planning Commission to decide.
Ludwig added to Dalton's remarks. He felt that he would have to
say no to the proposal at the nonent. Ludwig asked what the tine
table was for construction.
Jay said that it would be okay to table the issue fot 2 weeks.
He added that he felt it was unfair of the Planning Conmission to
rnake the Bank provide rnore parking than is really reguired.
Diana asked that if there ltere nore spaces needed than were
originally reguired, if it hrere possible to still reguire more.
Kristan said she woul-d discuss it with Larry.
Torn explained that Larryrs feeling is that if they are cornplying
with the code, he was reluctant to say rtbether or not they could
ask for nrore parking.
Kristan remarked that if the bank was planninq to I'ease parking
spaces on a permanent basis it rnay all-eviate concerns for the
future.
Diana had the same concerns as the other planners and said that
the Planning Connission could deny the request, table it or they
could approve it with conditions.
Jay stated that with conditions the Town would have absolute
protection that the spaces will exist by the end of the fall and
1t would be easily enforced. Tom stated that this was not easily
enforced.
Jay pointed out that the conditions would work, that the Vail
National Bank would not be able to take out a building pertnit
until the construction of the parking structure began and they
could get a TCO when the parking structure was substantially
conpleted.
Kristan stated that the board needed to realize the wishes of,
and the nunber of entities involved. She was concerned aboutgetting a Tco before coropletion of the parking Etructure. She
added that the Bank is not under constraints that were imposed on
the Hospital . Unusual circumstances lrere put on the Hospital
because of the staging and she wanted the board to keep in rnind
that the action on the bank proposal was a real precedent and
needed to be looked at very carefully. Jay said he felt that the
vail National Bank was in the same position as the hospital .
Dalton asked if there ltas a contract between the Bank and the
Hospital . Kristan answered that it was not officially approved
yet.
Diana suggested tabling for two weeks and Jay agreed. Tom asked
Jay to put the conditions that he had suggested in writing.
The motion was nade bv Dalton Williams and seconded bv Chuck
Crist to table the natter for two weeks with the condition that
Jay would draft and submit conditions to Krj.stan within one week.
VOTE:
Iten No. 3:
6 - o - 1 (with Jirn Shearer abstaininq)
Tom Braun described the request as a modest one. That the
vailglo wanted to add two entries plus a porte cochere. They
also want to put up a gate and do additional landscaping on the
West side. fon reviewed criteria and said that it would be as
outlined in CCII zone district and the Vail Lionshead Urban
Design Guide Plan in addition to Etandard zoning considerations
such as set backs, site coveragle, parking etc. However, since
the Lionshead Plan focuses prfunarily on the pedestrianized rnafl
area of Lionshead and the Vailglo L,odge is located outside the
nain pedestrianized area of Lionshead, most of the review
criteiia were not directly relevant to the Vailglo proposal .
There hrere no sub areas directly affecting the property. As far
as compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead,
the relevant issues Itere massing, roofs, facade-valls, structure
and accent elements. The proposal seened to be in compliance
with these elenents. Ton pointed out that the proposal is also
consistent with zoning considerations in the ccII zone district.
A recruest for an exterior alteration to the
Vailglo Lodqe on a portion of Lot 1. Block 2, Vail
Lionshead Third Filing.Anolicant: Craic Holzfaster
The staff reconmendation was for approval . However, in
evaluating this site the staff felt that landscaping inprovements
are needed on the berm on the Frontage Road. Landscaping in that
area would screen the parking lot and in conjunction with
improvements that would be made to L'Ostello, it would greatly
inprove the streetscape in this area.
The staff recommended approval with the condition that the
proposed landscape plan be revised to include inprovements to the
bern between the parking lot and the south Frontage Road.
This revision is to be nade prior to the Design Review Board
Review of the proposal .
Kirk Aker, Architect on the project, stated that landscaping on
the back berm provided very little advantage for users of
Vailglo.Jin Shearer stated that he would like to see the entire Frontaqe
Road l-andscaped. He also added that he wanted to see the
dumpster on the Southwest corner incorporated in the landscapinq
pIan.
Kirk said he would like to discuss these landscape issues withhis client.
Kathy felt that an enclosure or screen for the durnpster should bepart of the conditions to the Design Review Board.
Chuck Crist agreed with the need for landscaping on the Frontage
Road and the screening on the dunpster. He said that he was
unhappy about the fact that the tops of the pine trees were sawedoff to allow the sign on the wall of the vailglo to be viewed.
Dalton felt that the bern needs to be high and there needs to be
better landscaping, because on the Interstate one can see the
parked cars.
Diana stated that with all ttre signs on tlre Vailglo the berm can
be built up a bit.
Connie mentioned that the proposal did look nice to her.
The motion was nade bv Kathy Warren and seconded bv Chuck
Crist to table the iten.
7-OINFAVORVOTE:
Iten No. 4: A recruest for a ninor subdivislon 4nd zone change
for Lots 4 & 5, Block 2. Blqhorn First
Addition. Applicant: Sable/Lunine
Partners, Ltd.
Mike MoLtica explained the proposal . He reninded the board that
ttrey had had a work session on this iten two weeks prior. He
explained that there Itere two parts to the request; a zone
change and a minor subdlvision.
The request for the minor subdivision would create four single
fanily lots from two duplex lots and the zone change was for
single fanily zoning.
Mike reviewed existing zoning and the criteria to evaluate a
zone change. one iten was the suitability of the proposed
rezoning. The staff felt that the proposed rezoning would be
consistent with the Townts objectives and would not increase
overall density.
Mike showed a map which indicated large areas of snow and debris
flow, red hazard and blue hazard avalanche zones within the
boundaries of the two lots. He explained that the applicant was
proposing to rnitigate the hazards either by constructing large
berms or direct nitigation which is structural strengthening of
the buitdings. He said the appticant wanted to keep open the
options of which type of nitigation to use, and would prefer to
have the individual lot oltners decide the method for themselves.
Mike continued to explain that the staff felt very strongly that
the proposed berning rnethod of toitigation was unacceptable. rt
was felt that vehicular access into the woods to construct the
berrn woul.d create additional scaring. Another concern of thestaff was the four driveway cuts proposed and the staff
recomnended a naximun of two driveway cuts.
The second criteria was whether or not the amendment presented a
convenient, workable retationship within land uses consistent
with the nunicipal objectives. Mike stated that the staff feltthat singJ.e fanily residential zoning was consistent with
adjacent land uses and was conpatible with the neighborhood.
The staff was in favor of the proposed staggered setbacks along
Lupine Drive. However, one concern of the staff was the
applicantsr request for GRFA. The existing allowable GRFA is
L1-,295 square feet. The applicant is asking for 141390 square
feet. The staff was not in favor of that increase.
The third criteria was whether the rezoning provides for the
growth of an orderly, viable cornrnunity. The staff believed that
the rezoning would provide for the growth of an orderly and
viable commun5.ty.
The staff recommendation was for approval- of both the requestswith the following conditions of approval:
1. That the Town Council approve the zone change
request before the Planning Conrnission chairperson
signs the plat.
2. That the platprohibits thernitigation.3. That the plat include athe total al.Iowable GRFA
include a restriction which
use of berning as a method of hazard
restriction which linitsto 13r295 sguare feet.
4. That the plat lnclude a restriction lirniting the
nurnber of driveway cuts to a maximun of two.
Michael Perkins, architect for the project, stated that the
applicant would prefer to be al.lowed some flexibility in the
solutions for nitigation of the hazards. He passed out a draft
restrictive covenant proposed to be used for hazard nitigation.
It stated that the use oi berms as the sole or prirnary nethod of
nitigation of natural hazards be prohibited and that the use of
bermi, retaining wall-s or other nitigation devices less than 6
feet in height rnay be used in conjunction with direct rnitigation
of the structure. He continued to explain that the reason they
were asking for extra GRFA is that it would cost more to do
direct nitigation. This, according to Perkins, would off-set
their cost.
Marty Abel , property olrner, said that his engineer confinned that
each dwelling unit would cost about 24 thousand dollars to do the
direct nitigition and that that was how they arrived at the
additional square footage for each unit--27o more square feet per
unit.
In regard to driveway cuts Michael Perkins felt that with four
cuts it would be 508 less traffic as opposed to two cuts and he
felt that if they were neeting the single fanily restrictions
they should have- single fanily allowance of one driveway per
unil. He said sharing a driveway is part of what makes a duplex
not as pleasant as a single fanily house.
Marty Abel said he would agree to covenants that restrict large
berms. However, he felt the best way for nltigation was site
specific, not necessaril.y direct nitigation. He felt the wording
on ttre restriction should satisfy each reguirement for
construction and felt that excluding all berrning rtas unfair. He
felt that the covenants could say that berning would not be used
as the prinary rnitigation method.
Kathy asked hin that if he did not want to go along with any of
the staff recornmended conditions. Marty that they would 9o along
with itens #2 and #3 but not *4. Kathy nas not very comfortable
with the staternent that said that they could only do a certain
type of nitigation and asked Kristan if it would be.appropriate
for tfre applicant to come back to the Planning Comnission if
berrning is proposed. Krlstan answered that the condition was
related to the subdivision request and tlrerefore nust be dealt
with now.
Kathy felt that the correct rtay to do this nas to cone back with
a design and discuss nitigation.
Marty felt that the prirnary rnethod should be direct nitigation
but felt it was unfair to restrict berms completely.
Kathy was not confortable allowing additional GRFA. Regarding
the drive cuts, she had no problen having four driveltays.
Dalton fel.t that the applicant could be perrritted additional. GRFA
since it would be allowed under single fanily zoning, which is
what they were requesting. Dalton also preferred the sentence
that allowed retaining nal.Is or berats less than 6 feet in height
to be used in conJunction with direct nitigation.
connie asked if with hazard nitigation was a concern of the
Planning Cornmission. Kristan answered that the Planning
Conmission needed to consider any concerns that were part of a
proposal . Connie was in favor of two driveway cuts, did not
want an increase in GRFA and felt that the nitigation should
probably be in the structure itself. She also felt that there
should be some warning of the hazard on the plat.
Jirn had no problem with four driveway cuts. He spoke of the
reconfiguration of the tot lines and felt that this type of thing
shoufd be discouraged. He wanted the GRFA to stay the same as
that which was originally on the lots. With regard to
rnitigation, he felt that if they need both types of rnitigation
then both tlpes of nitigation should be pernitted.
Diana stated that developersr financial concerns cannot be a
consideration of the Planning Conmission. she felt that four
driveways were better than two and that the GRFA should stay the
same. She stated that the Planning Conmission has not previously
given additional GRFA when changlng zoning. She suggested
possibly adding a condition that said trees over six j-nch caliper
cannot be renoved. She wanted the setbacks shown on the plat and
covenants for all four lots.
Chuck asked if the total square footage restriction would be
placed on all the lots. Mike answered that this would be part of
with the covenants.
A rnotion was made bv Kathv Warren and seconded bv Dalton
williams to reconnend apDroval of a minor subdivision to the
Town Council based on the staff memo with the following
conditions:
1. That the Town councit approve the zone change reguest
before the PEC chairperson signs the plat.
2. The the foltowing restrictive covenant be placed on the
subdivision: rrThe primary nitigation of natural
hazards on the Property shall be through dj-rect
nitigation of the structure, and the use of berms as
the sole or primary nethod of nitigation sball be
prohibited. Berms, retaining wal ls or other mitigation
hevices less than six feet in height may be used in
conjunction with such direct uritigation.rl
3. That the following restrictive covenant be placed on
the subdivision: rrThe total allowable GRFA for the
subdivision shal1 be as followst Lot I = 31300 square
feet, Lot 2 = 3,300 sg[uare feet, Lot 3 = 31300 square
feet and Lot 4 = 3'395 square feet. The total GRFA
sha11 be 13,295 square feet.rr
4. The front, staggered setbacks shall be indicated on the
Plat.Lot l- = 40 foot front setback
LoE 2 = 20 foot front setback
Lot 3 = 30 foot front setback
Lot 4 = 50 foot front setback
t2 . 1,990.
VOTE:T.OINFAVOR
Iten No. 5:
A motion was made bv Kathy Warren and seconded by Ludwig Kurz to
approve the zone change based on the staff meno dated February
Connie removed
Gods stating a
herself fronconflict of
the discussion of the Garden of the
interest.
9
FaniIv
Kristan Pritz presented the proposal to the Board. She started
out by saying that the applicant had decided to have only a
worksession.
Mr. Don Hare, representing t'trs. Hill, discussed the proposal . He
concurred with the staff and reasons for the proposal . He said
the owner will tear down the bullding and build a new one.
Regarding the concerns of the Vorlaufer residence, he said he met
with then and considered rotatlon of the building but will still
need to anend the SDD.
Art Carol , a resLdent of the Vorlaufer, asked when this would be
proposed to come back. Krl.stan answered ttrat this would be on
the 26th of February, but that Ehe felt it would be helpful to
hear his concerns today. The nain concern is the effect on the
view of the mountain and he questioned whether there was some hlay
that this could be lessened. llhere followed a long discussion of
views, amount of encroachment and View Corridors.
rten No. 6: A re$rest for an exterior alteration for
Condorniniuur Unit *3 in the Gore Creek P1aza
Buildino at 193 East Gore Creek Drive. Block 58.vail vlllaoe First Filinc.
Mike Mollica presented this proposal . Ile had a letter of
approval from the Condoniniun Association.
The owner of condoniniun #1, next to the condominium that was
proposing changes objected to the location of a balcony. She had
two concerns. The first was sharing the balcony and the second
was the fireplace venting. This was diEcussed and it was decided
to elirninate the balcony, and the fireplace would be vented to
the east, three feet above unit #1's operable windows.
for approval with conditionE.
Conditions: 1. The Balconv be removed from the common
wall.
2. The fireplace be vented to the East
about three feet above the window per
the staff memo.
VOTE: 7-0INFAVOR
ften No. 7: A request for a side selback YaTiance for Lot 6,
Block 2. vail village sixth Filing.
Appllcant: CLinton G. Anes. Jr.
Shelly Uello explained ttrat the applicant requested to table this
iten for two weeks.
10
The notion was made bv Kathv l{arren and seconded by Jin Shearerto table this item untll Februarv 26, 1990.
VOTE:7-OINFAVOR
Iten No. 8: A recruest for a hei.qht variance to construct a new
residence on Lot 3. Block 2. vail Potato Patcht
Alpine Townhornes fV.Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
The request is for a height variances ranging from two to ninefeet. Tom Braun presented this reguest and showed site plans and
surveys. ne expllined that the project would involve altering
existing grades by filling in low points throughout the lot. An
existing easement is also referenced as a hardship affecting site
planning. Torn pointed out that the history on the lot was
relevant.
Sornetime in 1.976 excavation was begun for a residence. The
excavation dranatically altered the grade and then this past
summer the applicant began filling the lot without approval from
the Town. fhe factors were relevant in deternrining what is the
existing grade of the lot. Tom also added that considering the.
grade oi ttre lot after the 1976 excavation would impose an unfair
hardship on the applicant because of the hole that had been
created on the lot.
Thro surveys rtere subnitted, one showing essentially existing
conditionl and one showing the conditions of the lot prior to
excavation in 1976. The staff deternined that the nost
reasonable survey to use was the one that was done prior to
excavation in 1976. This approach is also consistent with other
decisions made by staff concerning lots that have been disturbed.
Tom continued to discuss criteria and findings. The staff felt
that granting the request would be a grant of special privilege.
The staff recommendation was for denial . The staff could see no
legitinate physical hardship to allow for the variance. The
stitt felt that the proposed design showed little consideration
to the grade of the propertY.
Mike Lauterbach, the appticant, took exception to the staff memo.
He felt that tre could conforrn to the required regulated height if
there were not a gas line in the easement. He felt that he could
drop the houee nine feet into the hole, cornpensate by allowing a
four to six foot height variance or fill the lot conpletely and
start frorn scratch. He then pointed out that the Lionsridge
subdivision had fitled a whole ravine. He felt that the Potato
Patch subdivision would be best served if the house were built to
the hiqhest and best use for this site. He stated that nithout
fifling the lot, there would be no views of the ski nountain.
Ll
Gary Bossow, a property owner who lives two lots away' agreed
with both Mike and the staff ln that you could fill and build but
he said 10 feet over the height restriction was excessive.
Kristan explained that in construction, the exlsting grade nust
be used and persons ltere not given pernission to dunp dirt and
then build on the lot later on.
Chuck asked how the Lionsridge subdivision obtained approval and
Kristan said that the planning Connission had given approval for
a total site plan.
cary Bossow stated that maybe the lot was not designed to have a
view of VaiI Mountain. Ludwig Kurz then stated that with really
creative plans you could inprove the situation without requiring
a variance. Lauterbach said that he felt that Ludwig was
suggesting that he point the house down the valley but that was
not what he wanted to do.
Connie asked if it was permissable to fill lots and Diana
explained that they could fill then but they still must use theoriginal grade in considering height restrictions.
Mike added that the ridge was artificially high and that was a
hardship and that the easenent was as big a problen as the lowpoint on the lot. Diana said she could not find a reason for the
variance, and that the lack of a view is not a hardshlp. Mike
asked about the easenent. Kathy asked if the easements were onthe tot when it was purchased and Mike stated that they were.
Diana wondered if the Planning Conmission didnrt often give
variances for easenents. Ton pointed out that there ldas stillplenty of land to build on.
At this point the board discussed other ways and places that the
horne could be built.
The rnotion was made bv Kathy Warren and seconded bv Ludwio Kurzfor Denial based on the fact that there was no hardship proven
and per the staff rnemo.
Jim stated that he felt that the hone needed to be redesigned.
Diana said she was not convinced a variance was needed.
Bossow asked what kind of hardship Lauterbach could possibly
have.
Diana expressed a need to look at the lot again.
Mike asked how the Lionshead subdivision had gotten an approval
and Kristan explained that they went before the Planning
commission reguesting a fill and grading pernit.
Mike Laterbach said he would like to table for two weeks andpresent a grading p1an.
L2
Ludwiq withdrew his second.
Tom reninded ltike that if the lot were regraded, the engineer
would need to look at the whole proJect and the other lots
affected. Mike sald he thought he could cone back with a
revised grading plan and asked to table.
Diana asked Kristan if you could look at all the lots that had
been filled. Diana stated that the Planning Cornmission lrad
allowed grullies on lots to determine whether units could be
separated. DaLton said if ttre ridge rrere artificially raised
that that seened to be a factor.
The notion was rnade bv Chuck Crist and seconded by Jin Shearer to
table for two weeks.
VOTE:6 - 1 with Kathv voting actainst tabling.
ften No. 9: Discussion of revisions to Zoning Code. Siqn Code
and Desiqn Review Guidelines.
Torn explained to the board that there hras a need to revise
existing developrnent regulations, that over tine a number of
snall and relatively isolated issues and problens with the codes
had arisen. He asked that the Planning Board take a
comprehensive look at the regulations.
He stated that he was interested in the big picture perception of
existing guidelines, for example do the codes only need
refinenents or are they in need of a uajor overhaul? can the
relationship between -DRB, PEc, and Council be inproved with
regard to the developnent review process? Is the existing review
process cumbersome and slolt' not thorough enough or adeguate.
iorn wanted to knotr what the problens were and wanted input for
the RFP.
Diana felt that it was not a good thing to rewrite the zoning,
code and that she also felt that it was not a good thing to hire
an outsider. She sinply felt it needed to be tightened up.
Ton explained that it was extremely valuable to bring in fresh
eyes to look at the zoning code.
Kristan explained that when they did choose a consultant the
staff and board would have input. They wanted to work with the
Board and Council but felt that a fresh look was important.
Diana felt that there uere very few minor problems. Chuck tended
to agree with Diana, he was very opposed to hiring an outside
consultant.
13
Jirn felt that we dld not need najor involvernent of an attorney to
oversee the project.
Dalton did not feel that an outside consultant was necessary.
He said that the consultant would be paid to study rules that the
staff was already faniliar wittt. Diana stated that everyone that
works with the code knows the problens already.
Kristan explained that the Etaff wasnrt advising a total overhaul
of ttre zoning code, but that she has seen tbe use of many loop-
holes and she felt the need for consultant aesistance was
irnportant, especially given the existing staff level in planning.
Dalton wondered if you could get an outsl'de advisors in certain
areas without hiring a consultant.
Diana expressed that fact that usually ideas seened to cone fron
the community during the public hearings.
Kristan said that there would need to be some type of consulting
team and that the staff was not in the positlon to work on this
because of their work load. Kathy felt that this was not an easy
project, that there rdere broad range issues to consider and that
Lhe-county regulations and those of the Town shoufd fit together
better.
Kristan said that it sounded as though the PEC rtanted a lead
person with consultants as needed. But she reminded thern that
they would need an Attorney for rewriting the code. irim stated
that he would like to see clearer lines between the Planning
Conmission and the Design Review Board. Tom agreed that total
revision was not necessary.
Kathy liked Chuckrs idea of having localsr input, but felt there
were many locals that were self serving.
The discussion ended.
14
&
t
PI.AI{NING AND ENVIRONUENTAI, COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 26, L99O
Present
Chuck Crlst
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Ludwig KurzJin Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Wlllians
staffKristan Pritz
t{ike Uolllca
Tom Braun
She1ly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
Ttre Planning and Environnental Connission meeting was called to
order at 3:OO p.n. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson.
Iten No. 1: Approval of minutes for Februarv 12, 199o meeting.
Motion for anproval of minutes with corrections was nade by
Jinr Shearer and seconded bv Dalton Willians.
VOTE: 7-OfNFAVOR.
Item No. 2: A recruest for variances frorn the side and rear
setbacks to allow for the expansion of an existincr
hone on Lot 5. Block E, Vail das Schone Filing No.
-t-Applicant: Torn and Nancv Ricci
Uike Mollica explained that this was a request for a variance for
the east side setback only. This was discussed on the site.
Motion for approval per the staff meno was nade by Kathv
Warren and seconded bv Connie Kniqht.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR.
Item No. 3: A request for a side setback variance for Lot 6.
Block 2. vail villacre Sixth Filinq.Aoolicant: Clinton G. Ames, ;fr.
APPLTCANT WAS NOT PRESENT TABI,ED WITHOUT VOTE
Item No. 4: A request for a side setback variance, for a
qaraqe and storaqe room for a new residence. on
Lot 15, Block 1, vail Potato Patch.Applicant: Bruce Kasson
Shelly Mello explained that a residence had not yet been
constructed on the site and that a hardship could not be found
since the storage could be built elsewhere.
ject, rtatelrrat the applicantTon Briner, archilct for the pro
wanted to take advantage of this steep site and make a garagewith one space for vehicles that were not used very much. Hestated that this was not storage but actuatly a three car garage
and showed a model . He said that the thlrd car would be nostlyin storage and the variance that was being reguested would be
underground.
Kathy asked,rrWhy not just shift the home 7 feet to the left?rr andBriner claimed that nore trees would be lost this way.
Diana said she felt the only way she could slmpatbize with the
reguest was if the footprint of a hone were narked on the plat
showing which trees would be lost.
Dalton felt that he could not see any hardship on an unbuilt lot.
Mr. Briner said that not everything sas black and white. He feltthey were not doing anything disastrous and that if nore trees
would be saved, he felt the Planning Conrnission would support it.
Connie said that she didn't have any problen with the property
variance as it vas underground, but that at a later time ttre
orirner nay want to add to the top of it.
l,lotion for denial per the staff neno was made bv DaltonI{illians and seconded bv Jirn Shearer.
VOTE: 7-OTODBNY
Item No. 6:A recmest for an arnendnent to Special DevelopnentDistrict 23 and a parkincr variance to allow for anoffl.ce expansion, to the VaiI National BankBuildinq at 1208 south Frontage Road West. aresubdivision of part of Lot D. Block 2. Vail
Jin Shearer removed hinself frorn the Board due to a conflict ofinterest on this iten.
Ton Braun explained that at the last meeting the Ptanning
Connission had asked to have nore infonnation. one of the thingsthey had wondered about was whether or not the Tolrn could ask the
Bank to have more parking than was actually reguired. Inrry
Eskwith stated that the parking for the bank was coneistent withthe parklng code and that we could not ask for more.
The staff was still unconfortable with the proposal according to
Tom. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the
bank had between March 15 and l{arch 20 to exercise their option.
tle repeated that he felt the conditions asked for put then in the
sane position as the hospital . If the hospital parking was notstarted they canrt occupy their nen space. He felt the sarne
should be applied to the bank. He added that by the tine of a
TCO for the bank in JuIy the parking structure would be under
way.
Kristan stated that a TCo for the hospitat addition would not be
released until they have obtained a building pernit for their
parking structure.
t
a
epartmen
had not
Connie stated that she rras unconfortable with the tining that theparking needs to be in place.
Kathy said she felt that the cart sas before the horse and thatthe appllcatLon should cone back after ttre parking proposal is inplace.
ltotion for denial was nade bv Connie Kniaht and seconded bv
Nathy Warren.
Discussion continued before votlng. Diana asked if the bank
would conmit to 12 Bpaces. Jay felt this was unfair to requireparking beyond what was required by the zoning code.
Chuck asked whether or not the Highway d
new proposal. Kristan replied that they
Diana asked about the access fromstructure and Kristan replied tbatof the structure down to the bank
foresaw great problens.
t had okayed theproblen with it.
the bank to the parking
the access is from the frontbut there is no bridge. Kathy
Dalton asked whether there would be a connection between the two
underground parking lots between the bank and the hospital . Jay
replied that if they were connected, they would lose spaces inthe hospital parking lot.
VOTE: 2 - 4 - 1 KATHY AND CONNTE TN FAVOR OF DENIAL
Motion for approval of a reconnendation to the Town Counciloer the nroposed modified conditions was made by Chuck Crist
and seconded by Ludwiq Kurz.
Conditions: 1. As proposed by the Vail National Bank in
the nemo dated Februarv 22. 1990 from Jav
Peterson to Tom Braun.2. The Tolrn Attornev shalL review the
nurchase or lease agreenent between the Vail
National Bank and the Vail Vallev l,ledical
Center.3. Five spaces rather than 4 spaces be
purchased.
VOTE: 4 - 2 - 1 WTTH JIM SHEARER ABSTAINTNG.
Item No. 5:An amendment to Special Developnent District 4.
Cascade Villaqe, to amend Area D. Glen Lvon office
Building at 1OOO S. Frontage Road l{., Lot 54. Glen
Lyon Subdivision.Applicant: GIen Lvon office Buildinq - A Colorado
Partnership.
Kristan Pritz described the proposal including a reguest to notbuild the parking structure during Phases I and II. Phase I
would include an office expansion. The lot is narrow andexisting trees dictate where the parking lot would have to beIocated. She referred the board to the TDA parklng analysis.
She showed which trees would be lost or Doved.
Kathy asked if there would be valet parking during peak tlnes.
Kristan replied that there would be.
Kristan explained that the staff nas reconmending approval withthe conditions on the previous neno plus the conditions on this
Demo.
Kay Saulsbury from Colorado Mountain College expLained that CMC
has a parking shortage which seems to increase. She felt that
the present parking does meet the Town of Vail standards but thatLt is stitl not enough. Dl-ana said that unfortunately it does
neet the Town of Vail standards and that there is nothing they
can do to increase it.
Chuck asked if the parking structure would be constructed with
Phase fII and Kristan replied that it would.
Dalton felt that there should be a condition that if the Brew Pubis opened during the day on weekdays the parking structure would
be constructed. Kristan stated that was already part of the
phasing plan.
Kathy asked Andy if he would go along with the conditions and
Andy replied that he would. Diana wondered how the Pub could be
prevented from opening for lunch during the week without a
parking structure in place. Andy said he could not open during
the day and weekdays because the tenants of the offl-ce building
had been pronised parking and he would be cited by the Tonn of
Vail.
Andy Norris agreed that parking per the TOV requirements would be
provided on site for the east building no matter what. He agreed
he would have to decrease office sguare footage or add
underground parking to meet the reguirernent.
9. The Beer HalI would not be open during the week davst
ff the Beer Hall is opened for weekdav use, the parking
structure nust be constructed.
10. tnplovee units would be restricted permanentl-y.
The motion was seconded bv Chuck Crist.
VOTE: 7-0rNFAvoR
I
tr.ro added recomnendations to the list of 8 as follows:
Iten No. 7
at 201 Gore Creek Drive.Aool-icant: Clark willinqhan/Bell Tolter
Associates. Ltd.
Chuck Crist Left for a short while.
Tom Braun stated that there were four separate requests. Anexterior alteration to add enclosed floor area, a height
variance, a variance to reduce landscaping and a conditl.onal usepermit to establish an outdoor dining patio on the second floorof the building. Torn showed elevations and site pLans.
Ton first explained the request for an exterior alteration. It
was for three things: the addition of a dormer on tbe fourthfloor of the building along Gore creek Drive, the additlon of afifth floor and expansion of the fourth floor on the north sideof the building and a 27o square foot ground floor retail
expansion adjacent to the Gore Creek Promenade with therelocation of an existing dining deck to a roof top dining deck
above the proposed expansion. The residential addition would add
one dwelLing unit to the property and a total of 2,278 sguarefeet of GRFA. Tom reviewed the VaiL village Design
Considerations with respect to the exterior alteration. Thepedestrianization and vehicular penetration are not affected by
the proposal . With regard to streetscape franework, the proposed
retail infitl along Gore creek Promenade will provide an activity
generator to give street life and visual interest. Torn statedthat the dining deckrs location would have little success inprovlding such activity. With regard to street enclosure, the
dormer proposed for the south side of the building would not
change the street enclosure along Gore Creek Driveappreciatively. The one store retail expansion along the
Promenade would establish a more desirable rrhuman scalerr on this
side of the building but any perceived reduction in mass on ttris
side of the building is negated by the introductl-on of a fourth
and fifth floor.
Street Edge: slightly irregular facade lines, buildlng Jogs, and
landscaped areas create life and visual interest for thepedestrian. The proposed retail expansion is consistent withthis criteria. The addition is slightly recessed from
inprovenents of the Gore Creek Plaza building. Any certain
rhythn has been established along the entire length of the
Promenade.
A request for a conditionat use permit to nodifv
an outdoor dininq deck. an amendment torestrictions regardincr two emplovee units' and a
recruest for an exterior alteration, a heiqht
variance and a landscape variance in order toconstruct an addition to the BeIl. Tower Buildinc
Building height: Height variance is required to arlow additionsto.the uppeT floor on the north side of the building. The
9x1gtr.ng buirding is non-conforming with respect to allowablebuitding heights. The proposed addition would increase thedegree of non-conformity. Ton felt that one nust consider theinprications of this proposal as it relates to future developnentapplications. rf approved, the proposal would Lntroduce a rirtrrfloor elenent along the core creek side of the building and anaddition of this_nagnitude is inconsistent with the urian DesignGuide Pran as well as the height plan outrined in the recently-adopted vail village naster plan. Ton then discussed views airdfocal points and then discussed serrrice and delivery.
Sun/Shade issue: Tom stated that the Design Guidelines say nAIl
new or expanded buildings shoul.d not substintiarly increasi thesunmer and fall shadow pattern on adjacent properlies or thepublic right-of-wayr'. Ton said that the propolal would increaseshade arong the promenade, the shadow pattern at 12:oo noon onlilarch 21 and septenber 23 would be 4 L/2 feet in width. Thisinpact is both unnecessary and unacceptabre to the staff. Tonrsnext concern was the architecture/landscape considerations. Hestated that it was important to address this consideratLonpertaining to roofs. staff felt that the flat roof was out ofcharacter with the Village and the manner in which it wasproposed displays little to no relationship to existing roofforns on the building. The staff recornmendation is foi denlal ofthe requested exterior arteration. The staff feels that shilethe proposed additions may benefit the owner and the tenants itwirl do little to benefit the overarl fabric of the village. TheVillage is based on a very delicate balance between the biirtenvironment, open sp?ce? and space between the buildings and itis felt that this building has reached its optinum level ofdevelopment.
9_t.iS Snowdon, an architect representing the applicant, statedthat the dining patio has been reduced to a liltle hori. The sunon the deck wourd be increased by raising it to the second floorlevel . Those on the deck would arso have a better view of bothcore creek Pronenade and the childrenrs plaza. craig felt thatthe first floor retair space was a deflnite plus. He stated thatpeople do not loot! up when they are close to a building. Hestated that the fifth floor would not be viewed at a1l. Theclosest view wourd be fron a1i{se street. Regarding the heightalong core creek Drive, the height conplies with thE urban oisignconsiderations for the Virlage. craig arso said that the GoreCreek Plaza building had set a precedence, therefore the BelIToner building would not be increasing the situation.
Regarding Service and Delivery, Craig said that there nere 23ofeet frorn delivery point at willow Bridge roading area whLch wascomparabre to the one vail Place Building and the Hong Kong cafeBuilding. With regard to Sun/Shade, the 5th floor does nofincrease the shade. The 4th floor roof does affect thesun/shade. with regard to the architecture, steeper roofs couldhave-been designed but would have nade it nuch nore of a heightproblem. I{ith regard to restricting the two ernployee unlts-pernanently, craig asked if this had been done any other ptace in
the Village. He felt that it seemed extreme. Regarding
landscape reduction, Craig felt that there was more to
landscaping than dirt. He stated that the onner regrularly
invests S5,000 per year on landscaping for such things as window
boxes, flower baskets, Christnas lights etc.. Craig felt thatthe section of landscaping being used was not highly visible. Healso inforned the board that presently the owner of the BeIL
Torter owns part of the property that the public stairs are on.
He also pointed out that elirnlnating the patio at grade will
increase the Promenade area by 100 to 125 feet. He felt thatreplacing the landscaping with stairway had very little irnpact onthe view. Herman Staufer, who owns the restaurant, felt that the
Iandscaping iras a trade-off for etairrays that nork the same as apatio.
Rod Slifer, irho owns the unit on the top floor of the building tothe west of the core creek Plaza building, said his concern waswith the top floor addition on the north side of the building.
His view has already been impacted by a vent on the roof of the
BeII Tower Building, and if the addition was approved, his viewof the core Range would be totally blocked. He requested that
the current design be moved back 10 feet which would allow hirn
enough view to satisfy hirn.
Craig replied that the addition would infringe on Rod Sliferrs
view but that it would not totally block it. Rod disagreed.
Pepi Granshamrner then spoke frorn the audience. He was concerned
about the height and the number of varlances. He said that ifthe buildings keep on increasing in size, it would destroy the
Town.
Kristan explained the height linitations to hin and pointed outto hirn that the staff rras recommending denial of this proJect.
Kathy wondered whether or not a site coverage variance wasreguired. Torn explained that patios and dining decks count assite coverage in CCI so that the discrepancy llas not gettinggreater. Kristan added that the staff had looked at this veryclosely. Kattry agreed with the staff on this proposal and did
not feel that this was an appropriate expansion in an apProprl.ateplace. She said that perhaps the core creek Plaza did set a
precedence, but she didnrt see why the Town nust continue vith
another similar expansion. Kathy said that fron the May Palacethe visibility from the 4th and 5th floors was apparent. She did
not feel that the roof structure ltas appropriate and sas
concerned about the design of the retail deck.
ilin had no problem rrith the retall addition, but he did have a
problen with the upper rrskyscaperr. Connie agreed with Pepi thatif the Town kept growing it would die. Regarding employee
housing she felt that it could be kept at 15 years.
Craig snowdon said that he was wllling to replace the units prl-orto the issuance of a building petnit sonewhere else in Vall vlth
a deed restriction. This would have to be reviewed by the etaff.
Connie asked Herilan hos the waitresses would get to the deck.
Ludwig did not feel that growth would kltl Vait, but that Valldid need checks and balances. He stated that lf there sas a
precedence set, one did not have to perpetuate this. Ludwig alsofelt that the Bell Tower Building was an attractive one atpresent and that the addition night destroy the quality.
Dalton also discussed the Gore Creek Plaza Bullding roofaddition. Be felt that it was iIl advleed and that now that Ltls constructed he felt that we should not repeat this error.
Dalton felt that the angle of the additlon could be clranged sothat it would not affect the view through the stalmay.
Diana felt that the existing nassing was appropriate, that it waethe end of a row of buildings and a very pretty building. Her
concerns were that one more unit sould increase vehiculartraffic, that the enployee units nust be peruranent, and that tbe
second floor railing blocked views. She had no problem wlth theretail infill, and Diana asked for clarificatLon on site
coverage. Ton replied that the site coverage rlas non-confomingat present and wasnrt changing. Diana felt that when one aeksfor this number of variances, the proposal could be improved.
Craig Snowdon asked to table the iten.
Motl.on for tablino was made by Kathy Warren and eeconded bv
Connie Kniqht.
VOTE: 6-OINFAVOR.
Item No. 8:
Connie Knight rernoved herself fron the board due to a conflLct ofinterest,
Kristan explained changes since the last review. She sal,d the
applicant had rotated the building slightly to decrease the
encroachment to the east.
Pan Hopkins, the architect on the proJect, said that because of
the cornrnon easement for the swiuuning pool and the recreatl'on
amenities, the building was pushed as far west as posslble. she
showed this on a site plan.
I
Bill Hanmon, a resident of the Vorlaufer, rtas concerned thatttrere would be a decrease Ln hotel rooms, he felt that hotel
rooms were inportant and disagreed with the wording of keys
versus lock-off rooms. He said this ls a similar situation to
the Rarrshorn when it converted fron a trotel to condominiums. He
was also concerned about the flat roof.
creg Stutz, representing the Vorlaufer condoniniun owners andl,tr. and Mrs. Chandler and Mr. and Urs. Carol , said he felt tbat
he wanted nore time to analyze the request or else have the roof
moved 1O feet lower. He eaLd he had not had sufficient tirne tosit down and talk with the architect. Since the buildlng is notto go up till 1991, he would like more tl-ne to look at it. Ur.
Chandler said he bought his Vorlaufer unit 21 years ago and has
been able to watch the torchlight parades. l,[r. carol sald the
same thing.
Don Hare, representing the Garden of the Gods, said that he had
two or three neetings with l{r. Carol . The plan had been reworked
and they had done as nuch as they felt they could do in stayingwithin the setback restrictions that exist on the building now.
Dan eaid that they would like to go ahead with the plan. Theyfeel that they trave stayed back as far as they can.
Mr. Stutz asked that if Special Development District had expired,
how could this be an anendment to the sDD. Kristan replied that
the same process was used. He explained that he felt it should
be advertised as a nehr Special Development District.
Chuck Crist returned at this tine.
Diana asked if it was legal to proceed. Larry responded he feltthat it was legal to proceed. This was strictly advisory and
would go to the Town Council. More discussion followed
concerning whether this was an amendment or a new Special
Developrnent District. Kathy stated that if this was a nelt
Special Development District she would change her approach to theproblem. she felt that what was being done to the property rtasto the neighbors' benefit. She also felt tbat the setback
variance could have been done within the present zoning.
Ludwig felt that the developers had worked with restraint andsensitivity in tight of what could have been done. He wonderedif extra time rnight be appropriate and that they would have a
chance to look at the proposal again. He stated that he had an
opportunity to look at the view from the Vorlaufer and that there
sas no guestion that the views were impeded. Holtever' he feltthat the developers were using sensitivity in moving ttre
building.
IDiana felt that the Garden of the Gods uas doing a good job with
the proposal. She stated that if the Garden of the Gods sere
constructed up to tlreLr setbacks, it would be a wall toward theVorlaufer. She said according to the gruidelines the board sould
have no reason to say no to the proposal . She added that there
nere no private views in Vail . She wondered if an SDD rras
necessary for this proJect. Kristan replled that the staff
Iooked at it as a brand new proJect when they were told that the
building would be torn down. The first guestion they asked was
why have a Special Developnent District.
Kathy asked if a SDD was leavLng optlons wide open. She also
wondered why it was necessary. Larry Eskwith replied that the
Tonn was getting benefits with a SDD. This way the staff has theability to supervise the architectural design and that a complete
development plan had to be reviewed by the staff so that there
was nore controL with the SDD.
The applicant asked to table to llarch 26.
The rnotion for tablino to March 25 was made bv Kathv Warren
and seconded bv Jin Shearer
VOTE: 5 - O - 2 with Chuck Crist and Connie Knight abstainincr.
Item No. 9:A work session to discuss an exterior alteration,
a strearn setback variance. a Eite coveraoe
variance. a conditional use for a deck enclosure
and a new outdoor patio and an amendrnent to the
View Corridor for the Red Lion Buildinq. (304
Item No. 10:a work session for Special Development Districtzz, Lot 1 - 19. Block 2, Lionsridge, Filinq No. 3.Apnlicant: Pat DaupJrirnais
A work session - no minutes taken.
Bridqe St. )
Appll-cant: Frankie Tancr and Landnark Properties
A work session - no minutes taken.
On February 12, L99O, the PEc reviewed this request. The
applicant tabled the iten in order to work with the adjacent
pioperty owners on the View irnpact of the project. Since that
LirnL, the applicant has anended the request by slightly chanqing
the location of the proposed building. Below is a coutparison of
the setbacks due to the change in building location:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
EAST
WEST
NORTH
SOUTH
Planning and Environment Comrnission
Conmunity Developnent Departnent
February 26, 1990
:cund(liN
A request to amend Speclal Development District #18,Vail Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the Gods Lodge.
Applicants !lrs. A. c. HlIt Fanily
Setbacks
REVISED
FEBRUARY 25
SITE PI.,AN
20 FEET2 FEET@
lhe Vail Vatley Drive entry haE been moved further south in order
to allow access through the parte-cochere. This chgnge
necessitates the need to move the bus stop to the /outh. As with
the previous proposal (Feb. 12) ' four trees wj.ll need to be
replanted or replaced.
There have also been sone minor changes to the wording of the
conditions of approval . These changes are indicated in bold typeprlnt and all capitaf letters. The staff recomnendation is for
approval- of the proJect.
:tA revised letter from Eagle valtey Engineering is enclosed for
the roof ridge.
FEBRUARY 12
SITE PI,AN
20 FEET1 FOOT3 FEET
8 FEET
EXTSTING
20 FEET.2 FEET
]..4 FEET
9 FEET
TO:
FROMs
DATE:
SU&TECT:
pranningQnd Environrnental conmit"rt
conrrunity Developnent Departnent
FtsBRUARy 26, L99O
A request to anend Special DeveloPment
vaiL village 5th Fillng, the Garden of
Applicant: t{rs. A. G. HlIl FanilY
District #18,the Gods L,odge.
r.DESCRfPTION OF PROPOSAIJ
alfrovaf from the Town-Council. unqef each of-th-e previous
SDD reguests,thl
This project has received one special Developnen! District
approlal-in 1987. The appr-oved SDD was then revised in the
sirinrner of 1989. However, the applicant never pursued final
theof
B.sg.ft. GRFA
e I,725 sq.ft. GRFAg 5,812 sq.ft. GRFA
c.
E.
F.U
P
itre parfcinq iot on the elst side of Vail vatley Drive to
"rroi, tor €he sidewalk and planters. Landscaping isallos for the sidewalk and planters. Landscaping is
.r,.^rr^ead fore tha areaei rlhere surface parkinq is rgmolioposea for the areas. where surface parking is oved.
ihe-parking reguirement is net.
A.
-
= L2t648 sq.ft. of cRFA.
TOTAL:
eeexing SDD
sguare footage of
sg.ft.
fron the existing amount of
th sides of Vail ValleY
6 built adjacent to the
parking
Parcel).
lot on the east side of Vail valleY Drive (P-2
The underground
flattows for the renovalFf 2 surface spaces -on'tfre eait side and 2 surface spaces on the souttt side
(iivofi Eide) of the proJect.. -2 spac-es-a-1e-renoved from
4r086
Buird "huu-orr,ritn *"n on the southeast
corner of the property.
The existing height building is approxinately 43
finished roof including etl*@Rp, etc- HEIGHTS
ASSLTE BASE Er.E\rATrON OKg76 rEg)
proposes to restrict all of the 11
units (5812 sq.ft.) as well as 4.
unit lock-offs and 3 dwelling units (2882
term rentals on a Permanent basis-
Definitions:d.u. = dwelling unit or living unit with kitchen
a.u. = accommodation unit or lodge room
a.u. lock-off = A dwel.Iing unit nay include one attached
accommodation Lock-off or lodge room.
**PLease see the attached zoning analysis and unit use analysis
charts.
II. REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST
The Garden of the Gods project is located in the Public
Accommodation zone district. The existing sDD zoning that
was obtained in 1987 was originally reguested because the
project did not meet the definition of a lodge, was over the
IttowaUte density by .5 dwelting units and had a total conrnon
area that exceeded the allowable. In respect to all other
zoning standards the project net the reguirements of tbe
Publi; Acconmodation lone district. Ttris new qpecial
;.
H.
itu
feet (ridge elevati
the north end of the(ridge elevation 8219 ft 4 inq
i,rre Uuitaing has a height of@feefJnidge elevation
inpacted by this proposal .
AII ridge elevatl-ons are measured to the final
I';trlniffi
t{s5asl . MErE ot
8223 ft) . itre existing zoning-E-Etr5 P=oQerty (public
accomrnodation zoning) allows for a ffflr)height for
sloping roof. rhe iisignated view cb=fid6r #5 is not
I.he applicant
ccommodation
cconnodations.f.) as short
11 of the restricted acconmodation
lock-offs shall be made available to
rental program.
Development Distr
Ac and existing SDD in the fol
units and a.u.the short-term
e Publ
A.
The proposal does not neet the definition of a lodge.
According to the zoning code, Section 18.04.2LO'
Definition of a Lodge:
rrA lodge means a building or group of associated
buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the
tenporaiy lodging place of individuals or families,either in accouaodation units or dwetling units, in
which the gross resldential floor area devoted to
accornnodation units exceeds the gross residential
floor area devoted to dwelling units, and in which
all such units are operated under a single
management providing the occupants thereof
customary hotel services and facilities.tt
i,1" i u
The Publi gonnodation zone reguires that, at a
ninimum,
acconnodation units in-Ehe existing building. The
approved Special Development District allocated 27* of
total GRFA to acconmodation units. In other words,
there is a 4* increase in GRFA devoted to a.u.'s when
conparing the old SDD to the proposed SDD.
In previous
proposed to
changed.this
no longer a iven.
est the
The new SDD has pJ'ctal GRFA of 18,460 square feet. The
z. _r^,,iJ proposed GRFA i5 865 Fquare feet over the allowable.Lt\'\r"l v"\- -rhe- existing sDb-i^s.{nder the allowable GRFA by 857
- square feet. The PA zone allows for L7 1594 square feet.
\nirfr ctqt
SDD reviews, the existing building was
be remodeled so the setbacks were not
t.o
into tne west, norEn anq souEll seErrasl(s. Der
si backs
encroaches
and south setbacks owlsa
compare to
New SDD
t^
Il nast 20 ft
lli west 2 ft
# uorth 4.5 FT
/ south s ft
In respect to all
the project rneets
Acconmodation zone
III. ZONIN ID
A. Uses:
Please see Section IV.B
B. Densitv,/GRFA:
P1ease see Section IV.B
Existinq
East 2O ft
West .2 ft
North 1.4 ft
South 9 ft
of the other zoning standards and parking,
the requirements of the Public
district.
s
c.
D.
Setbaclcs
See Section fV.F
Heicrht
The height proposed is wittrin the maximum allowed of 48
feet for a sloPing roof.
Site Coveraqe
The site coverage is below the allowable of 9,677 sqluare
feet. The proposed site coverage is 7,787-square
feet.
Parkinq
Parking requirements are met for this ProPosal.
F
F.
rv.TION OF PRO USING S
CRITERIA
A.
B.
ative to
HeInt orien
The architecture of the building ls sig4
spaces and underground parking will inprove the
appearance of the building. The ro@ed
so that there will be no inpacts on the designated view
itorrtalb:-;-l5e building location is basically the same.
Hoirever, areas where the buitding encroached into the
setbacks have been decreased slightly at the cl-osestpoints (north and west setbacks). The proposal wiII
have a positive inpact on the character of the
neighborhood.
Densitv
The proposal is onq 99 under t!? lllowable densitv for
ttre Fuuric Acconmodatlon zone crst-ildffi6F-FAJ
zoning, 12.5 dwelling units (d.u.) are allowed. 11.5
dwelling units are proposed. (Please remember 2
accommodation units = I dwelling unit). It is positive
that the project is actually under the allowable
density.
Lodqe Definition
Sinilar to the approved SDD, the amended SDD falls short
of meeting the definition of a lodge which would reguire
that rnore than 50t of the GRFA be devoted to
accornmodation units (a.u.'s) .However, lhe new SDD
actually allocates more GRFA (L'2L6 sq ft) to
accornmodation units than the existing SDD. Ttre average
size of the acconmodation unit is also increased in the
neu proposal fron 287 square feet (existinq SDD) to 372
squaie feet. The nunber of acconmodation units does
ddcrease from 16 (acconmodation units plus accomrnodation
unit lock-offs--old SDD) to 15 acconnodation units and
accoromodation unit lock-offs in the new proposal . Also'
the nurober of dwelling units has been decreased from 8
d.u.'s to 6 d.u.'s in the new proposal . Holrever, the
GRFA for the dwelling units has increased from 12'L4L
sguare feet (old SDD) to L2,648 square feet in the new
SDD for d.u.'.s.
properties.
Restricted Units
As stated in the previous SDD nemo, the Rarnshorn project
was considered to be a similar proposal to the Garden of
the Gods. fn analyzing this type of request, the staff
has taken the position that naintaining rental -restricted uniLs for the bed base is positive for the
,, conmunitv. The intent of the reguirement that a
llrnajority-of the project square footage be devoted to
iiacionrnoaation units- is to rnaintain the purpose of the
ii p"lfi" Acconmodation district as a rrsite for lodges and
lf residential accommodations for visitors.rr (Section
1 re. zz. rro)
Due to the fact that special Developrnent District zoning
i" ot." again requeste-d, tbere is sorne flexibility in
how the iitent of tfte pultic Accommodation zone district
may be maintained without nreeting the preci-se
t"'goir"ur"nt to have a najority of square footage devoted
to accommodation units. The staff originally analyzed
irriJ project in terms of available rental' units orttkeyslrr i.e., au's or du's that are available for rent'
The-new proposal has 2L rrkeysn available for guests'
this nurnler of rrkeysrr is based on the. fact that 15 - -
as
2L
sh
iccomnoaation unit-s ana 6 dwelling units are available
acr DI.I.nEN.ITAT. short- term rental units for guests' of tPOTENTIAL short term rental units for guests' -oJ-lheFotenffif ren'E restrict
of un Ie for
ses fron 70t or 17 rl
GRFA
The additionato the fact that units a?Ee--E-ei
because the circulation within the structure
designed in a more efficient manner.
Emplovee Housinq
The applicant has also agreed to improve the existing
ernptolie unit situation ior the building. Bwo ernployee
is due
anded,
certainlybut also
has been
units will be added having a total square footage of
19802 square feet- 'The total existing square footage
devoted to enployee units will be increased by 1072
square feet when compared to the existing SDD.
c.Iiance th kinq and load 1r
ter 18.52.
All parking requirements are met.
D. Confotmi th applicable el v
an, Town Policies Urban Des PIans
IAND USE PLAN
The l-and Use Plan also supports this proposal in the
following ways:
1.3 The guality of developnent should be rnaintained and
upgraded whenever possible.
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used
more efficiently.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the bestIocation for hotels to serve the future needs ofthe destination skiers.
3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of
the Tonn of Vail, therefore conversion to
condoniniuns should be dlscouraged.
4.2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable
so long as the existing character of each area is
preserved through intplenentation of the Urban
Design Guide PIan and the Vail Village Master
Plan.
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to
occur prirnarily in existing, platted areas and as
appropriate in neht areas where high hazards do notexist.
5.3 Affordable enployee housing should be rnade
available through private efforts, assisted byliurited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail,with appropriate restrictions.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be
preserved and upgraded. Additional enpJ.oyee
housing needs should be accommodated at variedsites throughout the community
Ide
haz
Dev
E.icat and ti
str
natural or eo
eS cial
Not applicable.
The applicant has developed a site plan. that l:-,..iutt"iibttal and has a higl level of aesthetic quality.
The amount of open sPace' mass-and bulk of. the !Y119119;il ;;d;;iti""/i"r,icirt ar' circul ati"l h-1Y:^?::", l1:::"?il-"' ;;;; ii i;;"i "ii""i I - - an lrnpor'lent sue s t :!9n j:-wltI-i s
riate the
into the zo foot setbackq
Ie
ccess, and are mide more function
flexibility for e buildi
northeast corner of the site
which would create roblems afflc c rculation,
ate the buil rom S p6-ssibly
r degree.
G.
Under the nehl sDD, the building will continue to
encioactr into a aiainage and utility easement' . AII of
line utifities except f5r the cable TV have vacated the
/;;;;;;tl--p,trri" ilorks wirl asree to vacate ALL oR A
{PoRiioi-oF rtrE drainage easement as long as the
applicant aqrees to c5nstruct curb, gutter, and other
;'$;;;;;t e;;i;;s; improvernents to the east' north and
south sides of the ProPerty.
The Ranshorn has built a sidewalk along the south_ltest
;'i;"-;-In.i--pr"perty that aLso extends over to Golden
Peak. It rnakes "Lnse- for the Garden of the Gods to add
th! two sidewalks, as pedestrians coming fron-tbe
[ii"tp"tl,iiiott ""it"" iiir warx alons-both :]9:"--?f vail
n;iGi'orive. Guests of the Garden of the Gods will
also use the sidewalk.
The present bus stop j.s located at the northeast corner
oi tit" property. Tire new southwest location is better
for the owners of the Garden of the Gods in that the bus
stop does not block the visibility of their site. (Four
trees will need to be relocated due to the new bus
stop. ) In addition, safety is increased for vehicles
entering and existing off the Garden of the Godsproperty as well as for the general public. It is very
reasonable and appropriate to request that the applicant
make these irnprovements given the request for an sDD.
Functional and aesthetic landscapincr and open space in
order to optinize and
-
recreation, views and functions.
The project proposal includes the following landscape
inprovenents:
new planters along the west side of the pool
Iandscape buffer along west side of property
existing spa by pool replaced by landscaping4 on-site surface parking spaces replaced by
landscaping2 parking spaces on P-2 parcel removed and replaced
by sidewalk and planters
curb and gutter and any asphalt work necessary to
handle the drainage problerns will be rebuiLt
The landscaping proposal is extremely positive and will
add to an already well landscaped project. The only
area of concern is that 4 trees will need to be
relocated or replaced to allow for the bus stop.
I.Phas an0rs that will naintain a
the d of the I Developnenttrict.
Not applicable. The entire project is to be built the
summer of 1991.
v. VArL VILIAGE I'IASTER PLAN ANAL,YSIS
Below is a sunmary of how the vail Village Master Plan
relates to this ProPosal .
H.
*
*
*
*
le
A.IlluEtrative Plans:1. Land Use PIan:
The Garden of the Gods property is indicated as
I'medium,/high density re-identialr'. This section
states that a rnajority of the Village's lodge rooms
and condominiun units are located ln this land use
category. The goal of the plan ls to naintain
these aieas as lredornlnantly I'Iodging oriented with
retail developnent linited to snall amounts of
rraccessory retailrr rr .
The proposal generally conplies with this
description of the land use category.
Open Space Plan:
This plan calls for planting buffers along the east
side ot vail valley Drive adjacent to the surface
parking on the P-2 Parcel .
The applicant has worked with the Planning
Departrnent and Town engineer to arrive at a
solution that removes the existing pLanters and
private parking from the public right-of-way to
Ittow space for a new sidewalk and planters'
3. Parking and Circulation Plan:
This plan calls for sidewalks along both sides of
Vail Valley Drive.
Sidewalks are included in the proposal .
4. Conceptual Building Height Plan:
Ttris property falls within the three to four
naxirnirrn iang6 of building stories. A story is
defined as nine feet of height with no roof
included. The proposed height falls under ttre
public accornmo&ation zoning maxinum for a sloping
ioof of 48 feet. There are no inpacts on the
designated view corridor #5. Please see the
attaihed letter from Eagte Val1ey Engineering and
photo of the view corridor.
sub-area concepts
The Garden of the Gods falls under the east village Sub-
area No.7. This plan states that the nost iurportant
p"Uii. improvemenis in the sub-area relate to pedestrian
B.
10
and bicycle safety. The public right-of-way should be
naintained and expanded for public use whenever
possible. sub'area 7-3 and 7-4 relate specifically to
this property. The plan states:
L. #7-3 vail valley Drive Sidewalk - A sidewalk
(separated from the road where possible) through
the sub-area linking the colden Peak base facility
with the Vail Transportation center. Landscape
improvements and pedestrian crosshtalks to be
included as reguired to meet dernands of pedestrian
traffic. Special emphasis on 3.1, 3.4.
2. #7-4 Parking Lot Infill - Presently utilized asparking for adjacent properties. While zoned forparking (covenant restrictions also Iinit use of
this parcel to parking), this site could
accommodate a small todge. Practical difficulties
in developing this site include the covenant
restrictions in rnaintaining on-site parking forexisting and future demand. Possible public uses
for this site include pedestrian and bus
circulation improvements. Special enphasis on 2.1-l
2.3r 2.6r 3.1, 5.3, and 5.4.
The proposal complies with Sub-Area 7-3 and does notprohibit the eventual inplernentation of 7-4.
c. vail Villaqe Master Plan Goals, obiectives, Policies,
and Action Steps that applv to Garden of the Gods
Proposal .
Below is a surnnary of the goals, objectives, and
policies that relate to the Garden of the Gods
proposal:
GOAL #1:
ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVEI'PI,TENT WHIL,E PRESERVING
rHE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILI,AGE IN ORDER
rO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY.
1.3 obiective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through public
improvernents done by private developers working in
cooperation with tbe Town.
II
1.3.L Policy:
Public irnprovernents shall be developed with theparticlpation of the private sector working with the
Town.
GOAL #2:
TO FOSTER A STRONG TOI'RIST INDUSTRY
ROUND ECONOI{IC HEALTH A}ID VIABILITY
THE COIIMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
AND
FOR
PROI'{OTE YEAR
THE VILIAGE AND
fncrease the nunber of residential units available for
short tern overnight accomnodations.
2.3.1 Policv:
The developrnent of short ter:m accornmodation units is
strongly encouraged. Residential units developed above
existing density-levels are required to be designed or
managed in a rnanner that makes them available for short
term overnight rental .
2.5 Obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations and
naintenince of existing toaging and comrnercial
facilities to better serve the needs of our guests'
2.5.1 Policy:
Recreational anenities, comnon areas' meeting facilities
and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as
part of any redevelopnent of lodging properties'
2.5 Obiective:
Encourage the development of affordable housing units
through the efforts of the private sector.
2.6.1 Policv:
Employee housing units nay be required as part of any
neil oi redevelopnent project requesting density over the
allowable by existing zoning.
I2
2.5.2 Policv
Eurployee housing shall be developed with appropriaterestrictions so as to ensure their avaj.labil-ity andaffordability to the local work force.
2.6.3 Policv
Tbe Town of VaiI nay facilitate the developnent of
affordable housing by providing linited assistance.
GOAL #3:
TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCING OF THE
WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILI,AGE.
3.1 obiective:
PhysicalLy improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other irnprovements.
3.1.L Policy:
Private development projects shall incorporate
streetscape inprovements (such as Paver treatraents,
Iandscaping, lighting and seating areas) along adjacentpedestrian ways.
3.4 obiective:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways
and accessible greenspace areas, including pocket parks
and strearn access.
3.4.2 Policv:
Private developrnent projects shall be required to
incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the
project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan
and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan.
GOAL #4:
TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND
GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES .
l3
4.L.L Policv:
Active recreational facilities shall be presellrred (or
relocated to accessible locations elsewhere in the
Village) in any developurent or redevelopment of property
in VaiI Village.
GOAL #5:
INCREASE THE CAPACITY, EFFICTENCY, AND II.TPROVE
AESTITETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCUI,ATION SYSTEM
THROUGHOUT THE VILI"AGE.
5.1.5 Policv:
Redevetoprnent projects shall be strongly encouraged to
provide underground or visually concealed parking.
5.4 Obiective:
Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors
throughout the Village.
5.4.2 Policv:
Medians and rights-of-ways shall be landscaped.
1 For the sake of brevity' staff will not address each goal,
{/ policy, and objective separately. The project supports the
,--NViIIage PIan in the following ways:
I' 1. The redevelopment is a high guality proposal that
naintains architectural scale as well as aLmost all the
zoning standards for the underlying PA zoning.
2. Significant public irnprovements are incorporated into-
the redevelopnent such as sidewalks, the bus stop, and
landscaping.
3. Short-terar accommodation unlts are upgraded.
4. Large and more functional employee housing units are
proposed.
5. The pedestrian experience is enhanced by sidewalk and
landscape improvements.
L4
6.
7.
Underground parking is includedr-while surface spaces
aie r6novea.- The rernaining parking is visually
screened. The project rneets its required parking'
Public transportation is inproved and made safer as a
result of the new bus stoP.
EXCEPT IXIAT TEE T'NITS SHAI&
/-T> The applicant shall subnit a written statement agreeing\--'/ to reilrict the proposed acconmodation uni-ts,
accommodation unit -lock-offs and three dwelling units
asshorttermrentalunitsonapermanentbasis.Eveniftheprojectisconduminiunized,theseunitsshall
rernain is 3trort ten' rentals. This written agreement
shall be subrnitted by the owner and approved by the
staff before a building permit is issued for the
project. IHIS AGREEUENT SIIALL BB RECORDED AS A
CONVSNNIT THAT SHAI.L RI'N III1II Tffi IJAND.
3.TheownersoftheGardenofttreGodsshallconstructasidewalk and bus stop on the east side of their
IV. STAFF RECOI{MANDATION
The staff reconmends approval of the proposal. .Basically,
"iii p"rition is very s-inilar to our recommendation on the
iirri"i" project. ls stated previously: "Although-t!e.i"iUifity- of-the end produ.t !9 rneet the strict definition of
" ioag" is not what wL would ideally like to see, we feel -that €he property will continue to function as a lodge and
meet the intlnt 6f providing high quality guest
icconrnoaations in tire Pubfi; Acionmodation zone district.rl
The applicant has pro-rrided_ significant improvements tlrrough
the ri-ilevetoprnent wtricn wilt benefit both guests and owners
of the carden of the Gods, as well as the-general public.
The Droposal meets the criteria outlined in the special
p.""i"pin"nt District review, goals of the Land Use PIan, as
wetl ai vail vitlage Master Plan.
Staff approval is contingent upon the applicant meeting the
folJ.owing conditions :
'(L) The applicant shall subnit a revised enployeg housing
agreetEnt with a floor plan ttrat clearly indicates the
I5cation, tlpe of unit, and square footage for each
employee troiriing unit. The two enployee housing units-
shalI be restri6ted permanentlv. The agreernent shall be
subrnitted and approvdTy tne owner and the Town of VaiI
before a buildiirq pemit is issued for the project'
SBC:TION 18.13.080 SNAI.L BE USED FOR 1TIE WORDING FOR TIIE
15
Z-*s
Si,sNY
\3
nron"t.vQs well as a sidewall gq ig!"1: *itcent to
ifre- fnOfrtAen OF IBE p-2 PARCEL AIIOCATED TO ITIE GARDEN
of tm GoDs. The final design for the sidewalks,
planters, and bus stop shall be subnitted by the
ippricani. to the n'rblic l{orks Departnent and Connunity
oiietopnent Departnent for approval' Tbe sidewalks'
plante-rs and birE stop th1|l LL constructed subsequent to
Lh" issoance of the Luilding pernit and prior to the
issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the
nroiect. The appiicant sha1l subnit a written statement
igr6eing to thi-s-conditlon for the Town attorney's
"fpron.i before a building permit is released for the
project.
If needed, the Garden of the Gods sball also provide a
public easement for the bus stop, sidewalk, and signage'
in.-ippricant snill subnit the easeurent agreement to the
rown lltorney and Tolrn council for approval before a
;;;.;ilt-..itirtcate of occuPancy is reLeased for the
proj ect.
TheownersoftheGardenoftheGodsshallconstruct
curb and gutter as weII as any other drainage (asphalt
;;;i ;[-.i itpro.r"tents necessary along ttre.north'
south, anir ea-st siaeE of their pioperty' - r+l3l -designi"i-trt" drainage improvements shall be subnitted by the
ippri"ant to tfre pulri" I{orks Departrnent for final
aiirovar. These improvements shall be constructed
;ffi;;q";"t to the i-ssuance of a building pernit and
;;i;;'a; ih. i=",t.nce of a tenporary certificate of
occupancy.
A revocable right-of-uay agreement shall be comPleted
for any "rr"to"6ht"ttit oit tie public right-of-way' This
iqi";L"t rnust be subrnitted to the conmunity Development
o6partnent and approved before a building permit will be
released on the Project.
The orirners of the Garden of the Gods shall subrnit a
"iifity and drainage easement vacation to the Town
councii for approvit before a building pernit may be
released for the Project.
ALL FIREPLACES SHAL,L BE GAS At'lD I'IEET TIIE TOI{N OF VAIL
ORDINN{CE GOVERNING GA^S TIREPIACES.
le) RrrN_oFF coNEROL & FOII;UTION CpNIROL DEVTCES SHALL BE\:;.2 ir.riONPONArgD INTO TITE ST'RTACE PARKING I3TS. THIS ISST'E
SIIAI,LBEADDRESSEDATTEEDRBRtswEIfoFTIIEPRG'ECIAt{D
INCIIIDED IN lBE BT'ILDING PERIIT PIAIfS.
Recornnendations to the Desiqn Review Board
The vent on the west side of the pool should be
remOVEd OR SCREETIED BY IAIfDSCAPING.
Ttre north elevation of the building should have more
transparency.
1.
r6
o rbe four trees that wlll be elther ralocated or replaced
due to the constnrctlon of the bus ctop rhould be
addressed. If tha traas nust be renovjd, landseapingthat has substantially the sane porttlve iupact thould
be reguired.
L7
IIINTER 19.90
GARDEN OF TIIE GODS
ZONING AI{ALYSF
* Restricted eoployee uults are noC counced tosards dcoslty or GRFA
** I DU equels 2 AU
*** Staadard parklug Eequiaeueots applled
t***ADUlnluultl.fanllybulldlagsaylocludeoneattachedeccoD.
oodatloo unrt iau roil-ott) oo-larger thaa ore tbtrd of the rotal
floor area ot ii. OU. A lock-off i" oot countcd for dcnslty'--Lock-
off GRFA fs aaiei io the togal DU GRFA. ?arklng for a lock-off ls
celculated ty iiif.og the AU locL-off to thc DU GRtrA' The DU
p"iHog ,.qlrtt"i"otl are eppltcd to the total cMA for thc DU
Plus AU lock-off'
IAU
i
j.
, .,',,;,,ti:51% GRFA IN AU'S
16@Z|]?SO.FT.10 AU
6 AU LOCK OFFSTT"
16 @ $9q so.Fr'-
II AU
4 AU LOCK OFFS
15 @ 5812SO. FT,
NA 2 @ 6745 SO. FT.-eE-ta{1to'Fr.6 @ 12648S0. FT.
NA
I AU 610 SO. FT.
r DU 515 SO. FT.
1.5" @ 1125 SO. FT.
I Du 215 so. FT.
I DU 515 SO. FT.
2 @ 730 s!,-Fr.-
lDU 90r
l DU 901
zDU Gt1802 SO. FT.
TOTAL:GRFA 17594 SO. Fr.145'13 SO. FT.L6737 so. Fr.18480SO. FT.
TOTAL DENSTY 12.5 DU r0 Du tg Ou trUS + 9!tL 1.5 DU(AUS+DUS)
coMMoN ABE{4399 so.FT.3575 SO. FT.+gso so. rr.37i2 so. FT.
MAX .:,:,!:.,::,:::
g1611f i:'i:"::'r":
45 FT. FLAT ROOF
48 FT. SLOPE FOOF
12FI.SAME 3TT. 6'' NORTB END
47 FT. SOUTB EI{D
.; :
*.
' ',:l ;,ir :iil::il ,l
20Ft,EAST 2O,O FT.
WEST.2 FT.
NORTH 1.4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
-EASr 20.0 FT.
WEST.2 FT.
NOFTH 1.4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
EAST 2O.O FT.
WEST 2 FT.
NORTH 4..5FT.
SOUTH E FT
gre covEnlee 12096'SO. FT.6363 SO. FT.ea3r so. FT.?2r4 sQ. FT.
I-ANDSCAPING 659E, SO. Fr.OK OK OK
22 REOD.
28 EX.
c/ REOD.
28 PROPOSED
26 REOD.
29 pnoposeo
T{INTER I99O
GARDEN OF THE GODS
T'NIT USE AI{ALY$S
aod AU lock-offs shal1 be used for
out the year.
fl{5
* all AU
tbrough
short-tela reatal
fi',loo
February 12, 1990
Hs. Pan Hopklns
9novden & Hopklns Archltects
201 Gore Greek DrlveVall, CO 8155?
Re: Garden of the Gods Expanslon
Dear Pan,
Per your request I have revtewed the lnpact the above nentloned expanslonvould have on the Torrn of VatI vlev corrldor fron Vtev Potnt t5. Theelevatlon of the hlghest exlstlng north-south rldge llne of the structurels 8219.0 feet.If the north end of the exlstlng rldge vas noved to the east
seven feet the nev rldge llne could be bullt to an elevatlon of 8219.5feet. If the approxlnate mld-polnt of the exlstlng rldge vas noved to theeast flve feet the nev lldge could be bullt to an elevatlon of 8219.{ feet.Nelther of the nev proposed rldge elevatlons vould encroach lnto the
deftned vlev corrldor.
Please call lf I can be of any furthe! asslEtance on thtg proJect.
S lneere 1y,
=Ea9Ie
Valley Surveytng, fnc.
NIG€--.$"=
Dan Corcoran, P.L.S.
Pres tdent
41 199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagle-Vail
Posl Oflice Box 1230
Edwards. CO 81632
303-949-1406
TO:
FROI,I:
DATE:
RE:
EAST
WEST
NORTH
SOUTH
Planning and Environment Conmission
Connunity Development Department
March 26, L99O
A request to anend Special Developrnent District #18,Vail Village Sth Filing, the Garden of the Gods Lodge.
Applicant: trtrs. A. c. Itill Fanily
Setbacks
FEBRUARY 12
SITE PI.AN
20 FEET1 FOOT3 FEET8 FEET
REVISED
FEBRUARY 25
SITE PIAN EXISTING
20 FEET
2 FEET4.5 FEET
8 FEET
20 r'EEr.2 FEET1.4 FEET
9 FEET
!h#(a'''/-"
On Februaty 1-2, 1990, the PEC reviewed this request. The
applicant tabled the iten in order to sork with the adjacent
property onners on the View inpact of the project. Since thattime, the applicant has auended the request by slightly changingthe location of the proposed building. Below is a conparison of
the setbacks due to the change ln building location:
The Vail Valley Drlve entry has been moved further south in order
to allow access through the parte-cochere. This change
necessitates the need to nove the bus stop to the south. As with
the previous proposal (Feb. 12), four trees will need to be
replanted or replaced.
There have also been sone ninor changes to the wording of the
conditions of approval . These changes are indicated in bold tl1teprlat ald all capital letters. The staff reconnendation is for
approval of the project.
*A revised letter fron Eagle Valley Engineering is enclosed for
the roof rldge.
TO:
FROil:
DATE:
suRfEcl:
pranninlnd Environmental conniss0
Conmunity Development Departnent
tfARcH 26, t99O
A request to amend Special DevelopnentVaiI ViIIage 5th Filing, the Garden ofApplicant: Urs. A. G. Hlll Fanlly
District *18,the Gods lodge.
I. DESCRIPTTON OF PROPOSAL
This project has received one Special Developnent Dlstrict
approval in 1987. The approved sDD ltas then revised in the
sunmer of 1989. However, the applicant never pursued final
approval from the Town Council . Under each of the previous
sDD reguests, the applicant proposed to remodel the existingbuilding. With the present request, the applicant would liketo denolish the existing building and construct a newbuilding in the approxJ.mate original building's footprintyith a few modifications. The request to rebuild the Gardenof the Gods includes:
'-*--.' 6 dwelling units = L2,648 sq.ft. of GRFA.
(. B. ".L{accommodation units e 41086 sq.ft. GRFA.8..(1l)
,'T- Seo'gqrAL:
tnjadati(ti"on unit lock-offs I L,725 sq.ft. GRFA
commodatLon units e 51812 sq.ft. GRFA
( c. ) An lncrease in square footage devoted to 2 enployee
dwelling units = 1,802 sq.ft. of GRFA. The existing soocalls for 1 au and 1 du having a total square footage of
730 sq. ft.
An increase in conmon
31575 sq.ft. to 3'7L2
,E./
area fron the existing arnount of
sq. ft.
...v\'i-,
Construct sidewalks al.ong both sides of Vail valleyDrive. New planters will be built adJacent to the
parking lot on the east side of Vail Valley Drive (P-2
Parcel).
Underground parking of 15 spaces. The undergroundparking allowe for the removal of 2 surface apaces onthe east side and 2 surface aPaces on the south side(Tivoli side) of the project. 2 spaces are removed fron
the parking lot on the east side of Vail valley Drive to
allow for the sidewalk and planters. Landscaping ls
proposed for the areas where surface parking is removed.
The parking reguirement is net.
o
Build a public bus pull-off with bench on the southeast
corner of the property.
The existing height of the building is approxiurately 43
feet (rldge elevition 8219 ft). The proposed height on
the north end of the building will be 43 ft 6 inches
(ridge elevation 8219 ft ,l lnches). The south half of
the bulldlng has a height of 47 feet (ridge elevation
8223 ftr. ine existlng zoning of the property (public
acconmodation zoning) allows for a 48 ft. heigttt for a
sloping roof. The designated view corridor #5 is not
inpacted by thls proposal.
* All rldge elevations are measured to the final
' finished roof includlng any roof caP' etc. mIGItTs
ASST'IiTE BASE EIiE\IATIOI| OF 8176 TEET.
The applicant proposes to restrict all of the 11
accommodation units (5812 sg.ft.) as well as 4
acconmodation unit lock-offs and 3 dwelling units (2882
s.f.) as short tern rentals on a perlnanent basis.
AII of the restricted accommodation units and a.u.
lock-offs shall be made available to the short-tern
rental program.
Definitions:d.u. = dwelling unit or living unit with kitchen
a.u. = accomrnodation unit or lodqe room
a.u. Iock-off = A dwelling unit may include one attached
acconnodation lock-off or lodge room.
**Please see the attached zoning analysis and unit use analysis
charts.
II. REASONS FOR TTIE SDD REQUEST
The Garden of the Gods proJect is I'ocated in the Public
Accoromodation zone dtstiict. The existing soo zoning that
was obtained in 1987 was originally reguested because the
project did not neet the definition of a lodge, was over the
IttowaUte density by .5 dwelling units and had a total cotnmon
area that exceeded the allowable. In respect to all other
zoning standards the project met the requirements of the
Pub1i; Acconrnodation ione district. This new Special
Development District request differs fron the Public
Acconnodation zoning and existing SDD in the following ways
A. (. Definition of lodqe:
B.('
The proposal does not neet the definition of a lodqe.
According to the zoning code' Section 18.04.zLO'
Definition of a Lodge:
rrA lodge Deans a building or group of associated
buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the
tenporary lodging place of individuals or families,
either in acconrnodation units or dwelling units, in
which the gross residential floor area devoted to
acconmodation units exceeds the gross residential
floor area devoted to dwelling units, and in which
all such units are oPerated under a single
managenent providing the occupants thereof
customary hotel services and facilities.rl
The Public Accomnodation zone reguires that, at a
ninirnurn, 51* of the total GRFA be devoted to
acconmodation units. 53* of the GRFA is in
accomnodation units in the existing buitding. Th€-\
approved Special Development District allocated 27t)of
total GRFA to acconunodation units. fn other wordsT'
there is a 48 increase in GRFA devoted to a.u.'s when
comparing the old SDD to the proposed SDD.
cnia:
The new SDD has a-+otal GRFA of 18,460 square feet. lhe
proposed GRFA i.'s- 9,6-6 dquare feet over the allowable.
The existing SDD is under the allowab1e GRFA by 857
square feet. The PA zone allows for L7 t594 square feet.
Setbacks:
In previous SDD reviews, the existing building was
proposed to be remodeled so the setbacks were not
LnangeA. In this request, the building will be
completely rebuilt. For this reason, the setbacks are
no longer a given. The existing building encroaches
into the west, north and south setbacks,; Below is a
sunmary of how the existlng building setbacks compare to
c.
NeW SDD
East 20 ftWest 2 fXNorth ,l .5 FT
South 8 ft
Existinq
East 20 ftl{est .2 ftNorth 1.4 ft
South 9 ft
In respect to aII of the other zoning standards and parking,
the project neets the requirenents of the Public
Accommodation zone district.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS REIATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL
A. Uses:
Please see Section fv.B
B. Density./GRFA:
Please see Section IV.B
Setbacks
See Section IV.F
Heiaht
The height proposed is withln the maximum allowed of 48
feet for a sloping roof.
site coveraqe
The site coverage is below the allowable of 9,677 square
feet. The proposed site coverage is 71787-sguare
feet.
F. Parkincr
Parking requirements are met for this proposal .
IV. BVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAI{ DEVEI4P!@NT__DISTBIS!
CRITERIA
A.
c.
D.
E.
tibiri
B.
ReIa l.Desi le, Bulk, Buil
Heiqht er Zones Identit
n on.
The architecture of the building is significantly
upgraded by this proposal . The use of stone and stucco,
additional landscaping, renoval of six surface parking
spaces and underground parking will inprove the
appearance of the building. The roof has been designed
so that there will be no inpacts on the designated viewcorridor. Ehe building location is basically the same.
Honever, areas where the building encroached into the
setbackE have been decreased slightly at the closestpoints (north and west setbacks). The proposal will
have a positive inpact on the character of the
neighborhood.
Density
The proposat i(one du)under the allowable density for
the Public Acconn-tlation zone district. For PA
zoning, 12.5 dweLling units (d.u.) are allowed. 11.5
dwelling units are proposed. (Please remember 2
accommodation units = I dwelling unit). It is positive
that the project is actually under the allowable
densJ.ty.
Lodqe Deflnition
Sinilar to the approved SDD, the anended SDD falls short
of neeting the definition of a lodge which would requirethat nore than 50t of the GRFA be devoted to
accommodation units (a.u. 's) . Howey_gr.-Lbe- neg--,QQD
actually allocates nore GRFA (L,2L6 sq ft) to e averageacconmodation units than t-he.ersize of the accommo$gtion unit ls also increased in lhgnen proposal froryfez\ square feet (existing SDD) tq 37p
size of tne acconmogelron unlE ls arso l-ncreaseo ln E"D
nen proposal fron. f,-ez\ square feet (existing SDD) tq-37new PI LrP|JsiaL LLLrlIt/6C, rJ ell|JcrlE lsEl, tEn!-wLtrv e.rul I'v.- !, t
sguare feet. The--nufrlcer of accommodation units does-
decrease fron 16 (acconrrodation units plus acconmodationunit lock-offs--old sDD) to 15 accommodation units and
acconmodation unit lock-offs ln the new proposal . Alsq'
the nunbe4;-ef Qwelling units has been decreased fron(-87
's in the new proposal. However, the.d.u.'s t6 5 d..u.'s in the
GRFA for 't'Ifd dwelting uniGRFA for 't'Ifd dwelting unilrij.es.- increased from L6']et
square feet (otd sDD) to <t?.64b, sguare feet in the liew
SDD for d.u.'s.
In general , the nen SDD is an improvernent over theexisting SDD in that the number of d.u.'s ie decreased,
the eize of the acconrnodation unit is increased, and theproJect is no longer over the allowable density. Theslight increase in GRFA (866 s.f.) does not have a najor
negative inpact on the proJect or surroundingproperties.
Restricted Units
As stated in the previous SDD nemo, the Ranshorn proJect
was considered to be a sinilar proposaL to the Garden of
the Gods. In analyzing this tlpe of request' the staff
has taken the position that malntaining rentalrestricted units for the bed base is positive for the
cornrnunity. The intent of the reguirernent that a
naJority of the project square footage be devoted to
accornmodation units is to rnaintain the purpose of the
Public Acconnodation dlstrict as a rrsite for lodges andresidentlal acconmodatl.ons for visitors.rr (Section
18.22.110)
Due to the fact that Special Development District zoningis once again reguested, there is sorne flexibility in
how the intent of the Public Accomnodation zone district
may be maintained without neeting the precise
requirement to have a najority of square footage devoted
to accomnodation units. The staff originally analyzedthis project in terms of available rental units or
r*eysr-l-- i,9,.. au's-or-durs-that a=e available- fos rent.
The-new proposal has 21 rrkeysrr available for guests.
This nurnber of trkeystr is based on tbe fact that 15
accornmodation units and 6 dwelllng units are available
as PoTENTIAL short term rental units for gruests. Of the
21 F66Efef rentable units, 18 will be restricted as
short tem rentals including 3 dwelling units. The
percent of units available for_,short tscm rental -'-.
increases fron zot-oi-17f'tcelsu\to est or 18 'keys.'''
GRFA
The additional GRFA (866 square feet) is due certainlyto the fact that units area being expanded, but also
because the circulation within the structure has been
designed ln a nore efficient nanner.
Ernployee Housinq
The applicant has also agreed to improve the existing
employee unit situation for the building. Two employee
units will- be added having a total square footage of
1,802 square feet. The total existing sguare footage
devoted to enployee units will be increased by Lo72
square feet when compared to the existing SDD.
c.
D.
All parking requirenents are net.
IAND USE PINN
The Land Use Plan also supports this proposal in the
following ways:
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and
upgraded whenever possible.
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used
nore efficiently.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best
location for hotels to setrre the future needs of
the destination skiers.
3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of
the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to
condominluns should be dlscouraged.
4.2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable
so long as the existing character of each area is
presenred through implenentation of the Urban
Design euide Plan and the Vail Village llaster
PIan.
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to
occur prirnarily in existing, platted areas and as
appropriate in new areas where high hazards do notexist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be nade
available through private efforts, assisted by
llnited l-ncentives, provided by the Town of Vail ,with appropriate restrictions.
5.5 The existing enployee housing base shoul-d be
presenred and upgraded. Additional enployee
housing needs should be accornrnodated at variedsites throughout the conmunitY
E.
F.
Not applicable.
p?rcFlhe Vorlaufer to a grea
Under the new sDD, the building will continue to
encroach into a drainage and utility easernent. A11 of
the utilities except for the cable Tv have vacated the
easement. Public Works will agree to vacate AL,L oR A
PORTION OF TIIE drainage eagement as long as the
applicant agrees to construct curb, gutter, and other
necessary drainage inprovements to the east, north and
south sides of the property.
G.The circulation s desi both vehi
circulation.
The applicant has developed a site plan that is
functional and has a high level of aesthetic quality.
The amount of open space, mass and bulk of the bullding
and pedestrian/vehicular circulation have been planned
in a sensitive manner. An irnportant question is why isit appropriate to allow the new building to encroachinto the 2o foot setbacks? These encroachments are
,'.could be pushed into the northeast corner of thq-Fite
ifwtricn wouio create problems for uE-fflE-EirEulaEi-o)
llseparate the building fron (ool aneltttBg and pos-sibly
'ii5pfEFBhe Vorlaufer to a qie>ter degr-ee.
The Ranshorn has built a sidewalk along the south west
side of their property that also extends over to Golden
Peak. It nakes sense for the Garden of the Gods to add
the two sidewalks, as pedestrl.ans coming fron ttre
transportation center -ill ualk along both sides of vail
Valley Drive. cuests of the Garden of the Gods will
also use the sidewalk.
The present bus stop is located at ttre northeast cornerof the property. The new southwest location is better
for the owners of the Garden of the Gods in that the bus
stop does not block the visibility of their site. (Four
trees will need to be relocated due to tlre new bus
stop. ) In addition, safety is increased for vehicles
entering and existing off the Garden of the Gods
property as well as for the general public. It is very
reasonable and appropriate to request that the applicant
make these inprovernents given the reguest for an SDD.
onal aestheti and
to
recreat
The project proposal includes the following landscape
improvements:
* new planters along the west side of the pool* landscape buffer along west side of property* existing spa by pool replaced by landscaping* 4 on-site surface parking spaces replaced by
tandscaping* 2 parking spaces on P-2 parcel removed and replaced
by sidewalk and Planters* curb and gutter and any asphalt work necessary to
handle the drainage problens will be rebuilt
The landscaping proposal is extrenely positive and will
add to an already well landscaped proJect. The only
area of concern is that 4 trees will need to be
relocated or replaced to allow for the bus stop.
I.Phas lan or subdivision at will main
unct tre onsh
thro ut aI Develo
Distr ct.
Not applicable. The entire project is to be built the
sunmer of 1991.
V. VAIL VILI,AGE UASTER PIAN ANALYSIS
Below is a summary of how the vail village Master PIan
relates to this ProPosal.
H.
onal , and eff
A. Illustrative Plans:1. Iand Use Plan:
The Garden of the Gods property is Lndicated asrrmedium/high density residentialrr. This section
states that a najority of the Village's lodge rooms
and condomlniun unite are located in this land use
category. The goal of the plan is to uaintain
these aieas as predoninantly r'lodging oriented with
retail developrnent linited to small amounts ofrraccessory retailnr.
The proposal Eenerally cornplies with this
description of the land use category.
2. Open Space Plan:
This plan calls for planting buffers along the east
side of vall valLey Drive adjacent to the surface
parking on the P-2 Parce1 .
The applicant has worked with the Planning
Departnent and Town engineer to arrive at a
solution that rernoves the existing planters and
private parking from the public right-of-way to
allow space for a new sidewalk and planters.
3. Parking and Circulation Plan:
This plan calls for sl-dewalks along both sides of
Vail Valley Drive.
Sidewalks are included ln the proposal .
4. Conceptual Building Height PIan:
This property falls within the three to four
naximun iange of building stories. A story is
defined as nine feet of height with no roof
included. The proposed height falls under thepublic acconnodation zoning rnaxiururn for a sloping
ioof of 48 feet. There are no inpacts on the
designated vies corridor *5. Please see the
attached letter fron Eagle Valley Engineering and
photo of the view corridor.
B. Sub-area Concepts
The Garden of the Gods falls under the east Village Sub-
area No.7. This plan states that the nost inportantpublic inprovemenLE in the sub-area relate to pedestrian
c.Vail
and bicycle safety. The public right-of-way should be
naintained and expanded for public use wheneverpossible. Sub-area 7-3 and 7-4 relate specifically tothis property. The plan Btatess
1. #7-3 Vail valley Drive Sidewalk - A sidewalk
(separated fron the road where possible) through
the sub-area llnklng the colden Peak base facilitysith the VaLl Transportation Center. Iandscape
irnprovenents and pedestrian crosstralks to be
included as required to meet denands of pedestrian
traffic. Special enphasis on 3.L, 3.4.
2. #7-4 Parking tot Infill - Presently utitized asparking for adJacent properties. While zoned forparking (covenant reEtrictions also linit use ofthis parcel to parking), this site could
acconrrodate a sma1l lodge. Practical difficultiesin developing this site include the covenantrestrictions in naintaining on-site parking for
exlsting and future denand. Possible public usesfor this site include pedestrian and buscirculation improvenents. Special emphasis on 2.L,2.3,2.6,3. 1, 5.3, and 5.4.
The proposal complies with Sub-Area 7-3 and does notprohibit the eventual inplenentation of 7-4.
s. obiectives
Action f the cods
Below is a summary of the goals, objectives, and
policies that relate to the Garden of the Gods
proposal:
GOAL #1:
ENCOI'R,AGE HIGH QUATITY REDEVEIOPIIENT YII{ILE PRESERVTNG
THE T'NIQUE ARCHITECIT'RAIJ SCALE OF THE VIIJIAGE IN ORDER
TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COUIIT'NITY AND IDENTTTY.
1.3 Obiective:
Enhance new developnent and redevelopment through public
improvements done by private developers working in
cooperation wittr the Town.
Proposal .
1.3.1 Policv:
Public inprovements shall be developed with the
partJ.ci.pation of the private sector working with the
Town.
GOAL #2:
TO FOSTER A STRONG TOI'RIST INDUSTRY AND PROI.TOTE YEAR
ROI'ND ECONOI.IIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILI.,AGE AND
THE COMIiIUNITY AS A WHOLE.
2.3 Ob'iective:
Increase the nurnber of residential units available for
short term overnight acconmodations.
2.3.1 Policv:
The developnent of short tern accornmodation units is
strongly encouraged. Residential units developed aboveexisting density levels are required to be designed or
managed in a manner that makes them available for shorttern overnight rental.
2.5 obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations and
mal-ntenance of existing lodging and commercialfacilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
2.5.1 Policv:
Recreational anenities, connon areas, meeting facilities
and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced aspart of any redevelopnent of lodging properties.
2.5 Obiective:
Encourage the developrnent of affordable housing units
through the efforts of the private sector.
2.6.1 Pol"icy:
Ehployee housing units nay be required as part of any
new or redeveloprnent project requesting density over the
allowable by existing zoning.
2.6.2 Policv
Enployee housing shall be developed with appropriaterestrictions so as to ensure their availability andaffordability to the local work force.
2.6.3 Policy
The Town of Vail nay facilitate the development of
affordabLe housing by providing linited assistance.
GOAL #3:
TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRTORITY THE ENTIANCING OF THE
WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILI,AGE.
3.1 obiective:
Physically inprove the existing pedestrian ways by
Iandscaping and other improvenents.
3.1.1 Policv:
Private development projects shall incorporate
streetscape irnprovernents (such as paver treatnentst
landscaping, lighting and seating areas) along adjacentpedestrian ways.
3.4 obiective:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways
and accessible gtreenspace areas, including pocket parks
and stream access.
3.4.2 Policy:
Private developrnent projects sha1l be reguired to
incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to theproject as designated in the Vail Village ltaster Plan
and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan.
GOAL #4:
TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND
GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES .
o
4.1.1 Policv:
Active recreational facilities shall be preserrred (or
relocated to accessible locatl-ons elsewhere in ttreVillage) in any developnent or redevelopment of property
in vail viLlage.
GOAL #5:
INCREASE T}TE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND IUPROVE
AESTHETICS OF THE TR,ANSPORTATION At{D CTRCUIATION SYSTEM
THROUGHOUT THE VILI,AG8.
5.1.5 Policy:
Redevelopnent proJects shall be strongly encouraged to
provide underground or visually concealed parking.
5.4 obiective:
Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors
throughout the Village.
5.4.2 Policv:
Medians and rights-of-ways sha1l be landscaped.
For the sake of brevity, staff will not address each goal'policy, and objective separately. The project supports the
Village Ptan in the foltowing ways:
1. The redeveloprnent ls a high quality proposal that
maintains architectural scale as well as alrnost all the
zoning standards for the underlying PA zoning.
2. Slgnificant public irnprovements are incorporated into
the redevelopment such as sidewalks, the bus stop' and
landscaping.
3. Short-term acconmodation units are upgraded.
4. L,arge and nore functional ernployee housing units are
proposed.
5. The pedestrian experlence is enhanced by sidewalk and
landscape improvements.
Underground parking Le lncluded, whiLe surface spaces
are removed. The rernaining parking is visually
screened. The proJect neets its required parking.
hrblic transportation is Lnproved and nade safer as a
result of the new bus stoP.
IV. STAFF RECOUMENDATION
The staff reconmends approval of the proposal . Basically'
our position is very sLnilar to our recommendation on the
Ramshorn proJect. As Etated previously: rrAlthough the
inability of the end product to meet the strict definition of
a lodge is not what we would ideally like to see, we feel
that the property will continue to function as a lodge and
meet the intent of providing high quality giuest
accomnodations in the Public Acconnodation zone district.tt
The applicant has provided significant improvernents through
the redevelopment which will benefit both guests and owners
of the Garden of the Gods, as well as the general public.
The proposal meets the criteria outlined in the Special
Developnent District review, goals of the Land Use Plan, as
well as vail village Master Plan.
Staff approval is contingent upon the applicant rneeting the
foltowing conditions:
revised enployee housingthat clearly indicates the
sguare footage for each
two enployee housing units
The agreenent shall be
6.
7.
The applicant shall subnit a
agreement with a floor plan
location, tlpe of unit, and
enployee housing unit. The
2.
shall be restricted permanentlv. The agreement shall be
subnitted and approved by tne owner and the Town of VaiI
before a building pernit is issued for the project.
SECTION 18.13.O8O SEAI,L BE USED FOR TIIE WORDING FOR TEE
AGREET.TENT E (CBPT ItsAT TBE T'I|ITS SIIAI,L BE EI.IPIOYEE
f,OUSINC PENilATTENTLY.
The applicant strall subnit a written statement agreeing
to reltrict the proposed accornmodation units'
accommodation unit lock-offs and three dwelling units
as short tern rental units on a pertnanent basis. Even
if the project is conduutiniunized, these units shall
renain as short tenn rentals. .This written agreement
shall be subnitted by the owner and approved by the
staff before a building pernit is issued for theproJect. TIIIS AGREEIENT SIIALL BE RECPRDBD AS A
CbITVETAITT 1'IIAT SIIAI.L RT'N WITH IEE I,AilD.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct a
sidewalk and bus stop on tlre east slde of their3.
property as well as a aidewalk and planters adjacent to
thE FRONTAGB OF TIIB P-2 PARCEI, AIJOCI'TtsD TO TIIE GARDEN
oP TEE @Ds. The final design for tbe sidewalks,planters, and bus stop shall be subnitted by the
lppllcant to the Public Works Department and Connunity
Developrnent Department for approval . The sidewalks,
planters and bus stop shall be constructed subseguent to
the issuance of the buildlng pernit and prior to the
issuance of a tenporary certificate of occupancy for theproJect. The applicant shall subroit a written statenent
agreeing to thls condltion for the Town attorney's
approval before a building pernrit is released for the
project.
If needed, the Garden of the Gods shalL also provide a
public easement for the bus stop, sidewalk, and signage.
the applicant stralt subnlt the easement agreenent to ttre
Toltn attorney and Town Council for approval before a
temporary ceitificate of occupancy ls released for the
project.
4. The ormers of the Garden of the Gods shall construct
curb and gutter as well as any other drainage (asphalt
work etc.) inprovenents necessary along the.north'
south, and ealt sides of their property- Final design
for the drainage inprovements shall be subnitted by the
applicant to the PuLlic Works Departnent for final
approval . These improvements shal'l be constructed
sirlseguent to the iisuance of a building pernit andprior-to the l-ssuance of a temPorary certificate of
occupancy.
5. A revocable right-of-way agreenent shalt be conpleted.
for any encroa6hnents on the public right-of-way. - This.
agreement must be subnitted to the Couununity Developnent
D6partrnent and approved before a building pernit will be
released on the project.
6. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall subnit a
utility and drainage easement vacation to the Town
council for approvil before a building permit may be
released for the Project.
7. AI.IJ FIREPLACES SITAI,L BE GAS AlfD }IEET TIIE TOIIN OF VAIL
ORDI}IAIICE @VERI{ING GAS TIREPIACES.
8. RI'N-OFF CbNTROL & FOIIIIIION CONTROL DEVICES SIIAI,L BE
IIIC:oRPORAIrED INTO II'IIB SUNTACE PARKINC I TS. TIIIS ISST'E
SNAI.I, BE AI'DRESSED AT 1ts8 DRB RETVEW OT TEE PRG'EC:I Al{D
INCII'DED IN IIIIE BT'ILDING PERITIT PIAIIS.
Reconrnendations to the Desiqn Reviert Board
1. The vent on the west side of the pool should be
TEMOVEd OR SCREETTED BY I.',ANDSCAPING.
2. The north elevation of the building should have rnore
transparency.
3. The four treee tbat uill be elther relocated or replaced
due to ttre conEtrustlon of the bus stop should be
addressed. If the trceE nust be r€noved, landecapinEthat hae aubetantlally the sane posl.tive inpact rhould
be regulred.
o mru\K -rhu-t7o0
ila"ch e$, etO
Aon\ Car.tt' pi,'durr n'Qrtq +t*- tru*h uo0-Q-1 6' s{ tffil^aN unrn' b pdbd, bc^L
Nr\ Grro\- AhCIr.r6 o$ru-\ viort l,np"A
6te{c?orLt: Q,r,r0A 0{ d,A t*t\- tanrnr,^,,ih r$n @rr\
M,..J +\A ,\ ir bo,rs, \ctn MA i\ | h^61 6a-
br^0t ur*.^*,, 1$il-\Nin&\
r^/rt- ctpA^ ri dr4t+ ;w%'u,9rfohd
?.do5 c.ek*\ltq Ncrse-' Lh0t[,hat/'q Jvw/'r'q
bd'darl arLua- cb\q irsro u r (i
lJ@il {'r\fie-- lrrtu- \U NYlu^)
6* S.\onor, , Inh,k { j arnor \ullo b,orl^ *ru'q ux'liut
$ vruiqh'btr I
. ?ta' h$ b,tn ou,',ruei, .csuera0 -{irt'0,
'fl.&^ T*q buo *{
d^,'r\,' \ ,.. '
ilhil^ ( sowoo f\rtn"t-,rtly./\L \ \ u\.,
*^^di,
Coot
^n
&r.r\s'
Diorrtor,
?*y hap r\r,r" 1 gre"{ U-[ { v^.,(+ivi\
-\o AdCoro,lrr* grrq ALt^lfhl -
la\rorr.li,rg .+.,Udt nt\ affwc\ofgd
k sDD leflhl\u^NB{Cr V^'E- I
n fub\ic tqpg'epdrtw r00'd
"d 8ql\PtP0#i"gr ur*tsuD t#f^g-
o F.{utA
rfirLx^t\, ,*'?is h&1- I\
w\iq' ?$od\ {r a.-noro 5D'0 fr\o/TnD
t&oNl,' Ss\a4,tgf
ir^W p- q r'tu^^D 6-0 tm$b
T'rl^ t4 to ffal^oAk
o', reokiA*l
I
.. :
L-
a
AGREEI'IENT
This Agreement dated t.he 25th day of lrlovernberr 1987 by and
between the Town of VaiI, Colorado (hereinafter referred to asnVaiI") and A.c. Itill (hereinafter referred to as nHil1").
T.TITNESSETH:
I'THEREAS, Hill is the owner of the property described as:
Lot K, Block 5A, VaiJ. Village, Fifth Filing,
County of Eag1e, State of CoLorado.
(hereinafter referred to as the nsubject Propertyn); and
I,IHEREAS, on oct.ober 2I , l9g2 the parties entered into an
agreeraent rvhereby certain restrictions r.rere placed on the subjectproperty regarding enployee housing units, such agreenent beingattached hereto and rnarked as Exhibit "A"i and
I'IHERFIAS, the parties hereto desire to terminate such
agreement and enter into a new agreement on terrns and conditionshereinafter set forth.
lfolt, THEREPORE for ten dollars and other good ancl valuableconsideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknor.rledged,the parties agree as follows:
I. The agreement attached hereto and rnarked as Exhibit I'Arl
is hereby terminated by the parties.
2. The two dr.relling units designated "Restricted EnployeeUnit" on page tlo of the 6et of plans'entitled Garden of the Cods
Renodel , Vail, Colorado, Snowden and Hopkins Architects, datedl0/6/87 and revised I0/3O/87 and LL/S/-87 (attached hereto asExhibit "Br) shall hereinafter be referred to as nthe EmployeeUnits". Hill or any successors in interest shalI not se1l,transfer or convey the Restricted Employee Units, separately frorethe Subject Property.
3. The employee units shall not be leased or rented forany peri.od of less than 30 consecutive days; and if it shall berented' shall be rented only to tenants who are full tirneemployees in the Upper Eagle VaIIey. The Upper Eagle VaIIeyshall be deerned to include the corL valIey, itinturn, RedclifflGilnan, Eagle-Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A fulltime ernployee is a person who works an average of 30 hours per
week.
4. At such tine as HiLl subdivides the subject propertypursuant to Chapter L7 of the Tovrn of Vail SubdivisionRegulations and places a condorniniun declaration of record, HilI
nay at his option place the enployee unit restrictions as
outlined in this Agreement in such decl.aration and at such tine
as the condorninium declaration is placed of record in the office
of the Clerk and P.ecorderrs office, County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, the Town of Vail shall release and terminate this
Agreement. In addition, the enployee units shalL be designated
on the condominiun map as Restricted Employee Units.
5. The restrictions contained berein shall remain in
effect until December I, 2007 unless earlier terminated by mutual
consent by the Tovrn of Vail and the property or"ner.
6. The effective date of this Agreement shal1 be upon the
date of issuance of the tenporary certificate of occupancy
pursuant to the plans and specifications as adopted by Ordinance
No. 40 Series of 1987.
7. This Agreernent shall be a covenant running with the
land and shall bind Hil] and all subsesuent owners of said
property.
Dated the day and year f irst above r'rritten.
" VAIL U
TOI,IN
I'HILL''
COLORADO
Attest:
A.G. HILL
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
The
day
COLOR,ADO
EAGLE
foregoing
)) ss.
)
instrument was acknovrledged before ne this
of r 1987 by
and of the Town of Vailr Colorador
municipat corporation' for and on behalf of said corporation.
witness ny hand and official seal'
My commission expires on:
Notary Public
srArE or ffifioe
coulrrY or **kAS
The foregoing instrunent was acknowledged before
-l-g!h day of
-Decemher--'
1987 by A.G. Hill.
I.litness my hand and officiaL seal.
I{y eomrnission expires on! 9/14/89
)) ss.
)
me this
. \\.*,
Judith F. Howard
,o o
6vHtg tt \
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEI4ENT dAtEd
and between the TOWN
to as ttvail, tt and A.
oF vArL,
G. HILL,
tn" 4 auv ot g ol'lq '
COLORADO, hereinafter
hereinafter referred to
L982, by
referred
t'Hil1. "
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Hill is the owner of the property described
as:
Lot K, Bl-ock 5A, Vail Village'
Fifth Filing, CountY of Eagle'
State of Colorado,
hereinafter referred to as the "subject Property"i and'
WHEREAS, Vail has requested that certain
restrictions regarding employee units be placed on the
Subject ProPertY.
NOW, THEREFORE, for Ten Dollars ($10'00) and other
good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The accommodation unit known as Unit 201'
conprised of two bedrooms and two ffi bathrooms'
for a living area of approximately 623 square feet' and the
dwelling unit located. in the southhtest corner of the first
floor, in the approximate size of 504 square feet' of the
irnprovements Located on the Subject Property (collectively
referred to as the "Employee Units"), shall not be s-Qld'
transferred or conveyed separately from the other
improvernents located on the Subject Property'
2. The Employee Units shall not be leased or
rented for any period of less than thirty (30) consecutive
days; and, if it shall be rented, it shall be rented only to
tenants who are full-tirne employees in the upper Eagle
Valley. The UPPer Eagle Valley shal1 be deemed to include
the Gore Valleyr Minturnr Redcliff, GiJ-man, Eagle-Vail and
CY\'\
[(a
4
-t'tzr
ao Q'o
Avon, and their surroundinq areas. A fuIl-time employee is
a person who works an average of thirty (30) hours per week'
3. The restrictions contained herein shall remain
in effect until September Lt 2OO2 unless earlier terminated
by mutual consent of the Town of vail and the property
owner.
4. HitI, or his heirs or assigns' may move such
Empl-oyee units to other locations on the Subject Property as
long as such new employee units are substantially the same
type and square footage as the old employee units'
5. This Agreement shall be a covenant running
with the land and shall bind Hill and all subsequent owners
of said property.
"Vai l- "
TOWN OF L, coLoRADO
uHil1"
srATE oF coLoRADO )) ss.
COUNTY OF EAGLE )
The f o re go in g jns trument wa s aclno 1tLea1 e!,,f^e j2r 9
rne this z"-- d.
behalf of said corPoration.
"'" - --;'"ia@Ktl/.-4_--= ' or t
fOffi-F-ffioLoRADo' a munrc lptI-cb;F-oration, fA1;-and on
My con:nission exPires :
r'E oE coLoRADO )) ss.gTY OF EAGLE )
The^ foregoine this 2.7 Raay -ot
expires:
was acknowledged before
, L982, by A. G. HILL.
y'r/'-
ng ins.trument
txlibif b
ff-
I
I
atlW, dzt'ttV. .
l-J
-?
6n1 fluor- k'da'^4-il* ('nCs [on'or]al'
(!rru...uinc. \.* tlwpn teduC)
\-i
/
?
ORDINANCE NO. L4
.;I
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 40,
SERIES OF 1987 AND APPROVfNG SPECIAL DEVELOPI,IENT DISTRICT NO. l-9,
GARDEN OF THE GODS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER ]-8.40 OF THE
MUNTCIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the VaiL llunicipal Code authorizes
Special Development Districts within the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council approved Ordinance 4O, Series of 1987,
Special Development District NO. 19, carden of the Godsi and
WHEREAS, the approval for Special Development District No. L9,
Garden of the Gods, has lapsedi and
WHEREAS, the owner of the Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A. c. Hitl
Farnily, has reguested Special Development District approval for
certain parcels of property within the Town known as Lot K, Block 5A,
Vail Village Fifth Filing and a portion of Lot P-2, Block 3, Vail
village Fifth Filing; and
WHEREAS, there is an identified need
the comnunity; and
for affordable housing in
{ wHrnEAS, the Town of
I
lencourage the development
WHEREAS, the Special
flexibility to allow
VaiL has not adopted
of affordable housing
Development District
for the development of
fonnal policies to \
I
unitsi and
I\lprovides for creativity
affordable housingiand
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Comrnission has
reconnended approval for Special Development District No. 19; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable,
appropriate, and beneficiat to the To!"n and its citizens, inhabitants,
and visitors to repeal Ordinance No. 40, Series of L9a7 and to provide
for a new Special Development District No. 19, Garden of the Gods by
the adoption of Ordinance 14, Series of 1990.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIIJ OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COIORADO, THAT:
Ordinance No. 40, Series of 1-987,
No. 14, Series of L990, is enacted as
is hereby repealed, ordinance
follows:
The approval procedures described in Chapter LB.4O of the Vail
Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the To$/n Council has received
the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission reconmending
approval of the proposed development plan for Special Development
District No. L9.
Section 2. Special Developmeht District NO. 19
Special Development District No. L9 (SDD No. t9) and the development
plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Lot K,
Block 5A, Vail Village sth Filing and a portion of Lot P-2, Block 3,
Vai] Village Fifth riling within the Town of Vail.
Section 3. Purpose
Special Development District No. L9 is established to ensure
comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious
with the general character of the Town of Vail and to promote the
upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the Town. The
development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town
Council and meets all the design standards as set forth in Section
L8.4o of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special
Developnent District No. L9 which cannot be satisfied through the
inposition of standards in the Public Accommodation zone district.
sDD No. 19 is compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the
cornrnunity while naintaining its unique character.
Sect,ion 4. Development Plan
A. The developnent plan for SDD No. 19 is approved and shall
constitute the plan for developnent within the Special
Development District. The development plan is comprised of the
following plans:
1.. Site Plan, Garden of the cods III, Sheet I, dated February
20, t99O, Sno!'rdon and Hopkins, Architects.
2. Landscape Plan, Sheet 2, dated February 20, 1.990, Snowdon
and ltopkins, Architects
3. Garage Level Plan, Sheet 3, dated February 20, 1.990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects
4. Ground Level PIan, Sheet 4, dated February 20, L990, Snowdon
o
and Hopkins, Architects. ;j:
5. Second Floor Plan, Sheet 5, dated February 20, L99O, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
6. Third Floor Plan, Sheet 6, dated February 20, L99O, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
7. Penthouse Plan, Sheet 7, dated February 20, L99O, Snolrdon
and Hopkins, Archltects.
8. East Elevation, Sheet 8, dated February 20, l-99O, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
9. South Elevation, Sheet 9, dated February 20, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
LO. West Elevation, Sheet 1-0, dated February 20, L99O, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
LL. North Elevation, Sheet 1-1-, dated February 20, l-99O, Snohrdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
L2. Improvement Location Certificate, Job No. 6L8, dated June
29, 1989, Eagle Valley Engineering and Surveying, Inc.
B. The developnent plan shall adhere to the following:
1. Setbacks
Setbacks shall be as noted on the site plan listed above.
2. Height
Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the elevations
listed above and on the site plan. However, in no case strall the
height exceed 48 feet for a sloping roof or 45 feet for a flat or
mansard roof and any encroachment into the approved Town of Vail
View Corridor No.5 is prohibited.
3. Coveragre
Slte coverage shall be as lndicated on the site pLan llsted
above.
4. Landscanincr
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on
the final landscape plan approved by the Design Review Board and
on file in the Cornrnunity Development Department.
5. Parkinq
Parking shall be provided on Lot K, Block 5A, VaiI Village 5th
o
FiJ.ing and a portion of Lot P-2, Block 3, VaiI Viltgge
as indicated on the site plan, but in no case shall the
have the ability to park less than 26 automobiles.
6. Density
SDD No. L9 shall not contain less than 11 acconruodation
4 acconmodation unit lock-offs per the approved floor plans,
representing S,8L2 square feet of Grosg Residential Floor Area
(GRFA) and 6 dwelling units representing L21540 square feet of
GRFA per the approved floor plan. The site shall have a maximum
density of l-L.5 dwelling units representing a total GRFA of
l-81460 square feet. SDD No. L9 shall also contain 2 enployee
dwelling units as indicated on the Ground Floor Plan by Snondon
and Hopkins, Architects, dated February 20, L990. Each enployee
dwelling unit shall have a GRFA of gOt square feet.
7. Uses
Pernitted, conditional , and accessory uses shall be as set forth
in the Public Accommodation Zone District while recognizing the
property vill no longer neet the definition of a lodge as found
in Section 18 . 04 . 2l-0.
Developrnent District No. L9
a. The applicant shall suburit a revised enployee housing
agreenent with a floor plan that clearly indicates the
location, type of unit, and square foot,age for each employee
housing unit. The two employee housing units shall be
restricted permanently. The agreement shall be subnitted
and approved by the owner and Town of Vail before a building
pennit is issued for the project. Section 18.13.080 shall
be used for the wording of the agreement, except that the
units shall be restricted to ernployee housing permanently..
The Town of Vail shatl be a party to this agreement. This
agreement shall be recorded by the Town of Vail at the Eagle
County Clerk and Recorderrs office. The covenants
concerning enployee dwelling unit restrictions shall run
with the land.
5th Filing
sites
units and
t
b.
.j.'
The owner of each employee dwelling unit shall be reguired
to declare in writing on an annual basis to the Town of Vail
that the employee dwelling unit has been rented as a long
term rental per the requirernents outlined in this section.
This declaration shall include a written statement fron the
ohtner listing the renterrs name, place of ernployment, and
length of tine the unit was rented. The declaration shall
be required to be signed by both the lot owner and renter.
The applicant shall subnit a written statement agreeing to
restrict the proposed L1 acconmodation units, 4
acconnodation unit lock-offs, and 3 dwelling units as short
terrn rental units on a perrnanent basis. Even if the
project is condominiumized, the units listed above shatL be
restricted as short term rentals. This written agreenent
shall be submitted by the owner to the Town of Vail and
approved by the Community Developrnent Department and Town of
Vail attorney before a building permit is issued for the
project. The Town of Vait shalt be a party to this
agreement. This agreement shall be recorded as a covenant
that shall run with the land.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct a
sidewalk and bus stop on the east side of the Garden of the
Gods property as well as a sidewalk and planter adjacent to
the frontage of the P-2 parcel allocated to the Garden of
the Gods. The final design of the sidewalk, bus stop, and
planters shall be subrnitted by the owners of the carden of
the Gods to the Pub1ic Works Departrnent and Conmunity
Development Department and Community Development Department
for approval . The sidewalks, planters and bus stop shall be
constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit
and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of
occupancy for the project. The applicant shall subnit a
written statement agreeing to this condition for the Town
5
o
d.
-)
Attorneyrs approval before a building permit is released for
the project. If so required by the Town Engineer and Town
Attorney, the Garden of the Gods shall also provide a public
easernent for the bus stop, sidewalk, and signage. The
owners of the Garden of the Gods shall submit the easernent
agreement to the Town Attorney and Tolrn Council for approval
before a temporary certificate of occupancy is released for
the project.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct curb
and gutter as well as any other drainage (such as asphalt
work) improvements necessary along the north, south, and
east sides of their property. Final design for the drainage
improvements shatl be submitted by the owners of the Garden
of the Gods to the Public Works Department for final
approval. These irnprovenents shall be constructed
subsequent to the issuance of the building pernit and prior
to the issuance of a tenporary certificate of occupancy.
The drawings indicating the drainage improvements shall be
incorporated into the building permit application.
A revocable right of way agreement shall be compLeted by the
o$tners of the Garden of the Gods for any encroachments on
the public right-of-way. This agreenent must be subrnitted
to the Comnunity Development Department and approved before
a building perrnit will be released on the project.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall suburit a utility
and drainage easement vacation to the Town Council for
approval before a building pernit may be released for the
proj ect.
AII fireplaces shall be gas and meet the Town of Val1
ordinance governing gas appliances.
Run-off control and pollution control devices shall be
incorporated into the surface parking lots. This issue
shall be addressed at the Design Review Board revierd of the
project and any measures to control run-off or pollution
shall be incorporated into the building permit plan.
f.
9.
h.
I
i. Due to the construction of the bus stop, four_Fvergreen
trees shall be either relocated or replaced. If the trees
must be renoved, landscaping that has substantially the same
positive irnpact shalt be required by the Design Review
Board.
Section 5.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of thls
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the rernaining portions of this ordinancei
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 6.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail
Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shaLl not affect any
right which has accrued, andy duty irnposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
cornrnenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or 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.
?-'o
: ,FJ.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 3rd day of
April , L99o, and a public hearing shall be held on
this ordinance on the 3rd day of April , L99O at 7:30 p.n.
in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado. Ordered publish ln full this -3rll_ day of AprlL ,
1,990.
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED,
{n ful1
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND
, this 17th day of READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
Anrl I , 1990
ATTEST:
( ,) , t
Pamela a. Brandmeyer, Toriln clerk
' /j,a;ffi, -- f g:/*//-'/
A.
zr^"-/*a/
++
ztt-eat#b"--@ 4 92-'-p/L t4M
4F/2,-6,-C /rH
o
rl \atl \o, eai Ars in
I'luJ_lL$!aqq
--+h44ll.Mrhi q?,a-
o
t
f
Revised 2/2L/89
CHART 2
Garden of tlre Gods
Zoning Statistics:
Public Accomodation Zone District
Site Area .5049 acres or 2L'993 sq.ft.
ALLLOWED PROPOSED
GRFA (.80)
iDENSITY
(25 DU's/acre)
'2#u
7DU
2LOAU
l_5 AU
L7,594,SC.ft. 18,879 sq.ft.
L2.5 DUts
e eDu-r Du.-
'fllr,*,6,col,IuoN ( .20) 3,519 sq. ft. 4, ol-8 sq. ft'
PARKING 28 Existinq 28 Proposed
24 Required {u. O\\ vnifs
6,.sloror- U,{k'. 5LPg1ar nut
Nd{a. D^\.Drh'U
6. &xh d^d'.\ rP"* s'tx-
a. ?"U"a-
\q1
ixff
r<<lJr ''
Wt'#
fTIEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commlssion
Community Development Department
October 14, 1991
stuftr,f Ptc
11"lTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
WuN-d
tDIt4
Garden of the Gods Minor Amendment'tollow up to PEC concems; Lot K'
Block 5A, VallVillage Sth Filing.
Planner: Shelly Mello
lto Lssws
Attached is a copy of a letter lrom Robillard and Associates which explains lhe source of the
survey discrepaniy lor the Garden of the Gods project, whicft was disossed at the At€ust
12, 1gg1 PEC meeting. lt appears tre tife report legal description used for the survey
completed by Eagle Vattey Surveying did not mathematically close. ln developlng the -..
tmpiovemeni Location Cehificate-(1.[.C.) at the time of the framing of the building, Robillard
usbd generally accepted surveying practices lo close ths survey. (Please refer to the
attached tor more details.)
It is the staff's opinion that the l.L.C. should rsmain as originally indicated W laOte Valley
.
Surveying - i.e., the Surwy does not close. Our Torn Surveyor, Mike Brake, haS revi€wed
tne iniormation and believes this is an acceptable solution, and is a standard surveying
practic€. Ths anached survey reflects the staff's request.
After review of the l.LC., the statf finds that here are changes in the building location. These
changes can be attributed to 3 diflerent items. The tarst is a difference In drawlngs. The
submitted site plans at both PEC revierr and building permit were soft line drawings. The
l.L.c. ls computer generated. lt ls difficult to accuratsly scale and compare a soft line drawing
and computer generated drawing at 1'-20' scale. The second source ol change was
generated by a need to adiust the building in order to ensuro hat the building footers were not
located in th-e rignt-ot-way. The third reason is that only 2 conrol points, 4 feet from the north
and 2 feet lrom the west property lines, were used in tocating he building through the
prooess. Bscause of the non-reclilinear shape of the lot, and form ol he drawings, these
bntrol poinb were maintained, but still allowed for a slight shlft in the building.
The resulting changes are as follows: (Please see attachod drawlngs.)
PEC/
Town Council BuildingAooroval .@!!' l.LC.
Min. North Seback (east) 0 3 feet (4 d 3.4 teet (4
control polnt) at oonfol
polnt)poinD
Min. Soutr Setback (wesUeast) 2'n9' 2'125' 2-2'129.8'
Min. East Seback (south) 22.5' 24' 24.5'
Min. West Setoack (north) 2' 2' 2'
. please note thsse figures were generated from scaling the submltted drawings, and are
approximate scaled dimensions.
The pivot of the building has also impacted the overall ridge location. The result of the
building shift, combined witr the change at building permit, ls a 3-foot shift in the norh end of
the ride to the east. These changes do not impact the view corridor. The overall size ol the
building has not changed.
The staff tests that the degree ol change ln relationship to he size of the building is
acceptiable. The staft approves the minor amendment, sinca the change in the building
location decreases the proxlmity to the view conidor and the cfianges were done to
accommodate site restrictions. Further, the request meets ths mlnor amendment criteria set
fortr in Section 18.40.020(8).
clpecvn€mGbatd€n.O14
Robillald
& ASSOCIATES, INC
@NSULTING ENGINEERS
- Consult,ng Erg,nee'5
LaM Su&eyo6
Cbnstruction Mana0€is
Ptann€rs
rc 8c! 5bg
3-e2:.t, ea.^'-e: .
' -7C E JgFia. i
S, rve 'hc-,e CcE.aoa ?a!ti
B.rsness (3C3r a€8.62a'
Cenve' D ecr 623.04:t
August 13, l99l
Ms, Pan Hopkins
SNOWDON & HOPKINS
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vai)., CO 8165?
Dear Pan:
The dimensions and bearings as shown on uy iuprovenent locationcertificate for Lot K, Block 5-A, VaiI Village, Fifth Filingi, are
based on creating Lot K mathernatically by holding the dineneionsshown on the centerlines of Gore Creek Drive, Hanson Ranch Road and
Gore Creek Road (aka Vail Valley Drive). I believe this was thebest solution to account for the error of closure that existe on theplatted coursea shown for Lot K, as well as hamonizing this lotwith its adjoiners. The net result is an area slightly larger thanthat shown on the platted Lot K, (west line of 142.?4, rather than142,49) and east line of 122,45, rather than t22.88,).
A generally accepted principle in distributing excess or deficiencyis that the illatted Right-of-Way shall receive full neasrure andexcess or deficiency shall be proportioned in the lots. r believethe construction of Lot K as shown follows this principle.
Please feel free to call me if you have any further questions or
need further clarifications.
Sincerely,
NOBILLARD & ASSOCIATES
'T2/u.a ft=pr.-..---.-
Robert R. Johns, P.L,S.
.
Snowdon and HoPkins o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vail. Colorado
303 476-2201
R.I AE7
October 8, 1991
Ms. Shelly Mello
Town of Vail Planning DePartnent
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Garden of the Gods Improvement Location certificate (ILC)
Shel ly:
l am enclosing a portion of Robillard's ILC dated 9/8/91 showing
the new Garden of the Gods focation and the l0cation of the old
buj-lding. I have dashed in as best I can the location of the
buildin! shown on the PEC approval set dated 12/ll/89 and revised
1/26/90, 2/2/90, and 2/7 /90.
The Buj_lding Permit plan shows the N.w. building corner to be
2,- O" from the west property line to assure that the footings
would be on our propeity. The eastern section of the north
buiJ.ding wall was dirnensioned to be 4' fron the north property
line foi the same reason. These two corners were located only
because they were the most critical . The south part of the
building and Iot did not seem to be that critical to the
neiqhbois. This did twist the building a bit further away from
the northern neighbors.
The pEC location shows the new ridge to be seven feet away from
and paralLel to the old ridge. This twisting caused the ridge
and the N.E. corner to move approximately 3'more to the east and
the S.E. building ridge and corner to move 3' to lhe west'
i houe Liris explairrs suificiently what- happcned at .'he PEC
appr'oval and Uiritaing permit submittal. we did pu11 the building
airriy from the criticil property north and west lines. This
should be beneficial to the northern neighbor and not create more
of an impact to them.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to calL me'
Sincerely,
,-f-\ t/ L l'ffiut ilffit"g
Pamela W. Hopkinsr AIA
Partner
SNOWDON AND HOPKINS ARCHITECTS
Pi{H,/ r lb
I
I
o a
AIA-A4.Ge1W +fi1,J/! FlaT tJQr>Fcz
..t I
CORE' CREEK DR'
3 6.00
, N,18'37r
frysavJu-69:
?ryraeUW-l/fthlt?rj
lQtt
c7trO&,q-,
..utr&
L,o,fi4tF*,
.-)
-t-
9-(
.l
A
/s
'0'^.
|t".t^-+v$
ahwq+ 2?1ns acw
o
PLANNING AND E}WIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Ocober 14,1991
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
Amber Blecker
The worksession was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at approximately
l:55PM.
l. A reouest for a worksession for Soecial Develooment District No. 4. Cascade Villaee
(Coseriff Parcel). to r€view a development plan. eenerallv located south of Millrace
Condominiums and west of the Westin Resort. Vail.
Aoolicanc East-West Partners
Planner: Shellv Mello
Mark Smith, Jerry Mullikin and Ned Gwathmey rcprcsenred the applicants.
Shelly Mello began the discussion of the proposal by stating staff believed the project needed
to be more materially compatible, a landscape plan, and a final survey were needed, and since
it was an unplatted parcel, a minor suMivision would be necessary.
Diana Donovan was unhappy that the property would not remain open space, and the
Commission agreed with her.
Jim Shearer did not mind a difference in materials, and believed that the applicants should try
to "bring up" the neighborhood.
Ludwig Kurz thought that, since therc were distinct styles, urban and hotel, that compatibility
was impossible. He said he could live with the design presently submitted- He was more
concerned with both landscaping and street surface materials.
Ned Gwathmey asked what the opinion of the Commission was regarding a metal roof, and
which type should it be. He advocated shake shingles stained to match the existing
sunounding buildings, but did not believe a material match was the best solution. He
suggested spraying the shake shingles to achieve a compatible roof color. Kathy
FI[. T COPY
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Ludwig Kurz
Kathy Langenwalter
Jim Shearer
Gena Whinen
o o
Langenwalter did not see a pmblem in not using a metal rmf, as long as the roof lines were
compatible. She suggested perhaps adding morc stucco and changing the railings for a more
refined appearance of the building. She also believed it was important to continue the paving
pattern which was used in the Millrace project. She was concerned with the layout of the
project and the difference in scale between the hotel and this project. She said it felt like the
east unit was very close to a large building.
Ned asked if a landscape plan would be necessary for approval. The Commissioners told him
it would.
Chuck Crist asked if employee housing would be a part of the development. Shelly said staff
would not require it as a condition of approval, as there was a reduction in density from the
previously-approved plan. Chuck asked if the applicants werc interested in providing a
caretaker unit. 1'he responded that they werc not. Shelly said staff would be supportive if
such a unit was proposed, as long as it was integrated into one of the proposed units.
Kathy brought up rhe issue of parking. Shelly explained the proposal had 4 spaces more than
the Town required. Kathy wondered wherc guest pa*ing would be provided. Kcvin
McTavish, the manager of the existing units at Millrace, shared Kathy's concern, stating that
their project had no guest parking, and it was a major problem. Ned asked what a reasonable
number of overflow parking spaces would be. He was not opposed to providing additional
parking, but indicated it would require additional paving. Kathy suggested perhaps widening
the circle. Ned agreed to look at different possibilities for providing additional parking.
Kathy said she would prefer to have adequate parking for the project rather than insisting the
project meet the 757o enclosed parking requirement.
After a general discussion regarding parking, Connie Knight asked if there were any problem
with thJbike path running across the project. Shelly said there should be an easement, and
agreed to check the Special Development District documents to make sure.
Kevin McTavish reiterated that the prcsent parking plan was inadequate.
At this time, the public meeting was begun.
Filing/365 Vail VaUev Drive.
Applicant Marearct Hill Marital Trust
Planner: Shellv Mello
Shelly Mello explained the differences between what had been submitted for the PEC
approval of the SpD, building permit and what was built, and the discrepancies. Staff asked
tlat ttre Improvement l,ocation Certificate (ILC) and future surveys reflect the fact that the
property lines not close. The sources of the discrepancy werc attributed to thrce facton. The
l.
o I
fint is a difference in drawings. The submitted site plans at both PEC review and building
permit were soft line drawings. The I.L.C. is computer genemted. It is difficult to accurately
icale and compare a soft line drawing and computer generated &awing at l"-20" scale. The
second source of change was generated by a need to adjust the building in order to ensurE
that the building footeis were not located in the right-of-way. The third reason is that only 2
control points, 4 feet from the north and 2 feet from the west property lines, werp used in
locating the building through the process. Because of the non-rtctilinear shape of the lot, and
form oi the drawings, these contr,ol points were maintained, but still allowed for a slight shift
in the building. Shelly indicated that the building was slightly turned ftrom what was
approved by the PEC, but the result was that thc proximity to the view co'rridor was
increased. Staff believed that the shift was reasonable.
Diana Donovan was bothercd that after thorough review by the PEC, the building had to be
moved in o,rder to accommodate the foundations.
Kathy Langenwalter confirmed that the sources of the discrepancies were reasonable. After a
discussion regarding the effect of the slight change in building location, Kathy asked that the
Town copies of all surveys reflect the fact that the property lines did not close.
Since the Commission agreed with staff's approval of the minor amendment, no action by the
PEC was nocessary on this item.
Filine.
Applicant Vail Associates
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer explained the rcquest. Staff recommended approval of the minor amendment
to the development plan with conditions.
Joe Macy, reprcsenting Vail Associates, said he would prefer not to construct an earthen berm
to the wist oi ttt" propored lift unless Mr. Brown, the adjacent property owner, rcquested one'
He suggested using a snow berm instead of an earthen berm with landscaping to screen the
lift from the adjacent ProPerty.
Jim Shearer asked that Mr. Brown and the Meyers be contacted again for their input.
Kathy Langenwalter was concerned about a buffer for privacy and noise control. She
prefenred to see the base of the lift moved to the east. Joe Macy indicated such a move
would result in a loss of ski terrain.
a ot
Ludwig Kurz believed the proposal was an inoffensive installation, and would not result in a
problcm for the neighborhood. He did not believe it would make sense to move the basc of
the lift uphill, nor to install a Permanent berm.
Diana Donovan did not believe a berrn needed to be required at this time, but wanted an
allowance to be made to require its installation in the frrture if it bccame necessary. Joe
Macy replied that the neighbors could always install a fence around their property if cross-
traffic became an issue to them. He would prcfer to l€move the lift support poles in the
summer rather than construct a berm and landscapc ir Diana stated her preference of bushes
being planted rather than a berm being installed.
Chuck Crist asked what would keep out-of-control skiers from skiing into a house. For
control rrasons, he suggested a snow berm. Joc Macy replied that, most likely, a skier would
simply sit down before they reached one of the homes. He reiterated that notices had been
seni tg adjacent prcpcrty owners, and no one had indicated any opposition, but pledged O
continue io try and contact them again. Connie Knight wanted the approval contingent on the
adjacent property owners' approval. Kristan Pritz said that could be made a condition of
approval, but an alternative would be that, if therc was opposition, the applicant could retum
for an amendment to the proposal, if necessary.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to apprcve the request for a minor amendment to the Golden
Peak development plan to allow for the installation of a rope tow lift, 498 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing, with the following condition: If either of the two
adjacent property owners requested mitigation by landscaping or through the constnrction of
anearthen berm, within two years of the installation of the lift, the applicant must provide
such mitigation. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was approved, 7-0.
Jack Rush from Manor Vail was in attendance to exprcss support of the request.
Aoplicant Vail Associates
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer presented staff's findings on this request. Staff rccommended appmval of the
request for a period of 2 years, with the conditions listed in the memo.
Joe Macy, representing the applicant, thought a berm on the west side of the lot was
acceptable, but that a berm on the south side was unnecessary, as the grade of the lot was
high enough above the road that cars parked in the lot would not be visible to drivers on the
3.
TOWN OFVAIL
75 louth trontagc road
v8ll, colorado 81 657
FAX PHONE TR,NISMITTAL SHEET
TO:
COMPANY NAME:
FAX PHONE NUMBER:
(lv i,
TIME:
VAIL FAX PHONE NUMBER:(303t 479-2157
VAIL REGULAR PHONE NUMBER:(303) 47e-++€€ 211,h
FROM!
DATE:
#oF
Alr\RESPONSE REQUIRED? I\U
'rM
PAGES IN DOCUMENTS (NoT INCLUDING COVER SHEET) , h ,4
8XT. #SENT BY:
TOWN OF
TOWN OF
\,\a.rtcrar'r-Avurtt
5*vrt\
3ro r.l Ll
u^:iil
ttt Ll
t"tl.
914 \r(Zo{
r \0t\"l \'lru'it &lu'r'1" 6i uti |rr)t1'lt
'\) L
?
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section l-8.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail- on August 12, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A request to amend the conditions of approval for Phases If
and III of Vail Point relating to revegetation of
foundations, 1881 Lions Ridge Loop.Applicant: Steve GensLer /vail Point Condominiun
Association
A request for a major amendment to Special DevelopmentDistrict No. 4t Cascade village, to change the conditionsfor development for Area D, Phase IA, Glen Lyon Office
BuiJ-ding.
Applicant:Calumet Federal Savings & Loan Association of
Chicago,/Pierce, Segerberg, Spaeh
Review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to Special
Development District No. 22, Garden of the Godsr LoL K,
Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing/365 Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: Margaret Hill Marital Trust
A request to amend a development plan approved by Eagle
County for Phase III of the Spruce Creek Townhouses, 1750 S
Frontage Road West/Spruce Creek Townhouses at Vail.
Applicant:Michael- Lauterbach/Car1 Dietz
A request to amend Section 1-8.58.020 - Fences, Hedges' Walls
and Screening of the Town of Vaj-1 Zoning Code Supplemental
Regulations regardi-ng enforcement of covenants restricting
fence heights.Applicant: Town of Vail
A request for a worksession to rezone property from
Primary,/Secondary to Low Density Multiple Family, generally
located aL 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particularly described
Parcel A: A tract of l-and containing one acrer more or
less, located in the South I/2 of the South East 1/4 of
SecLion 1-1, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixt.h
Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of
said Section 11,' thence westerly along the northerly line of
said SW l/4 of the SE 1,/4 bearing south 86 20' W a distance
of L6'1 .80 fL. to a point:
Thence southerly along a line L67.80 ft. distant from andparallel to the east line of said Sw 1,/4 of the SE 1,/4, a
distance of 200.00 ft. to a point:
6.
Thence easterly a distance of L57.80 ft. along a line 200.00
ft. distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW
L/4 of t.he SE 1,/4 Lo a point on its east linei
Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north fine of the
Sw 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 1L, a distance of 50.95 ft.
to a point:
Thence northerJ-y and paralle1 with the west l-ine of the east
L/2 of the SE \/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00
ft. to the point of intersection with the extension of the
north Iine of the Sw I/4 of the SE t/4 of said Section 1L;
Thence westerly on a defl-ective angle left of 95 21'00"
along the extension of Lhe north line of the SW 1/4 of the
SE 1,/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE
corner of the Sw I/4 of the SE 1'/4 of Section i-1, being the
point of beginning.
Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. L' according to
the recorded plat thereof.
Applicant:Erich and Lily Schmetzko
A request for a front setback variance for the Tupy
Residence, Lot 33, Buffehr Creek Resubdivislon/1901 Chamonix
Lane.
Applicant:Leon Tupy
A request for a major amendment to Special Development
District No. 2, Pinos de1 Norte, Building C, Northwoods
Condominiums/600 vail Valley Drive.
Applicant:Pi-nos del Norte Condominium Association
A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code -Definitions,' to add a new definit.ion for employee housing
unit, and a new definition for bathroom.Applicant: Town of VaiI
A request to amend Chapters 18.10 - Single-Family District,
L8.1,2 - Two-Family Residential District and 18.l-3 - Primary/
Secondary Residential- District to alLow employee housing
units as a ConditionaL Use.
Applicant:Town of Vail
1L. A request to amend Chapters 18.14 - Residential ClusterDistrict, 18.L6 - Low Density Multiple Fami-Iy District'
18.1-8 - Medium Density Multiple Family Distri-ct, 1,8.20 -High Densit.y Mulitple Family District, L8.22 - Public
Accommodation District, L8.24 - Commercial Core L District,
18.26 - Commercial Core 2 District, 18.27 - Commercial Core
3 District, 18.28 - Commercial Service Center District'
1,8.29 - Arterial Business District, 18.34 - Parking, 18.36 -Public Use District, and l-8.39 - Ski Base/RecreationDistrict; to aIlow employee housing units as a Conditional
Use.
Applicant:
10
Town of Vail
L2. A request to amend Chapter 18.58 of the Municipal Code -
Supplemental Regulations to provide specific development/
zoning standards for employee housing units.Applicant: fown of Vail
L3. A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining
deck at the Sianese Orchid, Vail Gateway Plaza, 12 South
Frontage Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail village First Filing.
Applicant: Chai Kulvet,/Siamese Orchid, Ltd.
L4. Any items tabled from the JuLy 22, 1991- PEC meeting agenda.
The applications and information about the proposals are
avail-ab1e for public review in the Community Development
Department office.
Town of Vail-
Community Development Department
PubLished in the Vail Trail on .Iuly 25, 1991.
o
FILE
75 south |rontage road
vall, colorado 8'1657
(303) 4792138
(303) 4792139
office ol communlty developmenl
Marclr 25, L99L
Bob LazierTivoli Lodge
386 Hansen Ranch Road
Vail , Colorado 81657
REs P-2 ParkiDg Lot
Dear Bob:
Attached please find a copy of the documentation concerning the
Garden of the cods use of the P-2 parking 1ot. According to
Exhibit B, 17 spaces were allocated to the Garden of the Gods
Club. Doris Bailey of the Vail Trails East Condominium
Association and Bob Lazier of the Tivoli Lodge signed the
agreenent in February 1990.
According to the Special Development Agreeroent #l-9, two spaces of
the area of the P-2 lot allocated to the Garden of the Gods Club
will be elininated. The spaces to be elininated are partially
Iocated on Town of Vail right-of-way. The CIub will be reguired
to install a new stone planter and sidewalk prior to any
occupation of the new building. A final plan for the street
inprovenents should be available by June 1, 1991-.
Should you have any further questions, please call me at 479-
2L38.
SM/1rd
enc.
Don Hare
COPY
Sincerely,
shelly Me[.lo
Tohrn Planner
?tr copy
75 soulh trfilage load
Yall, colorado 81657
(303) 47$2138
(303) 4792139
ollice of community der€lopnent
llarch 25, 1991
Kit WilliansVail Trails East
505 N Frontage Road WestVail, Colorado 8l-657
RE: P-2 Parking Irot
Dear Kit:
Attached please find a copy of the docunentation concerning-the
Garden of the cods use of the P-2 parking lot. According toExhibit B, L7 spaces were allocated to the carden of the GodsClub. Doris Bailey of the Vail trails East CondominiurnAssociation and Bob Lazier of the tivoli Lodge signed the
agreenent in February 1990.
According to the Special Developrnent Agreenent #19, two spaces of
the area of the P-2 lot allocated to the Garden of the Gods ClubwiLl be eliminated. The spaces to be elj-ninated are partially
located on Town of Vail right-of-way. The Club will be reguiredto install a new stone planter and sidewalk prior to any
occupation of the new building. A final plan for the street
improvenents should be available by June 1, L99l-.
Should you have any further questions, please call me at 479-
2138.
SMr/lrd
enc.
Don Hare
Si4cerely,
ShelIy Mello
J
Drre r_ftsE er? . rq F o ly!
Ttr undrrrrgned annbrrrr belng ch. rcI. !.oD.rr of D-3 Aloostr3tonlrcknorlodsr :hrr rhr esBrchrd sr.trirc ,,A,'i.pr..-nii ii.-eirocrtrc prrbrryto tho Hrrgrrrr Btlt Hrrlrrl Tnr.r vlthin ctrir ccrpoie"ro";i- rrrr propGrtydrrcrlbrd on shr.rlrchrd 1yl9i-."i;r'gutrueor Go gar.tssph z,s (r) o! ghrA8!.a!.BG drcrd gcpcaabrr 16r Lgl6. '
D.t.d rha doy end y..t a. m: tcrth bcleu.
lsrhorn Lod8t
Coodcrlnluo ArroclrCtm
Tbr l{rrttrl tartC
ort.r- ?/t ,/*.! ,,
Desc: 2 ta -7 O -
DrGoi
Dccr:
ly:
Eyr
Vr1l trrtlo Eart
Cosdolntun Altoclotlon
llr
llerga;r:r
Vatt trallr
* |3 ||3 tl. $ {. {. * * rt * rt t * * r} * rlr * * * * r} tt rl3 'f rt rt tl. * 't * * tl * * * rl. * * tl. $ * * rl. {t * * rl. rlr tl. |} * * rf. * * ||3 * |l * rf * * *
|}
{3 TRANSACT I ON REPORT
P. 01
Tha underelgnod nerbcrer belng thc aolc nenbcra of p-2 Arsoclstlon,
acknowledgo thrt the attachcd Exhlblt rh" represenBn tho Alloc,oted parktng
to cha l{ergnrct ttlll tfarttal Trust wltlrln the corporotlonrs real proporty
dcrcrlbcd on chr ettsched Dxlrtbtt "8", pursusnt to psratreph 2rg ir)'or hr.Agreenent detcil 8eptcnber 16, 1926.
Dotod thc dey ond ytar aE .er fotuh below.
Rantrrhorn l.odgc
Corrdonrlntun Assoctotlon
t' Dat3t Byr
uc", ?4,ba ,
Drrer?. l-t -f P'-'
ootcz,-? /16 / tlo
1
7
tr,e
'/,
Voll Tratle
Condootntuu Asroclotlotr
Dstc:
'r-: \
\
I
i
\-_._, o,
,iz rsu--E
LtzE€Y----
Le-r '/t:lt
tlt
r'( t\) t
I
I
I
"RtrE(v-
ONl
I
I
(;.-,ir 1
I
I
I
I
.llr
ll
I l falt'-'lt{Lz
f iuOr- I Lcr Dac
a",liril
lrl
l1l
I
I
:
/l-lrv t0N R,r.r..rCtf
I? oxP
Zor:c
f+tt'ro
r'1\=-'
.-.!--- 1-
-'-'-- '--'1"/- \/'\./' \
6Arrp6.nl ur' rilE (<tD5 C/Ur: ,'
rY"lffi MEUFIEFI, E|I=Rl\F'lvt, MEUFTEFT rNc
I g [TR"rdt E TLf \N, .14 T1{ AVE
il'.{''l uEl\t.vEFt . t-:crt-.r'ttrtrtrr- n^?:tr.!r
JI
r;'igxHtBtT "-b'
L€t P-1, vrll villlq! FlfthColorldo
I Flllng. C.unty of Eogle lnd st..e of
llro
l Plri of ! vlcatcd portlon ot ll.nlon tnnch Rt:,rd bellreen Core Crleknord nnd-corc C:nc; i.i". r! pt!!!"d lrr Vcil vltl,aga riiri rifiii,counry^of Ergl,c, s!!r. of Cotirado. rna lroii pirtliularty ,t..ccitu,,ar! folloes I
Corunencing.at :ol,nt on thc Crnces ltnr of Han"rn Rcnch Lo!d. 3sidPoing bqing tt. poine b! lngerrac:ion of tha c.n. rr line c! t.l,dnrison R.nch to.d Jnd lha Iorth.lltrrty lln€ o! Gcr! Cs"ch Road:thanc! ttor:h. rtcEly rlong ch! Canlar iinc o! irld fanaon lanctr'P.o..l rnd on rn .rnglc of 90.00'00. lron raid Norgh:aslcrly llne o(CorQ C'eek Road 52.9.1 fcet !o a polnt of crtrvr r c. encr aiong :rid,Ccnrcr llns rnd along ! cuavr !o thc t"ft ha?lng I raaiuc oi t6l.ttfr-?, I c,.nrrtl rnglG o( 17.21.06., rn arc dlstincc os UJ.J9 te, ito. Foint-of ttngentt thcngc along t.id Ccs:a, ltnc rnd d.long ,ridttn?ent ;r dirilac: of 20.00 icct !o a polnt o( :nt!srcc-.j.on rrill. lhcgoulhscat!r.l,y !i,nc of Corc Crrlk Orlvet lhcnce oir an an€lc go trrGlcft of 90'00'OO' rnd .long 36id Southecrt:rly llnc to.rio lcct:th.ncc on rr.n91c tc ch! letr ot IBO.CO,!O- ind alcr? c!,tli..rt-theclt?rly lina c( tlsn3gn nnnch p:t!C rnd !trnt .r arirr.r tc lheri€h! h.'!ng I radius o( 2O.OO !"c'-. . Ccnclal erigle c! gO.tC'---,an orc dlsclnc! ot ll.{.1 fe-q :o. poi,nr o( corn2aund aurv* tllencealgng !aid K(,!tl'r€sCer!y linc and alc::g 16id c'?tipound curer ti "h'.righl hoving . r.diur ot l{1.{l fec:, e Ccnrral .ngle of .t'.21.06',
an orc direan€G o( 115.87 lecf eo a poinc of !!ngL.nc.r thencn !lonqsnld N^rths..tarIy l,ina .nd nlotrg taid llngenc !2.qa lcet !o aPglnl o( c:tavGr Lhenca algng rai,d NoBthyaltcrly llne rnd rlung ecurvc to cltr. slght hasing i rudlu! of 20.00 f!?t. ! Cc!:trrl .n,!tcof 90'!0'00'. tn arc dlsrancE o( !1.12 flct to a polnc oflnrrrs..i,ion vith lhr Noreh.asr3rly llne of Gore C!r!... Foad! tiancron ra angl" !,o the lrf: of 180'C0'00' rnd along rrr,d Norrh"frrrrlyIln. {0.00 teai to che lrut polnr o( b.qinning.
IJ-. ., {i t:,.'3
2
b9
:r.. rr!
ou' t'
/o
aa{f, -'u' oF
ir
,g-c
hir
i
\
-4Iij
t1
qt
R
$
\
\
\
2
-(.:
-t-
\(t
l'
)ij
ft
\'$
\
t
.[\
-2-
-'!'
-t
l,
I
\
'at
\u
\b
\
-
2-.
.[\
-2-
-t
\ -_:
\
l,
t
-r,
\)'z
{r.
\
i\
dr\
(.:
(.D'-)
i,
or
o
u.\
\i,
,i,
\
t'
I
tl
sl
I,ftl
'J .\
"'-"q"t
'ro'Lt
hi''
r.o
=----
i'.';x; - a
==FsLt-
\>/
\
Ar(
N
I
D"
ti ,r/
/,!
j
Q,o_,
fhe uoderslgoed uenbers, bel.ng the aole uembers of p-2 Aesoclatlon,acknowledge that the attached n*r,rurt "A" repreeeat" ir,.-A].rlcated parklngto the Margaret Eill l.larltal Trust wlthtn thi corporatLonre real propertydescrlbed on the attached lThrlrt ,8", jursuaat to palagraph 2.s (1) of theAgreeueot clated Septenber 15, Lg76.
Dated the day and year aa get forth below.
Ranshorn Lodge
Dondonlnlnn Association
By:
,^r", 2y'= /?A By:
Date!
oatezL lz -7O -
Date:
Date:
By:
ValI Tralls East
Coudcmlnirlm As soclatl.on
BY:
Condonlniun Associatlon
o QJ
ESTATE OF A- G. rrn.L
5000 Thenlcsgivirg ltower
Dallas, Texa+ ?5201
July 11, 1988
P-2 Association
303 East l?th Avenue, Suite 1000
Denver, Colorado 80203
Attn: Charles H. Cowperhwaite
Gentlemen:
The undersigned, Independent Executrix of the Estate of A. G. Hill' deceased'
pursuant to Article tr, paragraph 2 of the Bylaws of P-2 Association' does hereby
appoint and designate Donald C. Hare as the individual person who shall vote
anO trotO offices and directorships on behaff of the Estate of A. G. Hill. This
appointment shqlr gsnlinue until terminated or changed by written notice-
ESTATE OF A. G. HILL
I'
AGREEMENT
I
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into thts
t.
cOleaatct- , L976, by and between I{HITE ENTERPRISES' INc.,
a Colorado corporation of P.O. Box 1068, Vail, Colorado 81657,
ROBERT T. LAZIER and DrANE J. LAZIER of P.O. Box 1327, VaiI,
Colorado 8f657, A.G. HILL of 2500 First National Bank Building,
Dallas, Texas 85202, successor VaiI Investment Group, Ltd.,
VAIL TRATLS CHALET CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, a Colorado non-profit
corporation of 2I0I 8.4&:Ave. DenverrColorado 81657 and VAIL'
TRAfLS EAST CONDOI,{fNIUI,I ASSOCIATION, a Colorado non-profit cor-
poration of P.O. Box 95, Vail, Colorado 81557
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the parties have contracted with Vail Associates,
Inc. to purchase a pfacet of real property described in ExhibiU
A hereto ("subject property") i
WHEREAS, the parties desire, prior to conclusion of such
purchase, to memorialize their agreements on some details of
nd+agement of the subject propertyi
NOw, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits redounding
to each hereunder, the parties agree as follovts3
1. The parties agree that they will establish a corporation
under the laws of the State of Colorado, the Articles of fncor-
poration of such corporation will contain the following provisions:
a. The name of the corporation shall be.:
P-2 ASSOCTATION
b. The corporation shall have perpetual existence.
c. The corporation shall be organized as a Colorado
non-prof it corporation.
d. Our attorney, Richard H. Ilartl is to proceed
promptly to draw up Articles of fncorporation and Bylaws,
acting as the sole incorporator.
&day or
''a-
e. The registered office of the corforation sharl be at:
2101 E. 4th Avenue
Denver
Colorado 80206
f. The agent for servLce of process at such address shall
be:
John Stoddart,
g. The principal purpose of the corporation shall be to
own improved and unimproved real estate and to manage the
same for its members as a vehLcle parking lot and recreational
facility.
h. Membership shall be limited to five entitLes.. Member-
ship shall not be assignable without consent of arl members
except that upon transfer of that property commonly known of
as The T.ivoli r,odge by Robert r. Lazier and Diane J. Lazier,
of that commonly known of as The Ramshorn Lodge by White
Enterpri.ses, rni., or of that commonly known of as The Val_
halla Lodge by A.G. Hill, the membership of such prior owner
sharr be transferred to such new owner upon the corporationrs
review and reasonabre acceptance of dispositive documents.
i. No part of the income or profit of the corporation
shall be paid to the members, officers or directors.
j. The corporation shall be dissolved and liquidated
upon sale of its real property unless the members unanimousry
agree'to continuance of its existence at such tine. rn the
event of dissolution, the corporation sharr be liquidated
and after arl- debts of the corporation have been satisfied., /
the remaining assets shall be sold or distributed in kind to
the menrbers at that tlme in good standing in equal shares.
Any member owing any amount to the corporation, whether for
assessments or otherwise, shall first repay such anount
before becoming entitled to any such distribution
-2-
d
k. The corporat,L.on sha1l have fLve directors, repre-
senting and designated, by each of the five members. ltembers
of the first board of directors shall be:
ALbert G. White
416 Gore Creek Rd. (Box 1058)Vail, Colorado 81657 |
Robert T. Lazl-er
386 Hanson Ranch Road (Box 1327)Vail, Colorado 81657
A. G. HilI
2500 First Natlonal Bank Bullding
Da1las, Teias 75202
i?tl :::t'i* Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80206
Charles H. Cowperthwaite
433 Gore Creek Drive (eox 95)
Vail, Colorado 81657
2. The Bylaws of such corporation shall have the following
ProvrsJ_ons:
a. Annual meetings of members shall be held in the
month of December annually.
b. A quorum for members and directors meetings shall
II be a majority of parties entitled to vote.
c. only members in good standing shalL have a vote.
A member shall be in good standing only if he has fully paid
all assessments or other amounts due to the corporation.
it. Voting with respect to members and directors may be
in person or, by proxy.
e. No compensatlon shall be paid to any officer or
director.
f. The corporation shall have four officers, a president,
vice president, secretary and treasurer excePt that one indi-
vidual can hold concurrently all offices except those of
president and secretary, whlch offices must be held by
different individuals. The board of directors may provide
other offLcers from time to time. 'l
g, A11 officers shall be elected by and shall be members
of the board of directors.
-3-
a
h. The term of offlce. shall be one year or until a
successor is elected and qualifies
i. Removal of offLcers requLres a two-thlrds vote of
the members.
j. The corporation shall have customary lndemnification
powers with respect to acts of officers and directors on
behatf of the corporationr. to the extent such acts were not
negligent or a result of mLsconduct.
k. Conveyances of real property by the corporation may
be made by the president, afflxation of the corporation's
seal being attested to by the secretary.
I. Bank accounts in the corporationrs n€rme may be con-
trolled by signature by any one officer.
m. Other instruments affecting the corporation may be
executed by any one of the four principal officers.
n. The fiscal year of the corporation shall begin May I
and close. April 30 each year.
o. Ttie bylaws may be amended on two-thirds vote by the
directors or the members
p. No audl-t of corporate books shall be reguired without
majority vote by the members or the board.
q. The corporation shall obtain funds from members by
assessment frorn time to time. All assessments shall be made
equally to all members to cover all expenses unless (1) the
board by unanimous vote otherwise determLnes, or (2) the allo-
cation of pgrkingJ spaces results in a difference of five or
more spaces between the member. allocated the largest number and
that allocated the smallest number of spaces, in which case
assessments shall be prorated among members based on numbers of
spaces. A11 assessments shall be due when made, shall bear
interest at I8 per month or fraction frorn due date if not paid
r,rithin one month of such due date. No member shall have a vote,
nor shall any director serving on behalf of any such member be
entit,led to vote if an assessment due from such member is one
month or more past due.
r. Any member three months or more past due with respect
to any assessment or other amount claimed by the corporation
-4-
a'd
shall Lrrevocably lose all rightE'to membershlp herein and
all rights to use of any corporation asset's on the tenth day
after notice Ln writing has been sent by the corporation to
such memberrs last known address, unless within such time the
amount claimed is paid. Nothing hereunder shatl prevent pay-
ment under protest.
s. The board of directors, by majority ruler at any
regular or special rneeting regularly constl-tuted and attended
in person or by proxy by a guorum shall have the fotlowing
specif ic ,polrers r
1) To allocate parking wlthin the corporation'e
real property between menbers and to determine how best to
satisfy memberbr desires for equal numbers of spaces and for
convenience of eachi and such allocation shall as closely as
practicable follow current useage. Notice of such allocation
shall be mailed to each member withln seven days after such
allocation and such allocation shall automatically become ,
effective within 30 days thereafter unless the proviso herein-
after provided shall be invoked.
PRbvrDED, HowEvER, that each member who feels
agrieved by the allocation, withLn 30 days following rnailing
of such notice may object by written notLce to the president
of the Association on the following two grounds: (a) that
the number of spaces allocated to him and the convenience of
use thereof for vehicle parking are ineguitable in comparison
to the number and convenience of use of such spaces allocated
to the other inernbers and (b) that the locatLon of the spaces
as allocated to him,ls inequitable ln comparison to the loca-'
tion of sp'aces allocated to other members. If within 30 days
after such notice of objection the conplaining member as one
part! and the Association as the other party shall not rnutually
agree on an allobation, the matter shall be decided by arbi
tration as followst within seven days after expiration of such
30 daysr the Association shall choose one Lndependent
arbitiator and the complalning member shall choose another
independent arbltrator. If such arbitrators are unable to
-5-
by way
way of
reach a dec1slon which shall ,be blndlirg on.both partles
'1
within an additlonal seven days; euch artltrators shall' on
or before such date, appolnt a third independent arbLtra-
tor who shatl determine the controversy within an additional
seven days.
2) To reallocate as.Ls deemed reasonable from tfune '
to time Pursuant to any change in circunstances' including'
of illustratLon, possible relocation of the rlght of
Gore Creek Drive, subJect to the above proviso'
3) To determine ln Lts sole cliscretLon what' lf
any, recreatLonal faclli.tlesl.'landscaplng or other improve-
mentsshouldbeprovidedfromtl.metotimeonthecorpo:ation|s
real property;'providedr however, that any sLngle irnprovement
which the board reasonably expects vrill exceecl $5'000 in
total cost shall not be undertaken without'prior approval
of at least two-thirds of all members of the board entitled
to vote at such time. .
t. lrio member will permit long term parkl-ng of buses'
campers, trailers, trucks or simllar vehlcles on any portion
of the subject property without permLssion by the corPora-
tion in advance.
6) Nothing berein shall prevent imProvement by a member
IJ
of the portion of the subjec! property allocated to him
t-
provided permission therefor has been gbtained in advance
from the corporatLon and proyided that suc'h member pays all
j,
costs of such improvement and lndemnifies.the corporation
ag4inst any c'laims against, the corporation'based thereon''
v. PartLtion of the subject property shall be available
to the men\bers upon majority vote at any tLme' Provided' how-
ever that any party nay withdraw at any time after (1) comple-
tion of landscaping plans or (2) four years after the corpora-
tion acquires tltle to the subject property, whichever first
occursr All expenses incldental to any such partition shall
shall be shared equally by the partLes and atl applications
and surveys shall be prepared by the corpoiation unless
another allocation be approved by a unanl-mous vote of the
membeis. UPon partitlon, the party or parties reguestlng
.l
' -6-
o
i
partition shall be entitled to conveyance Ln fee simple
of the portion or portions 9f the subject pioperty allocated
to such party or parties at the date of such request and
shaLl cease to be rnembers of the corporation.
l.{. The other provisions hereof not\dithstanding, no
party shaU be a member Ln good standing until and unless
the portLon of the subject property used, by such member at
and prLor to acquisition thereof by the Association Ls
paved except for reasonabre randscape areas. To the extent
that any such portion is not paved at the date of such acqui-
sition, the Association shall pave the same and charge the
member with the cost thereof as a special assessment, payment
of which shall be made as required above with respect to
other assessments and penalties for non-payrnent of which
shall be as above provided.
3. The pjrtieb liereby agree that upon formation of the satd
corporation, tliey will assign their interests in the contract rrrith
vair Associates, rnc., whereby they propose to acquire the subject
property, to such corpJration. AII obligations of each of the
aundeLsigned among themselves shall thereupon inure to the benefit
of the corporation. To the extent that Vail Associates, Inc.
does not recognize such assignment, the parties hereto agree that
they wirl individually or joining with such corporation satisfy
all obligations due to Vail Associates, Inc. pursuant to the
Agreement for Purchase and Sale of the subject property.
.i
rN wrrNEss IfHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands
and seals as of the day first above written.
0.)J\,..-a.-L-
-7 -.t
By:
TRATLS CHALET CONDOMINIUI'I
-tv
I
srArE or {a-J)1" ) ss.
county ot !<ty'n-4
, The foregoing instrument rtas acknowledged-before
)//,. day of - (ji/.rf,,,/--^-t . ' L976 by A. G. HrLrJ.
ltitness my hand and official seal .
My commission expires:
By:
me thls
STATE OF COLORADO )) ss.
County of Eagle l
was acknowledged before me
L975 bY ATBERT G. WHITE,The foregoing instrumentday of P,,lfbruV ,
ii-6i€e Enterprises, rnc.
i{itness my hand and official seal.
My commission expiSgS ' il7 Crrr':i:ci::: l.'::,1:.''; -1 .':r ?7. lozil
STATE OF COTORADO
County of Eagle
)) ss.
)
this
President,
Fc
The foregciing instrument was acknowledqed before me this
22nd dav of September , L976 by JoHN sToDDARTras
!tr-Il-trails Cm Association.
Witness nY hand and official seal.
-Tmffi"'-:t#,}ffi0",,
in and lor Dallas CountY, Texas
Uy'cotntistion expires June l,$Zr
-8-
The foregoLng lnstrument was acknowledged before me this
22 dav of - Sepienber , L976 by CHARLES H. COWPERTHWAITE,
Eo ailI Meirber, -1I5i1G6-EEs t condorni nium A s soc ia tion'
Wltness my hand and offLcLal seal .
srArE oF cor-,oRADo I --, -p.
County of Eagle )
My commissLon expires;
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Eagle
)) ss.
)
acknowledged
by RoBERT T.
seal.
I
before rne this
LAZIER.d!'3:,':;'K ..5' I 1976
Witness my hand ancl official-
Ity commiision expires :
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Eagle
ss.
.,I
\q'l:-f:;ent::niiday of
trument was acknowledged
: ' ., L976, by DIANE J.--1-
Ylitness my hand and off,icLal seal .
My comrnission expit"tr' .Mrr,.
before
I.,AZIER.
.:
me this
Kecord of Proceedings
BY-I,AWS
of
P-2 ASSOCTATTON
ARTICTE I
Object
1. Purpose. The purpose for whLch the Association ieformed is to own improved and unimproved real property in theCounty of Eagle, State of Colorado, and to manage the sbmefor its membersr on d non-profit basis, as a vehicle parkinglot and recreational facility.
2. Memberrs Improvements. Nothing herein shatl preventimprovemen@ortion oi the Associati6n'sproperty allocated to him provided permission therefor has beenobtained in advance from the Association and provided that such
member pays ati costs of such improvement and indemnifies the 'Association against any clairns against the Association basedthereon.
ARTTCLE IT
MembershipT Voting, Quorum, Proxies
, l. llembership. llembership in the Association sha1l belimited to-EFE-fGf.To-win! five enlities I
I.Vhite Enterprises, f nc.
Robert T. Lazier and Diane J. LazierA. G. Hill
Vail Trails Chalet Condominium Associationvail trails East Condominium Association
each of which five here herein designated a member. Membershipshal1 not be assignable without consent of all members exceptt.hat upon tiansfer;of that property commonly known of as TheTivoli Lodge by Robert T. Lazier and Diane J. Lazier, of thatcommonly known of as The Ramshorn Lodge by white Enterprises,fnc., or of that comrnonly known of as The Garden of the GodsCIub at Vail (fprmerly Valhalla Lodge) by A. G. Hill, orthe previously accepted successors of such persons, the member-ship of such prior ovrner shall be transferred to such new ovrnerupon the Associationts review and reasonable acceptance ofdi spositive docurnents.
2. Designated fnctividual. fn the event a member is acorporatio@-ffi?e than one individual, or anyother entity which is not one natural person, such membershall from time to time designate to the Association, inwriting, the individual natural person who shall vote and holddirectorships on behatf of such meml>er and shall in all otherrcsl)ects affecting the Association have the exclusive voice ofsuch ntember. Any member nlay clrange its dcsignated individualat any tirne by written notice to the Association. The
o
Kecord o/ lroceediugs
designatecl individual shall in all events be one of the
seveial individuals or partners holding the nembership or the
personal representative-thereof, or Ln the event any such
irember is a-corporation, an officer, director or trustee
thereof.
3. Votinq. Each member in good standing being
present in-F-erson or by Proxy shall be entitled to one vote'
Cumulative votl.ng is prohibited. '
4. Quorum. The presence eLther in person or by proxy
of a majorlfif nenberi entitled to vote shall coftiiY!:^a
quorum 6f tfrl Assocl-ation for all purposes unless-the repre-
Jentation of a. larger grouP shall be reguired by law, by the
Articles of Inborp5rationr-or by these By-Laws, and l-n that'
event representation of the number so reguired shalt constitute
a guorum.
5. Proxies. Votes may be cast in Person or by Prgxy'-proxies muET-5EfFiled with tire Secretary before the appointed
time of each meeting.
ARTICLE III
a' Adninistration
l.Ge.neral.TheAssociatlonshallactthroughaBoardof Directois-E-Eer'ein provided -
2. P!qSe-g.!-U . Meetings of the Association shall
be heII at@ Board oi Directors may determine.
r3.AnnualMeetings.Thefirstannualmeetingoftheas'sociiiiofrtfrEIf-Eil6ffi ln 1977. Thereafter, the annual
meetlngs of the assoclation shall be held in the month of
Decemb6r as the Association may by maJority vote-aPProve' -At
"i"t """ft .e"tlttg, there shall-be-elected a Board of Directors
in accordance wifh the requirements set forth herein. The
association may also tranJact such other business of the
Association as may properly come before it.
4. Special Meetings. special meetings of the Association
for any pufiose or Fuip6E6s other than those regulated by statute
may be.iffla by thi piesident, or upon-a petition signed by a_-
ruj"iity of th"-r.*b"rs of the Association. Such petition shall
stlte t-he purpose or PurPoses of such proposed-meeting' No
business stralt be transactcd at a special meetl.ng excePt,as
"t.rt.a in the nptice thereof unless by consent of three-fourths
of the essociation members Present, either in person or by Proxy'
5. Notice of Meetings. The President or secretary shall
give or caffiice-of the time, Place and purpose
5t notaing each .ttttuil or special meeting by maiting or hand. -a"r-i""tiit;;;.h not1ce at liast ten days-bu! not more than fifty
days prloi to such meeting to each Associatlon member at the
i.ip"Lti"e addresses of siid members as they Cppear on the
records of the Association. { ,r.-
6. Adjourned Meeti{rgi.- If the number of Assocl-ation
menrbers necessarflTo--nEEl-tute a quorum shall fail to attend
-2-
- i r i,,.,,.ai. r..,,.
o
Kecord of Proceedings
in person or by proxy at the tLrne and place of meetlng, the
chairman of the rneetingl or a majority of the Association
members present Ln person or by Proxyr may adjourn the meeting
from timl to time untit the necessary number of Association
members shall be in attendance. At any adjourned meetlng at
which a guorum shall be present, any business may be trans-
acted which might have bLen transacted at the origlnal meeting.
7. Waiver of Notice. Any member- may at any tLme waive
any notice requi-etl to be-gJ-ven under these By-Laws,stltute or otherwise, and the presence of a member Ln
at any meeting of the members shatl be deemed such a
ARTICI,E IV
. Board of Directors
1. Number and Qualificatlon. Unless rnodified pursuant
to Article aws, the affal'rs of this
Assocl.ation shalt be governed by a Board of Directors consisting
of five members. Each member shall be a member or the
designated individual of a member.
2. Powers and Duties. The Board of Directors shall have.
the powersffisary for the administration of the
affairs of the Association, and may do all such acts and things
as are not by law or by these By-Larnts directed to be exercised
and done by the members.' The Powers of the Board of Directors
shall include, but not be llmited to, all of the rights and
duties of the Board of Directoxs as set forth elsewhere in
these By-Lar.irs and the Articles of Incorporation and shall also
include the power to promulgate such rules and regulations
peLtaining to such rights and duties as may be deemed Properlnd which-are consist5nt with the foregoing. The Board of
Dl.rectors rnay delegate such duties as aPPear in the best
interests of the aisociation and to the extent permitted by law.
3. Election ahd Term of Office. The term of the Directors
named in t shall be untll the fLrst
annual menbership meeting or until their successors are duly
chosen and qualiiy. thbir successors shall be elected at the
first annual rneeting of the members of the Association. A new
Board of Dlrectors shall be elected by the members at each
regular annrlal rnedting thereafter and each Director shall hold
ofiice for a terrn of one year or until a successor shall be
elected and shall qualify except as hereLnafter otherwise
provided i
4. Vacancies. The Board of Directors shall have no
authority Eo-TIII vacancies caused by any reason.
5. Removal of Directors. A Director may be removed only
by the parffi he represents.
6. Compensation. No compensatlon shall be paid to
Dl.rectors Ed-TEEir services as Directors. No remuneration
shatl be paid to a Director for services performed by hin for
the Associatlon J.n any other capacity, unless a resolution
authorizl.ng such remuneration shall have been adopled by the
Board of Directors before the servlces are undertaken.
or by
person
waiver.
- 3-
o
Kecord of Procecdings
7. Organizalion Meeting. The first meeting-of a-newly-
elected gomll be held within thirty days of
election at such time and place as shall be fixed at the
rneeting at which such DireLtors were elected, and no notice
shall be necessary to the newly elected Directors in order
legaIly to conssilute such meeLing, providing a majority of
the whole Board shall be present.
8. Regular lleetinqs. Regular meetings of the Board of
Directors @ch tine and place as shall be
determined, irom time to time, by a najority of the Directors,
but at least one meeting shall be held during each fiscal year.
Notice of regular rneetings of the Board of Directors sha1l be
given to each DLrectorr'personally or by mail, telephone or
telegraph, at least ten days prior to the day named for the'
meeting.
g. Special Meetings. Special meetings of,the Board of
Directors milTe caII6?E the-President on ten daysr notice
to each Director, given personalJ.y or by mail, telephone or
telegraph, whlch notice inaft state the time and place and
purp5se-of the meeting. Special meetings of the Board of
blrl"tors shall be cailed by the President or Secretary in
like manner and on like notice on the written request of at
least fifty peicend of the Dl.rectors.
10. Waiver of Notice. Beforer at or after any meeting
of the noaid-6flllEffiGl any Director may, in writing, waive
notice of such meeting and sulh waiver shall be deemed equiva-
Ient to the giving of such notice. Attendance by a Director
at any meetiig of'the Board shall be a waiver of notice by
him oi the time and place thereof. If all the birectors are
pdesenL at any meetlng of, the Board, no notice shall be
ieeuired and iny busiiegs may be transacted at such meeting.
1I. Quorum. A maJority of, the Board of Directors then
entitled t6-votg shall lonstltute a quorum for the transaction
of business, but if at any meeting of the Board there be less
than a guorum presentr a maJority of those Present may adjourn
the rneeting fron time to time.
]-2. Adiournments.
any meeting from day to
prudent or hecessary in
that no meeting may be
days.
The Board of Directors may adjourn
day or for such other t.ime as may be - _the interest of the Association, provided
adjourned, for a period longer than thirty
ARTICI,E V
Officers
1. Desiqnation. The officers of the Association shall
be a presiddTi a vfie-presLdent, a secretary and.a treasurer,
all oi whom shall be ellcted by and from the Board of Directors.
The Directors may appoint an assistant secretary-and an
assistant treasu-rerr-and such other officers as in their
judgment may be necessaryr-such officers need not be Directors
5r fi.*U.rs 6f tne-nssociit.ion. Any individual may hold several
offices except that the offlces of president and secretary must
be held by different lndividuals.
-4-
Kscord of ?roceedings
' 2. Election of Officers. The offlcers of the Associatlon.
shall ue e@e Board of Directors, at the
organization meetlng of each new Board, and shall hold office
at the pleasure of the Board.
3. Removal of Officers. UPon an affirmative vote of
two-thirdsffihe board of Directors, any officer
may be removedr either with or without cause, and his successor
elected at any regular meeting of the Board of Dlrectorel or at
any special meeting of the Board called for. such purPose.
4. President. The President shatl be the chief execu-
tive officffiE-EEE Association; He shall preside at all
meetings of the members and of the Board of Dlrectors. He
shall have all of the general Powers and dutl-es which are
normally vested in.the offtce of the president of a corPoration,
includi-ng but not limited to the Po\^ter to appoLnt committees
from among the members from time to time as he may, in his
discretionr'decLde is appropriate to assist ln the conduct of
the affairs of the Association.
5. Vice-President. The Vice-President shall preside at
meetings w6-qr-ThETiEfiltient is not present. He shall have such
duties as are delegated to him by the President or the Board o{
Directors from ti:ne to time.
6. Secretary. The Secretary shall keep the minutes of
all meetinEE-5ETEe- members; he shall have the custody of the.
Seal of the association; he shall have charge of the membership
books and such other books and papers as the Board of Directors
may direct; and he shal-l , in geneial, perform all the duties
inqident to the office of Secretary.
I' 7. Treasurer. The Treasurer shall have the'responsibility
for AssociE[i6;-Eun'ds and securities and shall be responsible
for keeping full and accurate records of all receipts and-di-s-
bursemeirts-ln books belonglng'to the Association. He shall be
responsible for the deposit of all moneys -and other valuable
effLcts in the nElme, ana to the credit, of the Association in
such deposLtories as may from time to time be designated by the
Board'of Directors.
8. Compensation. No compensation shall be paid to officers
for thel.r ;6ffiEE as officers'. No remuneration shall be paid to
an officer for servLces performed by hfun for the-Association in
any other capacity, unless a resolution authorizing such remuner-
atioh shall have been adopted by the Board of Directors before
the services ate undertaken.
ARTICLE VI
Indemnification of officers and Directors
The Association shall indemnify every Director or officer,
his heirs, executors, adminLstrators, and representatives against
all loss, costs and expenses, including counsel',fees, reasonably
incurred by hlrn in conirection wlth any actionr'suit, or proceeding
to which h6 rnay'be rnade a party by reason of hls belng or havLng
been a Director or offlcer'of, the Associationr excePt as to
matters as to which he shall be flnally adJudged in such action,
sult, or proceedLng to be liable for gross negligence or wilful
-5-
o
misconduct. In the event of a settlement, indemnificatlon sh;lfbe provided only Ln connectlon with such matters covered by the'settlement as to which the Association Ls advlsed by counselthat the person to be indemnLfied has not been guifty of gross
negligence or wilful misconduct in the performance of his dutyas such Director or officer Ln relation to the matter involved.
The foregoing rights shall- not be exclusive of. other rights towhich such Director or officer may be entitled.
ARTICLE VIT
Powers, Rights and DutLes of
The AssociatLon .and, Members Thereof
The Association'and itri members shall have all the poiders,rights, dutJ.es and obligatl.ons set forth ln the Articles ofIncorporation of the AssocLationr'in these By-Laws, and as anyof the same may be duly adopted or amended. No transfers of
membership ln the Association shall be made except as providedherein.
ARTICI,E VIII
Corporate SeaI .
1, The Board of Directors shall provide a suitablecorporate seal containing the name of the Association, whichseal shall be in the custody and control of the Secretary.Attestation by the Secretary to any seal or facsimile thereofshall be conclusive evidence thereof.
. 2. If and when so directed by the Board of Directors, adtfplicate seal may be kgnt and used-by such officer or otherpdrsonasthe.BoardofbirectorsshaI1name.
ARTTCLE IX
Miscellaneous
1. Books and Accounts. Books and accounts of the Associa-tion shall@ dlrection of the Treasurer in
accordance with reasonable standards of procedure and prudence.
2. Aiditfli. At the closing.of each fiscal year, uponwritten dernaftTlE-a majority of thi Board bf oirectors or ofthe members, the books and records of'the Association shatl beaudited Liy'a Certiftecl Public Accountantr'whose report willbe prepared and certifLed. In default of such'demand, theTreasurer shall prepare and certify such books and recordswithin thirty days of the end of such fiscal yea,Based uponwrE.nr-n E,nrrcy oays oI t'ne eno or sucn flscal .year. Ijasecr upon
such reports the Associatl-on will have available for inspectlonby its members a statement of the incone and disbursements ofthe Association for each fiscal year.
3. fnspection of Books. Financial r€portsr such as are
r.-..required t@ the membership records of therequrreq Eo De Iurnt sned, ancl Ene memDersnrp recoros oI t'neAssociation shall be;available at the principal offtces of theAssociation for Lnspection .at'reasonable times.by any member.
4. Execution Wlth the prior
notes, checks, and
i
- 5'-,
of Assoclation Documents.goar'al of Directors, -lIauthorization of the
--l
'I
':1- '
r. t
{;,1,
')i.
:r.
'l
contracts or other obligatlons,shall be executed on behalf of
the Associatlon by any princlpal. officer of the AssociatLon.
5. Conveyance of Real Property. conveyance of real
property U xecuted by the President,
lffixation of the Assoclatl-onrs seal being atte,sted to by the
Secretary
6. Eiscat flear. The fiscal year of the Association shall
commence ofr-llal-I-ifr6'end on Aprif 30.'
ARTICLE X
. Anendment of By-Laws
These By-Laws may be amended by the afflrrnatlve vote of
2/3 of the meirbers of the Board of Dlrectors or members of the
Association entLtled to vote at any time and present or
represented by Proxy at any validly constituted regular-or
special meeting-called for such Purpose- A statement of any
pioposed amenflrnent shall accomPany the notice of any regular
6r ipecial rneeting at which such proposed amendment shall be
voted upon.- t..:.
ARTICLE XI
Obligations of the Members
l. Assessments. The Associatlon shall obtaln funds from
members Uy-aEGffiEiE f,rom time to tlme.. Al1 assessments shall
be made e[ually to all members to cover all expenses unlesE
(11 the B6ard -of plrectors, by unanLmous vote otherwise deter-
mif,es, or (2) the.allocation of parklng spaces administered by
thi essocl-ation results'in a difierence of'five'or more sPaces
between the member allocated the'largest number and that
allocated the smallest number of spacesr in whish case assess-
ments shall be proratedl among'members based on numbers of
spaces. All asEessments shall be due when made; shall bear
i^nterest at'It per month or fraction from due date if not paid
within one month of.such due date.' No member shall be in. good
stand.ing and have'a votel'nor shall any director serving on
Uefraff of any such member be entitled to vote if an assessment
due from such member ls one rnonth or more past due;
-t:
2. Lqss qlllgrnberetrlP. Any member thr-ee rnonths or inore
past due w@ assessment or-other.amount
llaimed by the Aslociatlon shatL irrevocabry'lose arl rights to
membershi-p trerqin and all rights to'use of any Association
assets on the tenth day after notice ln writlng has been sent
by the Association to iuch rnemberrs last \1own address, unless
witttin such time the amount claimed is paid; Nothing hereunder
shatt prevent payment under Protest. Upon termLnation of
memberihip of in! member, the nurnber of Directors of the Associa-
tion shal-t be reluced by one and Articles of Amendment to the
Articles of rncorporati6n shall be prepared reflectlng such
reduction. . ..'i -::li .. : :
3. use of Parking Spacei.: No member will permit-long
term parki@ trailers, trucks olsimilar
vehicies on any portion br-tne Associationrs property without
permission by the Association ln advance.
-7-
Keco rd
4. PavLng. The other provisJ.ons hereof notwithstandingl
no one shalfTE-a member ln good standi-ng untll .and unless the
portion of the subJect property used by such member at and
prior to acguisition thereof by the AssocLatlon is pavei
except for reasonable landscape areas. To the extent that
any luch portion ls not paved at the date of such acquisition-,
thE Association shall paie the same and charge the member with
the cost thereof as a special assessment2 payment of whi-ch
shall be made as requLred above with respect to other assess-
ments and penalties for non-payment of which shall be as above
provided.
. ARTTCLE XrI '.,,
l. Allocatign of,Parking SPaces :
The Board:of Directors, by maJorlty ruler at any-regular
or special neeting regul.arly constituted and attended in person
or by proxy by a quorurn shall'have the following specific
Powers 3
(a): Te. allocate parking within the Associationrsreal property between rnembers and to determine how best to
satisiy memfersr desires for equal numbers of-spaces and for
convenient locatiori thereofi and such allocation shall as
closely as pricticable follow current useage!. Notice of such
allocallon shall be mailed to each member within seven days
after such allocation and such allocation shall automatically
become effective withln 30 days thereafter unless'the proviso
hereinafter provided shall be invoked.
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that each member who feels
agtieved by the allocation, within 30 days followlng mailing
oi'such nofice may obJebt by written notice to the President
of the Association on- the following two groundsl (a) that
the number of spaces allocated to him and the convenience of use
thereof for vehicle parking are ineguitable in comparison to the
number and convenience of use of such spaces allocated to the
other rnembers and (bl that the location of the sPaces as
allocated to him is inequitable in comparison to the location
of spaces allocated to other members. If within 30 days after
such notice of objection the complaining member'as one party
and the Association as the other party shall not mutually.agree
on an alldcation, ;the matter shall be decided by arbitration as
follows: within seven days after.expiration of: such 30 daysl,
the Association shalt choose one independent'arbitrator and the
conplaining member shall choose another lndependent arbitrator.
If luch arbitr4tors are runable to reach a decision which shall
be blnding on both parties within an additional seven daysr-.
such arbifrators snlftl on or before such date, appoint a third
independent arbitrator who shall determine the controversy with-
in an additional seven days.
(b) To reallocate as is deemed reasonable from time
to tLrne pursuant to dny'change ln'circumstances, lncludlngt bY
way of illustratlonr po'ssible relocation of the right of way
of-Gore Creek orivei lubJect tor the above Provlso.. ..1 ; r.., i.;ii , . :, l(c) To determlne lri"its sole diicretion whatr if
anv, recreational facilities, landscaping or other improvements
sh6uld be provided from tirne tb tipe on.the corporationrg real
pioperty; lrovided, howeverl that any single Lmprovenent which
t' ,
..
-8-
the Boardshall not
two-thirds
EIME.
, ; t.i' '., . t;l
' : l -1 ,.,- ':i :
''1. :.reasonably expect.s trill exceed 951000 in total cost
be undertaken without prl.or approval of at leastof all members of ,the'Board entitled to vote at such
.t
I
-o-
ARTTCTE XIII ;
i Partition
Partitl.on of tne Associationre property dhall be availableto the members upo'n maJority vote of, ill-nemlers entitled tovote at any'tLme, provLded, howeverl that any party may with-
draw at any tLme after (l) completLon of landscaping plansor (2') four years after the ,AssociatLon";acqtrlr6s title to itsinitial property, whichever:first occurs. All expensesincidental to any such.partitlon shall be shared,equally by the
members and all'applicatlons'and surveys shall be prepared bythe Association unless another allocation be approved by a
unanimous vote of the members.i, Upon:partltlonl the party orparties requesting partition shall be entitled to conveyance
Ln fee simple of the portion or portions of the AssociatLon'sproperty allocated to such party or parties at the date of suchresuest ""u .:l"tt,""1"" t"^Ir:;T; "t the Association'
.
DLssolutlon
The Association shall be dissotved and. liquidated uponsale of its real property unless. the members: unanimously agreeto continuance of Lts exLstence at such time. In the event ofdissolution, the Association shall ,be liguidated and afterall debts of the Association have been satisfied, the remaining
assets shall be sold orl distributed in kind to lthe rnembers atthat time in good standing in equal shares. any member owing
any amount to the Association, whether for assessments orotherwise, shall first repay'such amount before becomingentitled to any such distribution.
o
THE }IARGARET HILL }IARITAL TRUST
5OOO Thanksgiving Tower
Dallasr Texas 752OL
June 2, 1989
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior P I anner
Town of Vai I
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Ms. Pritz:
The undersigned, The Margaret HilI Marital Trustr whose
Trustee is Margaret Hunt Hillr a Texag Trust, and owner of the Vail
Garden of the Gods Lodge, hereby authorizes Donald C. Hare' 3170
Sheiks Place, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, Colorado BO9O4r to
execute and grocegs on itg behalf aIl document5, necessary or prop€rr
for the filing and processing of Special Design District Use on the
Garden of the Gods Lodge, Vailr Colorado.
Very truly yours t
THE MARGARET HILL MARITAL TRUST
Margar
H,"AduY,,Itill, Trustee ' q
January 29, 1990
Ms. Pan Hopkins
Snovden & Hopkins Architects
201 Gore Greek DrlveVail, CO 8155?
Re: Garden of the Gods Expanslon
Dear Pan,
Per your reguest I have reviewed the inpact the above mentloned expanslonuould have on the Tovn of Vall viev corrldor from Vlev Polnt f5. Theelevation of the hlghest existing north-south ridge line of the structureis 8219.0 feet.If the ridge sas moved to the east seven feet the nev ridgeline could be built to an elevation of 8219.5 feet anil it vouldl not
encroach into the defined viev corridor.
Please call if I can be of any further assistance on this project.
S l ncere I-y,
Eagle Valley Surveylng, Inc.-L\".'G.**4.^*:
Dan Corcoran, P.L. S
President
41 .199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagle-Vail
Post Office Box '1230
Edwards, CO 81632
303-949- 1406
BlO Race Street
Denver' CO. 80206
February 5, 1990
Planning Commission
Clty of Vail
Vailn CO.
ladles and. gentlemoni
You should. be extrenelyproud. of the care and. concern
you and, your pred.ecessors in offlce have devoted. to
making VaiI unique in all the world-. The relatively
low build.ings, the protected. light and air ever"ywhere'
the flowers - afl these make the village an agreeable
ad.dition by man in a Iovely valley. I'Ie have been ordners
at Vail for over 2l years and have cherished not only the
view of the Gores but of the sklers working their way
clown Gold Peak. We are acrosEt the street from the G'drden
of the Gods buildlng, in the decond. floor of the Vorlaufer.
l,Ie have stuclled, the proposed. extension of the build.ing
and feel we must protest. I suppose bre have no rignt to
malntain our view to the extent necessary new construction
is wltnin the ord.lnances. But it will be such a sad
step baekward, and one whic,h wifl lead to a serious 1m-
pairment of Vailrs international reputatlon ( your pricefess
asset:) if you stert allowing a few feet greater mass here
and. therp in the village. It w111 always be esonomically
adyantaEeous to;s. Jondowner-ard the tarpaying aublic to make
ful]etu-uie 6f. land.; Our propert'y and. the Christiana and.
all the rest are no different. But the ad.vantage is short
term. As tine goe.! on. not only the pJ-easure of the present
owners wj-1} be diminished. but tneland. values as weIl.
Please don't ad.d to the mass anywhere in the Villagel Thank
vou for listeninq to us.
r;- ./
{k,:Y:ntrK;> Fax.n,
Sincerely,
(70a) 576-5300
ROBERT W. GALVIN
SCHAUM BURG. ILLINOIS 60I96I065
February 6, 1990
Planning and Environment Commission
Town of VaiL
75 South Frontage RoadVai1, CO 81657
Ladies and Gentlemen:
You are presently deli.berating on the issue of the renodel
and reconstruction of the Garden of the Gods facilities on
Gore Creek Drive and Gore Creek Road.
This properfy happens to be across fhe streeL fron the Vor-laufer Aparfment Building in whi.ch building I have recently
become an apartment owner. I acquired the apartment priorto knowj.ng of any changes in the Garden of the Godsfacilities and an pleased to be informed about the plansthat are under cons i derat ion.
As one that has an apartment that looks to the south and tothe east I ask that fhe most serious considerations begiven on the part of bhose who must make the appropriatejudgements, to the least serious effect on the views that
we have had from our apartments in the Vorlaufer building.
We happen to be the owners of Apartment lt2o3.
If the footprint of the building were to extend further tothe east than presently or its overhanging eaves were to bea blocking to us, the effect could be somewhat significantas far as the present pleasures of bhe occupancy of ourcurrent apartment.
Thank you for your consideration.
wishes
,J\/
RWG: ch
cc: Art Carroll
obert W. Galvin
A. W. Crurvor-,nn, Jn.
'rll,ib
February 2, 1990
Planning and Enviromental Comnission Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
vail, co 81557
Dear Conmissioners :
I am writing to you to expresa my disappointment over your
treatment oi me ae an owner of a Vorlaufer condominium. uy
disappointment lies in the fact that you have scheduled a
neeting fox L2 February 1990, to which I cannot attend, to
deal with the teardown-and subseguent rebuilding of a much
larger Garden of the Gods which lies directly in qy view
-pattr. I have no quarret with tearing down the Garden of the
Gods and rebuilding it but, it ahould not be for the benefit
of some and the loss for others (i.e.including invading their
view corridors.) As of this writing, I have received no
information or facts on which to assees its i-rnpact on me
emotionally or financially.
I would tike to postpone this neeting at least one month or
Ionger from the proposed date if at this meeting decisions
are to be made that will effect my enJolment of my Vorlaufer
condo as well as my financial investnent. The delay ig to
review the information I hope you will send me so I can be
knowledgeable when I attend the meeting.
erely,
f*tVo-'.\L1'fl. Ohandler
cc: Art CarrollBetty Penner
SrrrrE 8Oz
45OO coI,E A\rENUE
DAr,r,AS, TExAs 75205
@7.4t 52L-LSS5
o
AN
ERS
LF & [OMP
LANTERS & GINN
o
E
P
S
Phone AC 601 326-2841 235 East Main, P.0. Box 367
Marks, MississiPPi 38646
February 2, L990
Planning and EnvLronmenta1 Commission
Town of Vall
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Val1 , Colorado 81657
Dear Commission Board:
I am writlng ln regards to the plans for the new Garden of The Gods club
bul1ding. i have been the owner of a Vorlaufer Condominium (/1303) for
eleven years. I have lust been in Vall and have seen the proposed bullding
expansion p1ans.
I an highly disturbed over hov the plans affect our buil-dLng. My top floor
unlt will- l-ose 3/4 of 1ts view of the mountains. The people on the lonter
f l-oors wl11 be hurt even more. Not on1-y wlll my view be destroyed, but I
am afraid the value of my place wil-l- be reduced. trlhy cantt the new butlding
be placed so we can all be happy? It is not falr for one party to obstruct
the view of so many.
Slncerely ,
(/^f ,*" n egL
VLrgini.a N. Self
vNs/np
Samuol A. Mccray
Allred L. Mccray
MCCRAY & MCCney
Lawyers
Suits 390, Claypool Building
4130 Lindon Ave.
Dayton, Ohio 45432
Area Codo 513
254-6155
Fax 519 254-2171
January 24, 1990
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage RoadVai1, CO 81657
Dear Si-r:
Re: Garden of the Gods Lodge
The undersigned are the original owners of apartment
condominium 301 in the Vorlaufer in Vai1. We are advised that the
owners of the Garden of the Gods Lodge are proposing to demolish
their building structure and rebuild that lodge in accordance with
new plans. We have been favored by a report from the Community
Development Department to the Planning and Environmental Commission
of Vaif dated January 8, 1990 which contains various comments on the
proposal of applicant, "Mrs. A. G. Hill family", concerning the
Garden of the Gods Lodge project.
As neighboring owners to the Garden of the Gods Lodge
remodeling project the undersigned would like to approve the
following comments and urge the Planning and Environmental
Commission to implement them as follows:
1. Sidewalks - Valley View Drive badly needs sidewalks leading
to the Cofden Peak facility. The pedestrian traffic of skiers
in the morning is heavy. It is on.J-y a question of time untif
some pedestrian skiers will be struck by hurrying motorists.
2. Bus tu - Valley View
orive , both bus
traffic, motorist traffic and pedestrian traffic. A bus turn-
out at the approprj-ate bus stop will ease traffic circulation.
A park bench for waiting bus passengers will afford convenj-ence
to Vail tourists.
3. Underground parking - Vaj-I parking is always at a premium.
In the event the present building i-s to be demolished then
underground parking for the patrons of the new lodge should be
rarrrr i rad
Objections to interference with "view corridor"
As original owners of the Vorlaufer apartment we purchased our
apartment in the Vorlaufer building based upon the vie\,\r corridor
which our apartment had as a result of the old Valhalla buildingpermit. We object to any interference with this view corridor
through the vehicle of demolishing the existing Garden of the Godsbuilding and thereafter building a new building so as to obstruct orinterfere with our view of the mountains. The old Valhalla buildingpermit has already been modified once in order to acconunodate the
Garden of the Gods building. The application for a new buildingplan shoul-d be required to honor the original view corridor whichthe Vorlaufer building enjoys.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Yours very truly,
Vorlaufer 301 C dominium Owners
S4-,'a A't^u
Samuel A.cCray
L. Mccray, Trust
c.Arthur Carroll
Connie Knight
(
MINUTES
VAIL TOI.IN COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 17, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular neeting of the vail Town council was held on Tuesday, April 17, 1990, at7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
MEI'IBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, l'layor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
ltlerv Lapin
Robert LeVine
Peggy Osterfoss
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Gibson
T0WN 0FFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Ph'i'llips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item was the Vail Metropolitan Recreation Distrlct offer to return $25,000to the Town of Vail; reduction in Town of Vai'l recreation subsidy. Tim Garton, VMRD
Chairman, read a'l etter regarding this subsidy from the VMRD Board to the Council.
He further stated that if projected revenues materialize, the additional $25,000will be returned to the Town of Vail by the fa'll of 1990. Following limited
questioning, this check was accepted by Mayor Rose.
Item two was a presentation of the Colorado Tourism Board 1989 Urban Tourism Awardto Council from the Vail Va1 ley Marketing Board. Frank Johnson, Chairman of the
VVMB, rev'i ewed current and future projects of the Marketing Board for sumner
marketing. He stated the Urban Tourism Award was one of seven awards given; helisted several other Denver area advertising awards won by the VVMB. Frank thanked
the Council for their support. Mayor Rose felt the thanks needed to go back to the
Marketing Board for their time and effort.
Third on the agenda was a consent agenda of the fo1 'lowing items:
A. Ordinance No.6, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repea'l ing and
reenacting Chapter 8.32 of Title 8 of the Municipal Code of the Town of
Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify Code provisions re'l ating to smokingin public places and places of employment.
B. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1990, second reading,-an ordinance re-zoning
Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Vail Va1 ley Third Filing, a part of Sunburst replat, to
Specia'l Development Distrjct No. 24, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of
the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
C. Ordinance No, 13, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repealing
and reenacting 0rdinance No. 23, Series of 1988, to provide changes to
Special Development District No. 22 that concern lot size and corresponding
GRFA; and curb cuts; and employee dwelling units; and architecturalguidelines; and settlng forth detalls ln regard thereto.
0. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repea'l ing
Ordinance No. 40, Series of 1987,and approvlng Speclal Development Dlstrict
' l{o. 19, Grrdu of the Gods, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the
l'lunicipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto.
E. 0rdinance No. 15, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordjnance amending
Section 2.04.050 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Uai'l changing the
order of business in regular and specia'l meetings of the Town Council; and
setting forth details in regard thereto.
F. Resolution No. 11, Series of 1990, a resolution ratifylng the Articles of
Association of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments.
Ii
,
Mayor Rose read the full tit1e of each. l'lerv Lapin moved that a consent agenda of
on'ly items E and F be approved; al'l others be pulled off for discussion. Tom
Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Therefore, the next item was 0rdinance No. 6, Series of 1990, second reading, an
ordinance relating to smoking in public places and places of employment. Ron
Phillips stated the ordinance had not changed since first readlng, and staff did not
have anything to add. ttlatt Carpenter questioned one section of the ordinance, to
wh'i ch Larry Eskwith responded. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the ordinance,
which Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimous'ly
6-0.
Ordinance l{o. 11, Serles of 1990, second readlng, an ordlnance rezonlng Lots 3, 4,
and 5, Vai'l Valley 3rd Fillng, a part of Sunburst replat from prlmary/secondary
'- residential to special development district. Tom Braun stated there was one m'l nor
change to the ordinance, which he discussed. He then very briefly reviewed Council
requests from first reading. Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to approve, which was
seconded by Robert LeVine. There was a shont discussion regarding this SDD use as
setting a precedent. Merv Lapin was concerned about using the SDD process in a low
density residential area, and would change hjs vote from how he voted at first
reading. Lynn Fritzlen agreed the SDD was not the best mechanism, but the only wayright now until housing guidelines were in pl ace. Mayor Rose agreed, and would vote
in favor of the ordinance tonight. A vote was taken and the motlon passed 4-2, with
Tom Steinberg and Merv Lapin opposing.
Next was 0rdinance No. 13, Series of 1990, second reading, a request for an
i'amendment to SDD No.22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Llonsridge Filing#3. Kristan Pritz quick'ly reviewed changes Council had requested be incorporated
into the ordinance since first reading. There was some discussion regarding a bus
stop, to which Mr. Pat Dauphinajs stated he would provide a letter of credit forone. Council felt that was agreeable. Tom Steinberg then made a motion to approve
the ordinance as amended, which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1990, second reading, a request for a speclal
development district at the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, B'l ock 5, Vail Vlllage 5thFiling, and a portlon of P-2, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing, at 365 Gore Creek
Drive. Kristan Pritz addressed questions of Gretta Parks and Council. A motion to
approve the ordinance was made by Peggy 0sterfoss and seconded by Robert LeVine.
Connie Knight, a property owner, aired her concerns over the possib'le approval of
this SDD request. Kristan then answered questions of Counci'l . There was some
discussion by Council regarding building size and mass. Tom Stelnberg requested an
annual letter regarding employee housing use. Peggy amended the motlon to include
this request; Rob amended his second. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1,
w'i th Lynn Fr i tz I en oppos i ng .
Item eight was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, flrst reading, an ordinance
anending View Corridor ltlo. 1. I'layor Rose read the full title. Tom Braun reviewed
an architect scale model of the request. He then noted the Planning Comnission's
6-1 recormendation for approva'l by changing the photo and not the line. Tom then
reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the request noting views from other
buildings were not included. He stated staff supported the proJect with two
condi ti ons:
1. The photo depicting View Corridor No. 1be modlfled to reflect the new Red
Lion Building at a time when the expanslon is completed.
2. The specific reasons justifying this request be included in the preamble of
the ordinance authorizing this amendment.
Tom then reviewed the ten conditions required by the P'lanning Comnission for their
approval , whlch were itemized in the staff memo to Counci'l dated April 17, 1990. He
added there was also an e'leventh condition to be added, which stated the Red Lion
would participate in a streetscape special improvenent district lf and when formed.
There was some discussion by Council and staff regarding notice of action on the Red
Lion improvements. Larry Eskwith commented he would have felt more comfortable ifall the items were included on the agenda mentioned the appeal of the PEC action,
and recormended Councll table the item until the next Evening l'leeting. Tom
Steinberg felt it was alright to table the item, but we should take corments so
staff can be working on Counci'l concerns before the next tine. Jay Peterson,
representing the applicant, stated this was the first he had heard of a notlflcation
problem, and with the construction season so short, the delay would put them
-2-
I
(
behind. Gordon Brittan felt Tom Braun's presentation was hard to understand andasked to see the scale model up close and hear ttre preientation again. -liier-rom
Braun ran through it again, Jay Peterso! gave reasons why he teri-irre-pfinningCommission approved, and why the Councll ihoula "pprou..- Jim Morter, ".itrit"it ro.the project, presented photos to Council of the viLw line. Jay added reasons why
-the-project.was good. Jay, Jim, and Larry answered questions 6f council. Vuonn.Mullaley made comments on the roof design. Rfter more discussion by councii,-connieKnight asked for the view corridor to bi specificaiiy deait ritt,,"i"rii"iv'irorn theRed-Lion improvements. After much more discussion b! Councii, r'r"r"-i"pin il"a" .motion to approve the ordinance on first reading, ani Oirectei staff ib pfai"-tfr"ordinance on the May_1, 1990 Evening Meeting agEna" djrectly after the RlU-.iionapplication. Mayor Rose seconded the motioi. -n vote was tiken and the rotion'passed 4-2, with Tom Steinberg and Lynn Fritzlen opposing.
?tI! "T the National Velvet Dry Cleaners sign variance request. Shelly llellorevrewed the request and criteria used jn evaluating the reguest. she ltated staff
:y!?oft.d,the.height and location variance requestsl but noi the one square-iootincrease in size. Shelly noted the Design Review Board unanimously voted 5-0 forapproval for all three requests. Bill House, the applicant, requeited the onesquare foot increase to match the-liquor store sign.' After-some aiscussion byCouncil, Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to approve tfie height and ]ocation variaice
lequests of the sign, but not the jncreasid size, for r6asons presented by staff andfinding the same as staff as noted in the staff memo to itre oeiign i"ui""-eoirodated April 4, 1990. Robert LeVine seconded the motion. A vote was taken and tfremotion passed unanimously 6-0.
It this time, it rvas felt a motion should have been made to table the ca1 1 up of theRed Lion conditiona'l use, varian991, and exterior a'l teration to the may 1, tbgoEvening Meeting for adequate notification of the public. Merv Lapin mide'themotion, and Peggy 0sterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the rbtion-pisi"aunanimously 6-0.
il side and rear setback variance request for Lot D-7 Bighorn Terrace was next on theagenda. .Shel]y Me11o exp'l ained the variance request ani discussed staff'sreconmendation for denial , while the Planning Cormission had voted in favor of therequest. She then reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the requests andanswered questions of Council. Eric Hil1, architect repreienting dtre appjiiant,explained the one foot side setback. tynn Fritzlen suggested stitt too't'into -
rezoning of the subdivisjon. Peggy 0stlrfoss made a m6ilon to approve the side andrear setback requests, because there was not a significant intruijon beyond theoriginal footprint, and stating a hardship was thE result of the buildi'ng iftJ"avbeing in place when the setback was determined. Robert LeVine seconded ltre moiii,n.A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, with Lynn Fritzl"n oppoiint. io, -
Ste'inberg then made a motion for staff to address ihe 'l ocal neighborho6d into thetotal .zoning issue, to which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was tlken and the motionpassed unanimously 6-0.
.lrlext on the agenda was the Lions Ridge rockfall amendment. Tom Braun revlewed thehazard ordinance standards for rockfi'11 zoning changes within the Town. He iiatedstaff had no recommendation and asked the applicantis consultani tor i repori-on wttythe area should be rezoned medium severity iirstead of high severlty. RoUirt tristr,-an engineering geologist, representing Jill Down and Bruie Canton,-discussed hisreview letter on the Lions. Ridge hazaid area. He and Tom then aniwered queitions ofCouncil. Mayor Rose remarked he agreed with Mr. Irish. After some disctission byCouncil, Lynn,Fritzlen made a motion to reclassify the area from trigh io-r"aiutseverity rockfal 1, accepting Robert Irish's study-, and directing itiit-io "r"nJ tf,"Town's rockfall records. Robert LeVine seconded-ihe motion. A vote was taken andthe motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Action on the ABC Schoo'l lease agreement was the twe'lfth item. Larry Eskwith
conmented the lease was almost a duplicate of the Learning Tree's agieenent whichwas before council two years ago. He added there was no Exhibit A, however, andasked Council to approve the agreement contingent upon having ABC School pr6vide asurvey of the area inc1 uding the addition after construction was complete. LynnFritzlen made a motion to approve the agreement as presented, with the stipulitionthat the ABC Schoo'l provide the Town wiih an improvement survey after thealterations have been made. Robert LeVine seconded the notionl ilerv Lapinsuggested wording be added that the school be run by a Board of Directori that iselected by the parents of the students. Lynn and Rob anended the motion andsecond. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6,0.
-3-
The last ltem on the agenda was actlon on Vail Village Inn space lease agreement.
Larry Eskwith noted the lessee was not prepared to dlscuss the ltem tonight, and
requested it be postponed to the tttay 1 Evenlng l,leeting. A motion to tab'le the itemto the l,lay I Evening l{eeting was made by Tom Steinberg and seconded by Peggy
0sterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0, with l,lerv Lapin abstaining.
There was no Citizen Partjcipation.
There belng no further public buslness, the meetlng was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Respectful ly submitted,
ATTEST:
l4inutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-4-
,\oo
MII'IUTES
VAIL TO}|N COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 3, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vai1 Town
7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
Jim Gibson
Merv Lapin
Robert LeVine
Peggy 0sterfoss
None
Ron Phil'l lps, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
I4EMBERS ABSENT:
TOI.IN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
The neeting began with a ten year employment anniversary award to Char'les l{ick. Ron
Phil'l ips gave brief background information on Char'l ie, Director of Administrative
Services and Assistant Town Manager, and then presented Charlie with a Town of Vailsilver belt buckle. After a few words of corunendation by Ron and Kent, Charlie
thanked everyone.
llext on the agenda was approval of the minutes of the March 6 and 20, 1990
meetings. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Merv Lapin made a
motion to approve the minutes as presented, and Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote
was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
The third item was a consent agenda of the following:
A. 0rdinance No. 10, Series of 1990, second reading, amending Special
Oevelopment District N0.4, Cascade Village Area D, Glen Lyon office site to provide
for changes to parking provisions, micro-brewery building, and east building.
B. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1990, second reading, amending the Town's sales
tax code.
Mayor Rose read the full titles of the ordinances. Larry Eskwith stated there were
no changes to either ordinance since first reading. Kristan Pritz and Larry then
answered questions from Council. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the consent
agenda as presented, which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously 7-0.
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1990, fjrst neading, an ordinance relating to smoking in
public places and places of employment was next. The fu'l 1 title was read by Mayor
Rose. Susan Scan1 an gave brief background information on how the ordlnance had come
about. After some discussjon regarding posting outside of buildings, Susan answered
questions of Counci'l . Matt Carpenter felt this was a watered down policy and that
the ordinance should have been worded much more strongly. Tom Steinberg made a
motion to approve the ordinance, and Lynn Fritzlen seconded. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Fifth on the agenda was Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1990, flrst reading,'rezoning
'Lots 3, 4, and 5, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a part of Sunburst rep'lat from Primary,/
Secondary Residential to a Special Development Djstrict. Mayor Rose read the fu1 'l
title. Kristan Pritz reviewed the SDD request and gave background information. She
reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the proposal and explained why staff
reconrnended denial . Kristan noted the Planning and Environmental Comission voted
unanimously 7-0 for denial . Robert Warner, the applicant, gave reasons why he felt
the SDD should be granted, and explained why the pool area under the garage would
not affect the floor area. Jim Junge, architect'for the project, gave further
reasoning why the request should be approved. Kristan and Robert answered questions
of Council. Mayor Rose felt that since the hlarner's were offering over 2,000 square
feet ln three employee units, maybe Council could approve as an incentive because it
was a benefit to the Town. Robert LeVine made a motion to approve the ordinance,
ootlI
Council was held on Tuesday, April 3, 1990,of the Vail Municipal Bui'lding.
at
fo Ot
which was seconded by Peggy 0sterfoss. Tom Stejnberg requested Mr. lfarner to deedrestrict the pool so it would renajn that way permanent'ly, and to deed restrict the
employee housing units so they are permanently employee housing; also, to ensure the
employee units wou'l d not be for sa1e, but remain rentals only. Robert LeVine
amended the motion to include Tom's suggestions, and Peggy amended the second.
Peggy Osterfoss stated she wanted it included in the ordinance that the reason for
approval was for a gain in employee housing. Kristan conrnented it wou'l d be added
somewhere in the beginning of the ordinance, in the "lJhereas" sections. There was
then some discussion by Council regarding enforcement and control . Dalton tJilliams,
of the PEC, remarked that al'l members of the PEC felt it was a good design, a good
proposal , but they u,ere concerned about using an SDD as the mechanism to do this and
setting a precedent. Jay Peterson added he felt the SDD should be granted becauseit was a very creative way to add three employee units. Peggy Osterfoss commented
Council was concerned with providing additiona'l affordable housing for the community
and it was appropriate to approve this SDD. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 7-0.
Item six was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, first reading, a request for an
famendment to SDD No.22, a resubdivision of Lots l-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing
No. 3. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz stated the SDD had
been approved and the final plat approved, but not recorded with the County yet.
She noted this was an amendment to the original SDD and that the final plat was also
being revised. She rev'iewed the changes requested, and comented staff recormended
approval w'i th the conditions shown in the ordinance. Buff Arnold, architect for theproject, gave further explanation of the amendments to the SDD and reasoning for
approval . Mr. Pat Dauphinais addressed the item of number of driveways. There was
then some discussion by Council regarding additional curb cuts. Peggy 0sterfoss
made a notion to approve to provide changes with the finding that the changes ane in
accordance with the SDD criteria conditions as listed in the staff memorandum to the
PEC dated March 26, 1990; except under employee dwel'l ing units, the wording "anylot" should be used; a letter of credit shou'l d be provided for a bus stop, so one
can be provided once a school or Town bus schedule is established within five years;
add the PEC recommendations that 1) each phase of development shall include a
minimum of one employee unit until the six employee unit minimum is fu1 filled, 2)
garages for employee units sha'l 'l be connected to the main structure, 3) the
developer shall construct a sidewalk along the north side of Lionsridge Lane
beginning at the cul-de-sac and extending to the main entry to the subdivision, and
4) at grade, unroofed, unenclosed decks may extend five feet into the rear setbackfor Lots 1-14; including conditions 3,4,5, and 6 in the staff recorunendation; and
the four additional curb cuts not be approved. l{erv Lapin seconded the motion.
Robert LeVine was concerned that enployee housing figures were not inc'luded in the
total GRFA, and wanted them shown up front, because they should be addressed and not
ignored. Kri stan Pritz remarked they wou'l d be added in the density sectjon. Peggy
Osterfoss suggested they be added in the preamble like the last ordinance, in the
"Whereas" sections, which Kristan agreed to. Dalton }|illiams, of the PEC, stated
the PEC voted on the curb cuts 4 for and 3 against, and explained their reasonings
and concerns to the Council. Tom Steinberg stated he would vote against the
ordinance as presented because of the lack of safety for children on the sidewalk;
the curb cuts belong on the north side only. Jim Gibson agreed. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 5-2, with Tom Steinberg and Jim Gibson opposing.
0rdinance No. 14, Series of 1990, first reading, a request for rt Sprclrl .&valopernt{irtrict rt the Carden of thc Godr on Lot l(, Slock 5, Vail Village 5th Filing, and a'portlon of P-2, Block 3, Vail Vtllage 5th Filing, at 355 Gone Creek Drive. The fulltitle was read by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pr'ltz gave chronological background
information of the SDD request to amend the origina'l SDD. She reviewed the crjteria
used in evaluating the request, explained why the staff recomendation was for
approva'l with the eight conditions and three recormendations to the DRB as shown in
the staff memorandum to the PEC dated March 26, 1990. Don Hare, representing the
owner, reviewed again why this SDD amendment was before the Council. Pam Hopkins,
representing the architect, explained changes in the butldtng footprint plans. Art
Carrol'l , a resident in the Vorlaufer, was against the SDD because it would block the
view of Vail Mountain. After much discuss'ion by Council, Peggy 0sterfoss made a
motion to approve the ordinance with findings based on the eva'l uation of the
proposed SDD criteria are appropriate, with al'l conditions in the staff
recommendation as shown in the staff memorandum to the PEC dated lilarch 26, 1990.
After some discussion by Council, Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 4-3, w'ith lvlerv Lapin, Lynn Fritzlen, and Robert LeVine
opposi ng.
At this time, lrlayor Rose asked that the next few agenda items be p'laced on a consent
agenda:
t,I
-2-
I
A.
order of
oo ol
Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1990, fjrst reading, an ordinance changing the
business at Counci'l meetings.
B. Resolution No. 8, Series of 1990, proclaiming the week of Apri'l 2L-27 as
Earth Awareness l{eek.
C. Resolution No.9, Series of 1990, setting ru1 es for Council pub'l ic
heari ngs.
After some discusslon by Council, Merv Lapin made a motion to place 0rdinance No.
15, Resolution No. 8, and Resolution No. 9 on a consent agenda. Tom Ste'inberg
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Mayor Rose then read the full tit'l es of Ordinance No. 15, Resolution No. 8, and
Resolution No. 9. Robert LeVine made a motion to approve the consent agenda, which
Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Next was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1990, a reso'l ution opposing mandatory Social
Security and tledicare coverage for public employees. Lynn Fritzlen stated she would
not support this resolution because she felt public employees should be subjected to
the same programs as the private sector. There was some discussion by Council and
Ron Phillips. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the resolution, and Peggy
0sterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1, with Lynn Fritzlen
opposi ng.
frthe Jackalope Cafe & Cantina sign variance request was next. She'l 1y ltlel 1o gave
background information on the variance request. She reviewed the four criteria usedin evaluating the variance and explained why staff and the DRB recommended approvalof the request. Merv Lapin made a motjon to approve the request fon reasons and
findings as shown in the March 7, 1990 staff memorandum to the DRB. Peggy 0sterfoss
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
There was no Citizen Participation.
l.lerv Lapin commented Councilmembers had received a letter from bloody Beardsley
regarding the Beartree'lot. He requested Ron Phillips write a letter to Mr.
Beards'l ey requesting detai'led information; Ron replied staff would fol'l ow up on the
request.
Thene belng no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectful 1y submitted,
AfiEST:
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
A...Brandmeyer,
-3-
,l
ORDINANCE NO. 14
Series of 1990
AI'I ORDINAIICE REPE,ALTNG ORDINANCE NO. 40,
OF 1987 AI{D APPROVING SPECIAI., DSVEITPUENT DISTRICT NO. 19,
ACCORDANCE I{ITII CHAI{TER 18.40 OF THE
!.![NICIPAL, CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS fN REGARD THERETO.
I{HEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail }luniclpal Code authorizes
Special Developnent Districts within the Towni and
VIIIERE,AS, the Town Council approved Ordinance 40, Series of 1987,
Special Development Dlstrl-ct No. 19, carden of the Godsi and
IIEEREAS, the approval for Special Developrnent District No. 19'
Garden of tbe Gods, has lapsed; and
I{HEREAS, the owner of the Garden of the Gods, Urs. A. G. Hill
Fanily, has reguested Speciat Development District approval for
certain parcels of property within the Town known as Lot K' Block 5A,
Vail Village Fifth Filing and a portion of Lct- P'2, Block 3, VaiI
village Fifth Filing; and
I{HEFEAS, there is an identified need for affordable housing in
the conmunity; and
I{HEREAS, the Town of Vail has not adopted fornal policies to
encourage the development of affordable housing unitst and
WIIBREAS, the Special Developnent District provides for creativity
and flexibility to allow for the development of affordable housing;
and
IIHEREAS, the Plannlng and Environmental Connission has
recornmended approval for Special Developnent District No. 19i and
I{HEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable,
appropriate, and benefl-cial to the Bown and its citizens, lnhabitants,
and visitors to repeal Ordinance No. 40, Serles of 1987 and to provide
for a new Special Developnent District No. 19, Garden of the Gods by
tbe adoption of Ordinance 14, Series of 1990.
NOW, IIHEREFORE, BE rT ORDAINED By THE TOWN COI'NCIL OF THE TOI{N OF
VAII-,, COI,ORADO, TIIAT:
ordinance No. 40, series of 1987, ls hereby repealed, ordinance
No. 14, Series of 1990' is enacted as follows:
lr
section 1. Anendrnent Procedures I'ulfilled, Plannlng Connission Report.
The approval procedures descrlbed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail
Municipal Code have been fulfllled, and the Tolrn Councll has received
the report of the Plannlng and Environnental Conmission recommendlng
approval of the proposed developnent plan for Special Development
District No. 19.
Section 2. Sneciai Developnent Dl-strlct No. 19
Special Development Distrlct No. 19 (SDD No. 19) and the development
plan therefore, are hereby aPProved for the developDent of Lot K,
Block 5A, vail Vlllage 5ttr Filtng and a portion of Iot P-2, Block 3'
Vail ViIIage Fifth Filing within tlre Town of Vail.
Section 3. Purllose
Special Developnent Dietrlct No. 19 is establlshed to enaure
cornprebensive development and use of an area that will be harnonious
with ttre general- character of the Town of VaiI and to promote the
upgrading and redevelopnent of a lcey property Ln the Town. The
development is regarded as conplementary to the Town by the Town
Council and neete alt the design standards as set forth in Sectlon
18.40 of the Uunicipal Code. There are slgnLficant aspects of Special
Development DistrLct No. 19 rlhlch cannot be eatisfied througb the
inposition of standards in the ttublic Accorornodation zone district.
SDD No. 19 |s conpatl-bte wlth the upgrading and redevelopnent of the
conmunity while naintaining its unlque character.
Section 4. Development Plan
A. llhe developnent plan for sDD No. 19 is approved and shall
constitute the ptan for developnent within ttre Special
Development District. The developnent plan is comprised of the
following plans:
1. Site PIan, Garden of the Gods III, sheet l, dated February
20, LggO' Snordon and Hopklns, Archl'tects.
2. Landscape PIan, sheet 2, dated February 20, L99O, Snowdon
and HoPkins, ArchitectE
3. Garage Level Plan, sheet 3, dated February 20, L99O' Snowdon
and tloPkins, Architects
4. Ground Level Plan, sheet 4, dated Febmary 20, L99O, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
5. Second Floor Plan, Sheet 5, dated February 2O, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
6. Third Floor Plan, Sheet 6, dated February 2O' 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
7. Penthouse Plan, Sheet 7, dated February 20, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
8. East Elevation, sheet 8, dated February 20, 1990, snoltdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
9. South Elevation, Sheet 9, dated February 20' L99O, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
10. West Elevation, Sheet 10, dated February 20, L990, snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
11. North Elevation, Sheet 11, dated February 20, 1990, snondon
and Hopkins, Architects.
L2. Improvement Location Certificate, Job No. 5L8, dated June
29, 1989. Eag1e valley Engineering and Surveying, Inc.
B. The development plan shall adhere to tbe following:
1. Setbacks
Setbacks shall be as noted on the site ptan l-isted above.
2. Heiqht
Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the elevations
listed above and on the site p]an. However, in no case shall the
height exseed 48 feet for a eloplng roof or 45 feet for a flat or
mansard roof and any encroachnent lnto the approved Town of Vail
View Corrldor No.5 is prohibited.
3. Coveraqe
site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed
above.
4. Iandscapinq
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on
the finat landscape plan approved by the Design Review Board and
on file in the Cornmunity Development Department'
5. Parkincl
Parking shall be provided on Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th
Filing and a portion of Iot P-2, Block 3' Vail Village 5th Filing
as indicated on the site plan, but in no case shall the sites
bave the abtlity to park lees than 26 autonoblles.
6. Density
SDD No. 19 shall not contain less than 11 acconnodation unlts and
4 acconnodation unit lock-offs per the approved floor plans,
representing 5,812 aquare feet of Gross Residentlal Floor Area
(GRFA) and 6 dwelling units repreaenting !2,6{0 tquare feet of
GRFA per the approved floor plan. The slte shall have a naxfunurn
density of 1L.5 dwelling unlts representLng a total GRFA of
.181460 square feet. SDD No. 19 shall also contain 2 enployce
dwetting units as indicated on the Ground Floor PIan by Snorrdon
and Hopkins, Architects, dated February 20' 1990. Each Cmployee
dwelling unit shall have a GRFA of 901 sguare feet.
7. Uses
Pernitted, conditional , and accessory uses shall be as set forth
in the Public Acconnodation Zone District while recognizing the
property will no longer neet the definition of a lodge as found
in Section 18.04.210.
8. Additional Anenities and Conditions of Approval for Special
Development District No. 19
a. The applicant shall subnit a revised employee housing
agreement with a floor ptan that clearly indicates the
location, tlpe of unit, and square footage for each employee
housing unit. The two enployee housing units shall be
restricted pernanently. The agreenent shall be subnitted
and approved by the owner and Town of Vail before a building
permit is issued for the project. Section 18.13.08o shall
be used for the wording of the agreement, except that the
units shall be restricted to ernployee housing pemanently.
The Town of VaiI shall be a party to this agreement. This
agreenent shall be recorded by the Town of Vail at the 8a91e
County Clerk and Recorderrs office. The covenants
concerning enployee dwelling unit restrictions shall run
with the land.
b.
The owner of each enployee dwelling unit shall be required
to declare Ln writing on an annual basis to the Town of Vail
that the enployee dwelling unit has been rented as a long
term rental per the requirements outlined in this section.
This declaration shall include a written statenent fron the
onner listing the renterrB nane, place of enploynentr and
Iength of tine the unit was rented. The declaration shall
be required to be signed by both the lot ot ner and renter.
The applicant shall subrnit a wrltten statement agreeing to
restrict the proposed 11 accommodation units' 4
accommodation unLt lock-offs, and 3 dwelling units as 6hort
term rental units on a Pernanent basis. Even if the
project is condominiunized, the units listed above Ehall be
restricted as short tetm rentals. This written agreement
shall be subnitted by the owner to the Town of Vail and
approved by the Conrnunity Development Departnent and Town of
Vail attorney before a buildlng permit is issued for the
project. The Town of Vail shall be a party to this
agreernent. Thls agreenent shall be recorded as a covenant
that shall run nith the land.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct a
sidewalk and bus stop on the east side of the Garden of the
Gods property as well as a sidewalk and planter adJacent to
the frontage of the P-2 parcel allocated to the Garden of
the Gods. The final design of the sidewalk, bus stop' and
planters shall be subrnitted by the owners of the Garden of
the Gods to the Public l{orks Departnent and Conmunity
Developnent Departnent and comunity Development Departnent
for approval . The sidewalks, planters and bus stop shall be
constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building pemit
and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of
occupancy for the project. The applicant shall subnit a
written statement agreeing to this condition for the Town
c.
d.
Attorneyrs approval before a building per"nit is released for
the project. If eo required by the Town Englneer and Town
Attorney, the Garden of the Gods shall also provide a public
easement for the bus etop, sidewalk, and signage. The
owners of the Garden of the Gods shall subnit the eaeement
agreement to the Town Attorney and Tonn council for approval
before a tenporary certlficate of occupancy is released for
the proJect.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct curb
and gutter as well as any other drainage (such as asphalt
work) improvenents neceeeary along the north, south' and
east sides of their property. Final design for the draJ.nage
improvements shall be eubnitted by the owners of the Garden
of the cods to the Public Works DepartDent for final
approval . These inprovenents shall be constructed
subseguent to the issuance of the building pernit and prlor
to the issuance of a tenporary certificate of occupancy.
The drawings indicating ttre drainage irnprovenents shall be
incorporated lnto the building pernit appllcation.
A revocable right of way agreement shall be conpleted by the
orJners of the Garden of the Gods for any encroachrnents on
the public right-of-way. This agreenent muet be subnltted
to the conmunity Developnent Departnent and aPproved before
a building pernit wiII be released on the proJect.
The ortnerE of the Garden of the Gods ehall subuit a utllity
and drainage easenent vacation to the Town Council for
approval before a buildLng pernlt may be released for the
project.
AII fireplaces shall be gas and neet the Towri of VaiI
ordinance governing gas appliances.
Run-off control and pollution control devices shall be
incorporated into the surface parking lots. This issue
shall be addressed at the Desigrn Review Board review of tlre
project and any measurea to control mn-off or pollution
shalt be incorporated lnto the building permit plan.
e.
f.
9.
h.
6
i. Due to the construction of the bus stop, four evergreen
trees shall be either relocated or replaced. If the trees
rnust be lemoved, landscaping that has substantially the sane
positive inpact shall be reguired by the Design Review
Board.
Section 5.
ff any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be lnvalid, such decision shall
not affect the validlty of the rernaining portions of thie ordLnancei
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 Dore parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
Section 6.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Val-1
Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any
right whictr has accrued, andy duty inposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecutJ.on
commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as cornmenced under or by
virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The
repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provlsl-on or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless extrlressly stated
herein.
INTRODUCED,
Aprll
READ Al{D PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 3rd day of,
, 1990, and a pubUc hearing shall be held on
ttris ordinance on the 3rd day of Aorl1 ' 1990 at 7:30 p.n.
in the council chanbers of the Vail llunicipal Building, Vail,
Colorado. Ordered publish tn full thls 3rd day of --AP.4t-,
1990.
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandneyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ A}ID
in full I
APPROVED ON SECOND
this
-lZrL
day of RE.ADING AND ORDERED PUBIJSHED
AJrr{ 1 , 1990
ATTEST:
Panela a. Brqndmeyer, Town Clerk
Pnesent
Chuck Cbist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Ludwig Kurz
Kathy Langenwaltcr
Jim Shearer
Gena Whitten
FILT COPY
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 12,l99l
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mikc Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
Amber Blecker
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at 2:05PM.
1. Review of a saff aoproval of a minor amendment to Special Develooment District No.
22. Garden of the Gods. Lot K. Block 5A. Vail Villaee 5th Filins/365 Vail Vallev
Drive.
Apolicanr Marearct Hill Marital Trust
Planner: Shellv Mello
Shelly Mello explained the staff approval stemmed from discrepancies between the original
sutrey, completed by Eagle Valley Surveying, and the Improvement Location Certificate
(I.L.C.) by Robillard Associates. Pam Hopkins, representing thc applicant, said the new
building had been located per the survey conducted by Dan Corcoran. They used Robillard
and Associates because they were conducting the on-site road improvement surveys and
whcre thus more easily accessible. Pam and Shelly both stat€d the building appeared o be
sited corre,ctly, and the discrcpancies were related to lot line lengths.
Krisan Pritz explained one survey needed to be chosen for use as the legal description for the
SDD Ordinance. Kathy I-angenwalter agreed, stating there was a need for documentation.
Diana Donovan was concemed how the discrcpancies might affect the ridge line height and
the corresponding view corridor. Kristan said staff felt the building was in the right location,
but staff needed only one base map document. Staff would have the ridge clevation shot
when appropriate from the original view corridor location. Shelly indicated a third survey to
be performed would determine the survey of record, since neither of the two previous
survcyors could find fault with their original survcys. Diana stated there was a nccd to find
the misuke and establish a legal description. Kathy suggested researching to dctermine if
there was more than one title r€port for the property, and if perhaps that could have been the
basis for any discrcpancies. Pam agrecd to do that rcsearch.
Kathy l,angenwaltcr moved to apprcvc thc staffs approval of a minor amendment to
Community Devclopment Department No. 22, Garden of the Gods, lnt K, Block 5A' Vail
Village 5th Filing/365 Vail Valley Drive with thc condition that the discrepancies benvryn the
surveys be resolved" Ludwig Kurz sccondcd the motion. It was approvcd GGl, with Connie
Knight abstaining.
ResuMivision/I90l Chamonix lane.
Apolicant lton Tuov
Planner: Andv Knudtsen
Andy Knudsen cxplained thc changes from thc previous hearing on the requesg and
introduced into the rpcord a petition frrom the neighbohood asking thc Commission to dcny
the request for a setback variance. Staff recommendcd app'roval of thc variance with
conditions as listcd in thc memo.
E.J. Meade, architect for the applicant, explained that the most significant change from the
previous hearing was that the primary unit had been moved to the west, out of the setback,
and the garage doors had also been shifted to the west. These changcs resulted in a decr€ase
of 100 sq. ft. from the building. Another improvement was the landscaping location, which
would decrease the visual impact of the structure. Addrcssing the safety issue, E J. indicated
the building would not block the view from thc intcrscction. E.J. stated the owners had no
intention of dcveloping the portion of the lot on the other side of the creek, further reducing
the impacts of the develoPment.
Since flooding had becn an issue raised at the prcvious PEC meeting, the ownen were
working with engineen and a hydrologist to protect not only the Tupy residcnce, but the
neighbors as well. Mitigation being proposed included a berm along the side of the stnrcture
and the placemcnt of a gravel swale.
A neighbor asked if cars would be able to turn around in the driveway, or if they would have
to back out. E.J. indicated they would back out, similar to the adjacent lot to the south.
Neighbor Clnthia Steitz asked what the front wall was for. E.J. said it was terraccd to
prcvent erosion.
Loyettc Goodell, a neighbor, said that although staff had looked at the development potential
during the summer, there were winter impacts as well. Specifically, the Town uscs the lot for
dumping snow. In addition, it had been indicated to the neighbors previously that the lot was
unbuildable.
Another neighbo, Marka Moser, was concerncd with the safety, given that the lot was being
dcveloped in this manner. She said thc addition of tnees and the fact the sun would no longer
*arm the road to the same extent in the winter crcated safety and visibility problems for thc
o
If a restriction wetE rcquestcd to be erminatcd, thc @mmission believed the Planning
Commission, at the least, should revicw any proposed tefrnination. They also questioned the
maximum pmposed oocupancy of 2 pcople, with the suggestion that a child under a certain
age shouldbe able o be in G samJunit. Under schml-age and 3 ycars old were suggested
ages.
Therc was also a question of who was an authorized agent for I pruperty, and staff agrccd to
research that issue.
Ttrc Commission discusscd the requirement of a shuttle, with Kathy stating that molp
dcfrnition of whcn one would neea o bc providcd was necessary. In addition, shc bclieved
the requirement of a pnvate shuttle mighf make a projoct bo expensive. Thc Commission
astcC itaff to changathc ordinance languagc 3o statc a shuttle "may" be requircd.
Kathy Langenwalter moved the recommendations of the &mmission be as discussed above.
Jim Shearcr secondcd the motion. It was unanimously approved, G0.
Jim Shearer moved the definition of "bathroom" bc rtcommended approval to the Town
Council as stated in staffs mcmo. Ludwig Kurz secondcd. It was approved G0.
Aoolicant Bernard Samuels
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica briefly explained the request, stating staff recommended approval of the
variance.
Jim Shearer moved to approve the request for a wall height variance for the Samuels
Residence, I-t 11-8, Biock 7, Vail Villagc First FilingD24 Forest Road per the staff m€mo'
Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was approved 5-0-1, with Kathy LangenwalEr
abstaining.
The lettcr was discussed, changes were madc and the consensus of the Commission appmved
the letter o bc signed by Diana Donovan.
Thc mecting was adjoumed at approximately 8:15PM.
Vail Villaee Fint Filinel2zf For€st Road.
L7
lLr uur I O
PLANNING AND ENVIROMVIEN'TAL COMMISSION
August 12,l99l
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
Ambcr Blecker
i" da Po'/
,(ti,; t;f Ay',*;;t rtQ-srlq/",L qui'
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Ludwig Kurz
Ka0ry Langenwalter
Jim Shearer
Gena Whittcn
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at 2:05PM.
1. Review of a staff aoproval of a minor amendment to Special Development District No.
22. Garden of the Gods. Lot K. Block 5A. Vail Vilaee 5th Filinp/365 Vail Vallev
Drive.
Aoplicant Marearct Hill Marital TrustPlanner: Shellv Mello
Shelly Mello explained the staff appmval stemmed from discrcpancies betwcen the original
survey, completed by Eagle Valley Surveying, and the Improvement l-ocation Certificate
(I.L.C.) by Robillard Associates. Pam Hopkins, representing the applicant, said rhe new
building had been locarcd per the survey conducted by Dan Corcoran. They uscd Robillard
and Associates because they were conducting the on-sitc road improvement surveys urd
where thus more easily accessible. Pam and Shelly both stated thc building appeared o be
sited correctly, and the discrepancies were related to lot line lengths.
Kristan Pritz explained one survey needed to be chosen for use as the legal description for the
SDD Ordinance. Kathy Langenwalter agreed, stating therc was a need for documentation.
Diana Donovan was concemed how the discnepancies might affect the ridge line height and
the corresponding view corridor. Kristan said staff felt the building was in the right location,
but staff needcd only one base map document. Staff would have the ridge elevation shot
when appropriale from the original view conidor location. Shelly indicated a third survey to
be performed would determine the survey of record, since neither of the npo previous
surveyors could find fault with their original surveys. Diana stated therp was a necd to find
the mistake and establish a legal description. Kathy suggested rescarching to determine if
therc was more than one title report for the property, and ifperhaps that could have been the
basis for any discrepancies. Pam agrced to do that rescarch.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to apprcve thc staffs approval of a minor amendment to
Community Devclopment Departnrent No. 22, Garden of the Gods, Irt K, Block 5A' Vail
Village 5th Filing/365 Vail Valley Drive with the condition that the discrepancies benreen the
sot"eys be resolved. Ludwig Kurz seconded thc motion. It was approved G0-1' wi& Connie
Knight abstaining.
2. A rcouest for. a front setback variancc fon the Tuov Residencc.Iot 33. Buffehr Cteck
ResuMivision/l90l Chamonix Lane.
Applicanr Leon Tuov
Planner: Andv Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen explained the changes from the prcvious hearing on the request, and
innoduced into thc record a petition fr,om the ncighbuhood asking the Commission to dcny
the rcquest for a setback variance. Staff rccommcnded approval of the variance with
conditions as listed in the memo.
E.J. Meade, architect for the applicant, explained that the most significant change from the
previous hearing was that the primary unit had becn moved to the west, out of the setback,
and the garage doors had also been shifted to the west. These changes resulted in a decrease
of 100 sq. ft. frrom the building. Another impmvement was the landscaping location, which
would decrease the visual impact of the structure. Addressing the safety issue, E.J. indicated
the building would not block the view from the interscction. E.J. statcd the owners had no
intention of dcveloping the portion of the lot on the other side of the crcek, further reducing
the impacts of the dcveloPment.
Since flooding had been an issue raised at the previous PEC meeting, the owners wert
working with engineen and a hydrologist to protect not only the Tupy rpsidcnce, but the
neighbors as well. Mitigation being proposed included a berm along the side of the structutt
and the placement of a gravel swale.
A neighbor asked if cars would be able to turn around in the driveway, or if they would have
to back out. E.J. indicated they would back out, similar to the adjacent lot to the south.
Ncighbor Cynthia Steitz asked what the front wall was for. E.J. said it was terraced to
prevent erosion.
lnyette Good€ll, a neighbor, said that although staff had looked at the development potential
during the summer, there were winter impacts as well. Specifically, the Town uses the lot for
dumping snow. In addition, it had been indicated to the neighbors previously that the lot was
unbuildable,
Another neighbm, Marka Moser, was concerned with the safety, given that the lot was being
developed in this manner. She said the addition of rces and the fact the sun would no longer
warm the road to the same extent in thc winter created safety and visibiliry problems for the
13.
In the interest of time, itcm 13 of the agenda was considered at this timc.
Court.
Aoplicant RobinE.Hernrcich/AwellDevelooment
Planner: Bctsv Rosolack
Besy Rosolack explaincd the review was brought to thc Cornmission because the currcnt
variance was not thc exact variance grantcd previously by the Commission. However, thet€
was not a significant differcnce. The consensus of the Commission was to uphold the staff s
docision.
Item 9 was considered out of ordcr.
Kristan Pritz explained the request. Diana Donovan questioned how any change made o the
codc would affect the outstanding Chester lawsuit. Kristan rcspondcd that Town Attomey
Larry Eskwith had indicated it would not affect the suit Kristan said that the Town did not
enforce covenants to which the Town is not a party relating to othcr issues, and simply
wantcd to bc consistcnt.
Jim Shearer Eturned to the meeting at 5:50PM.
Diana wanted to ensure that any changes madc would not affect the judge's ruling on the
Chester lawsuit, but would apply to questions rcgarding fences, hedges, walls and screening
which arc raised from nis poini forward. Kristan clarified that Larry Eskwith had given his
approval for this zoning change, and that the Town was acting on its ability to change the
ordinance.
Ludwig Kurz moved to recommend approval to the Town Council of the request to amend
Section 18.58.020 - Fences, Hedges, WaUs and Screening of the Town of Vail Zoning Code
Supplemental Regulations rcgarding enforcemcnt of coVenants rcstricting fencc heights to
*trich Oe Town is not a party per the staff memo. Chuck Ctist seconded the motion. It was
unanimously approved, 60.
12
6. A reouest for a maior amendment to Soccial Develoomcnt District No. 4. Cascade
Villaee. to chanee the conditions fu develonment for Arca D. Phase IA. Glen Lvon
Offrce Buildine.
Aoolicant Calumet Fedcral Savines & Iran Association of Chicaeo/?ierce.
Seeerbere. Soach
Planner: Shellv Mello
Shelly explained the rcquest. Suff recommended apprroval of thc amcndmcnt with conditions.
Applicant's rcpr€sentativc Saundra Spaeh cxplained that the original oost was cstimate was
based on the anticipation of the Brewery going into thc location, Holy Cboas expectcd to gain
substantial rcvenues from that placement, and thcrpforc would bc incuning the cxpense of the
undergrounding. With the Brewery no longer being conside,red at this time, Holy Choss
Electric was no longer willing to incur thc entire cxpcnse.
Ludwig Kurz suggestcd a letter of crcdit for undcrgrounding, posted by the applicant, which
would have a dollar amount based on the 400 sq. fr of office space in proportion to the rest
of the approved dcvelopment. He felt such a percentage apportionment would be appropriate.
Diana Donovan indicated the need to find out hom Holy Goss the cost to underground the
ponion of line in front of the project. She believed a new escnow of $15,0fl) plus the
percentage of total cost would be appropriatc. Shelly asked if it should be the portion of just
the office space or the toal build-our Diana said it should be a percentage of the otal
project. Saundra Spaeh said that sounded fair.
Kathy l,angenwalter agrecd with the condition regarding additional landscaping of the parking
area. The consensus of the Commission was in favor of that condition. Shelly asked if it
would be okay for staff o approve the landscaping plan rather than requfubg it to go to DRB.
That provision was consented to. Shelly stated staff rpcommended some cvcrgrcens in
edrlition to the aspens alrcady proposed. Diana bclievcd the landscaping should be
concentrated near the entry. Saundn proposed adding 5 spruce tnccs to the aspens and shrubs
already proposed in the landscape plan. Kristan hitz stated suff would wort with the
applicant on the qpecific location of those evergrcens.
Kathy Langenwaher moved that the rEquest for a majm amcndment to Spccial Development
District No. 4, Cascadc Village, to change the conditions for devclopment for Area D, Phasc
IA, Glen Lyon Office Building be recommendcd for approval by the Town Council per the
staff memo with the conditions that applicant pay the perpentage portion of costs in escrow to
underground electric lines and adding 5 spruce trees to the landscape plan with staff o
determine the exact location of such spruce. The condition to completc all the
undergrounding of the utilities would rcmain for the next phase of thc development. If no
assessment on the individual property owners for undergrounding the pnmary scrvicc was
placed by Holy Cross, the money would be returned to the applicants. Ludwig Kurz
seconded the motion. It was app'roved 5-0.
11
o
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETTNG
AUGUST 20t t99r
? :30 P.M,
A regular rneeting of the VaiI Town Council was held20, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Councj"l Chambers ofBuiIding.
FIL T COPY
on Tuesday, Augustthe Vail Municipat
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, .Mayor Pro-TemRobert LeVine
Jim Gibson
Peggy Osterfoss
Merv Lapin
lynn Fr it z len
Ron Phi Il- ip s, Town Manag:er
Ken Hughey, Assistant Tohrn ManagerLarry Eskwith, Town Attorney
The first item on the agenda was citizen participation, of which therewas none.
second on the agrenda was a consent Agenda consisting of one item:
(A) Ordinance No . 23, Series of 1991, second readj-ng:, an ordi.nanceamending Chapter 5,32 of the Municipal Code of the Town ofVail by the addition of section 5.32.030r providinq for theissuance of temporary permits for the issulnce of ilcohoricbeverages under certai-n circumstances,- and providing detair-sin regard thereto.
Mayor Rose read the titre in furl. Jim Gibson moved to approve theconsent Agenda, wj-th the second coming from peggy osterfoss. -d vote wastaken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. ---
rtem No. 3 was ordinance No. 26, series of rggr, first reading, anemergency ordinance approving a lease/purchase agreement with Al--imedaNationar Bank for_ the acquisition of equipment f-or the Town of Vair,coj-orado. Mayor Rose read the title i-n- tutr. Reasons for presentingthis ordinance to CounciL as an emergrency ordinance were give-n by Stev5Barwick _and Larry Eskwith as follows: (1 ) The r.ease hai arready beenapproved by counciJ- and the cost was i-nctuded in the 1991 budget.. b-ut thebond attorney requested this be done by ordinance, (2) The ordinance isneeded now to cl-ose the deal in time to avoi-d having to renegotiate theterms, (3) The i-nterest rate avaiLabre now is far -better than what wecoufd achieve if t.he closing would have to be put off for another two tothree weeks, (4) the need for the buses i6 J-mmediate, and (5) theauditors now want to see furl revenue coming in and furr expense reporrs.After a brief discussion including notation that this paiticular l_easewilr be a two (2) year l-ease at 6%, Merv r,apin moved to approve ordinanceNo. 26 as an emergency ordinance, with a second cohinq from TomSteinberg, A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 6-0.
ftem No. 4 was Ordi-nance No.- 2?, Series of 1991, first reading, anordinance amending section 18,58.020(c) - tences, Hedges, wal-16 andscreening of the Town of Vail zoning code Supprementar- Regiur-ations,regarding enforcement of covenants resfricting f6nce heights and detailswith regard thereto, Mayor Rose read the title in full . Jll.L Karunererexplained the i,ssue was io delete .l,anguage within a section of the codethat rel-ates to the Town enforcing prrvace covenants and restrictions asthe Town does not enforce co.renant! and restrictions to which the Town1s n-ot a party. Tom steinberg moved to approve ordinance No. 2? on firstreading, with a second coming from Merv iipin, A vote was taken and themotion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 5 was Ordinance No, 28, Series of 1991, first reading, anordinance repeali-ng and reenacting ordinance No. 45, series of 199b', toprovi'le changes to A_rea D requirements that concern the phasing' plan forsite improvements for Area D; and settj_ng forth defails in regardthereto ' Mayor Rose read the titre in fuit. sher-fv Merr-o noted in
t December, r.990, a major amendment to sDD+4 was approved. Detailsregarding the background of this i.ssue are ful]y aetiirea in the 6D;;memo dated 8/9/9L to the pEC, which al-so indic"tL" tir" applicant is no,reguesting this amendment in order to arlow the originalrt ;.;;o;;;expansion to proceed wh1le being relj.eved of the uti_11t-y "nae',.gio"iainjrequirement. At the time of the amendment, the rpfriiunt", dren iy-iOffice Building (GLOB) would have been responsible'to. $15;000 ot ifreexpense to undeiAround the utilities. Holy -Cross Electric had comrnittedto the remainder of tl," expense of 921-0r 000 nasea- on the propo"eJdevelopment for the project which inc_]ud.ed ti," et"".iy, u,.,t tr.,ut- p.-rl-"ithe project has be_en derayed and Hol,y cross slectiii'is now unabr.e tomeet their -ori-ginal commitment, as a resurt, the appricants wourd nowbe required to pay $35r000 j.n order to undergrorrtra t-t'u- rinJs,-.;-;;;.;;;they are unable to meet. The applicants had now come back for another:I.ndn:l-t so they wourd -not be required to pay that amount to undergroundthe utirities. After discussion which e"i"it:-st"a tni" ordinance doesnot .invol-ve Holy Cross ELectrj'c and their originai iolrun:-tment toward theproject' but i-s between sDD*4 and the Town of vail only. peggy osterfoss
Tongg to approve ordinance No. 28 as presented wi-th ."iiiti5i'" ai;;;;i;;staff to be-gln negotiations wlth Holy cross Er.ectrlc and other p.op.iifowners ln the area to resolve the undiergrounding of utilities ai sobn a'spossibre, that Staff's negotiations with Holy cross and/or the otherproperty owners j-nvolved include working ouf fair allocation of thecosts, and that the 1.6t o-f the_ proposed cost of undergrounaing iheutilities on GLoB property be herd as- cash by the Town of vail. Mervlapin seconded the motion. A vote was takEn and the motion pu"seaunanimously, 6-0,
rtem No- 6 was Resor-ution No. L6, series of 1991, a resorutionauthorizing the Town council of the Town of Vai1, cororado, to evar.uatea1l -its options in an effort to protect the public interest of the Townj'n the continuation of the vail si(i area and its effective and proficientmanagement. Mayor Rose read the title in full, Merv r,apiri moved toapprove Resolution No. 16, with a second coming from Tom steinberg.Before a final ro!" _-r?s..taken, Douglas M. Tisdaie, General Bankrupt6ycounsel for GiLlett Holdings, rnc., spoke on behalf of Gillett Ho1;'i;;3to state. He no-ted they welcome the opportunity to expand on aiydialogue beth,een GHr and the town of vaif. a votl was taken and themotion passed unanimously, 6-0.
rtem No' ? on the agenda was Resolution No. ri, series of 199i., aresoluti-on authorizing the Town Manager or his agent to enter intonegotiations for a contract to construct municipat 6tfices within ,,theo1d post office bui.rding". Mayor Rose read the title in furl. r.,.iiyEskwith explained that passage of this resorution wou]d alIow the Towito enter into negotiations for a construction contract that woul-d not-f"
?:._:l:":?l-!l".public bid process. _rhe primary puxpose of proceediisr-n lnrs manner is to avoid additl0nal expenses of approximately $g,005in,working drawings which would be requirSd ro go ""t-'ritt bid documentsand other requiremen.L.r qf the_ bid process. Jim Gibson moved to approveResolutlon No- 17 with the stipulation that advertisi_ng is done first inar1 three (3) focar papers for a reasonabre enough perioa of time so alrinterested contractols would have an opportunity to responcr to it. Tomsteinberg second the motion. A vote was taken and tiie moti.on pu"""Junanimouslyr 6-0.
rtem No. 8 on the agenda was Resorution No. 1g, series of 1-991, aresolution authorizing the To!'rn Manager or his agent to enter intonegotiations for a contract to construct an irriqati-dn connection at theVail Transpoltation center. Mayor Rose read the title in fulr. p"ssyosterfoss moved to approve Resol-ution No. lB requesting contractors willbe contacted within a reasonable enough period dt ti*"'"o ar,r interestedcontractors would lave an opportunity to respond, with a second comingfrom Merv T,apin. A vote wal taken ani the ^otio"'p-"".a unanimousry, fi
rtem No. 9 on the agenda was a carl up of the DRB decision approving amodified landscape plan for the Gasthoi Gramshammer, leppricant: sheikaGramshammer) Andrew Knudtsen asked council to table this item, RobLeVine moved to table this call up for not more thar thirty (30) daysfrom the date of call-up, with a sicond coming from Merv Lapin. A votewas taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6_0.
rtem No ' L0 on the agenda was a car.1 up of the DRB approvar- of McDonald. srepaint of their roof beams from off--white to yerr6w. (Applicant: Hughschnidt) Andrew Knudtsen advised that the beams on the roof at
McDonald's had been painted- yelrow without a DRB apprication havi"ng beensubmitted. staff contacted-Mr. schmidt, and reqriested he submit-a pnsapplication, which he did after the fact. DRB app-roved. the coloich;n;;:Mr . Schmidt spoke brief I-y, slgtlnq he tras -the roof beams ili;i;;annually: Ile_ proposed to council lt-be reft as j_t is now and it;ill berepainted off-white again next sprJ.ng. Kent pointed out that precedeniproblems could arise from a sltuatio; of this- nature. uerv laiin movedto-deny the DRB- approval of McDonald's repaint of their roof b-eams fromoff-whlte to yellow, and the applicant majr ha.re until December 1, 1991,to return the beams to_ the origlnarry approved coIor. Tom stelnbergseconded the motion. A vote was taken a-nd the motion passed 5-1, Ro6LeVine opposed.
There _being no further buslness; Mayo! Rose moved to adJourn the meetlngat 8:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
trA\fru,t+t'1.6{4*ttytJ^ruJ
Ulnules laken by Dorlanne S, Deto
ATTEST:
c:\MrNS.820
TO:ing and Environmental Cornmission
Developnent Department
February L2, L99o
amend Special Development District #
VaiI Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the Gods
Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hill FanilY
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
QI ktr\ol,vpN\\ tfiP5]\\\\--.r, 0 ')
^\fiL,tatU
This project has received one special Developnen! oistrict
approial-in 1987. The approved SDD was then revised in the
sirinrner of 1989. However, the applicant never pursued final
approval fron the Tordn council. Under each of the previous
Sbb r"grr"sts, the applicant proposed to remodel the existing
building. With the Present r t, the applicant would likebuilding. With the present reqluesE, Ene applrcanL wL)
to deurolish the existing building and construct a new
building in the approxifrate original building's footprint
with a iew modifilit:-ons. The reguest to rebuild the Garden
of the Gods includes:
A. 5 dwelling units = L2,548 sq.ft. of GRFA.
B. 1"1 acconnodation units e 4,086 sq.ft. GRFA
4 accommodation unit lock-offs e L,725 sq.ft' GRFA
TOTAL: 15 accommodation units e 5'812 sq'ft' GRFA
c. An increase in sguare footage devoted to 2 employee
dwelling units = 1,802 sq.ft. of GRFA. The exist'ing SDD
callsfor].auandl.duhavingatotalsquarefootageof
73O sq. ft.
D. An increase in common area from the existing anount of
3,575 sq.ft. to 3r712 sq.ft-
E. Construct sidewalks along both sides of Vail Valley
Drive. New planters will be built adjacent to tbe
parking lot 6n the east side of vail valtey Drive (P-2
Parcel).
F. Underground parking of 15 sPaces. The underground
parking allows for the renoval of 2 surface spaces on
Lne eait side and 2 surface spaces on the south side
(Tivoti side) of the project. 2 spaces are_removed from
itre parXing iot on the eist side of Vail Valley Drive to
alloi for the sidewalk and planters. r,andscaping is
proposed for the areas where surface parking is removed.
The parking reguirement is met.
t40 60 -T 6
G.
H.
Build a public bus pull-off with bench on the southeast
corner of the propertY.
The existing height of the building is approxinately 43
feet (ridge-elevition 8219 ft). The proposed height on
the ndrth-end of the building will be 43 ft 6 inches
(ridge elevation 8219 ft t inchesl . Th? south half of ./ifre 5uifaing has a height ot 47 feet (ridge elevation ,/8223 ftl. ine existing zoning of the properly. (public ,A--
accomrnodation zoning) allows for a 48 ft. hfeight for a-u'
sloping roof. The dlilsignated view corridor #5 is not
impacted by ttris proPosal .
* All ridge elevations are rneasured to the f inat -,^-/*e &t'nfinislred roof including any roof cap, etc. lbhfir e^*ffiW
The applicant proposes to restrict alL of the Ll'
acconrnodation units (5812 sg.ft.) as well as 4.
acconmodation unit lock-offs and 3 dwelling units (2882
s.f.) as short term rentals on a Pernanent basis'
A11 of the restricted acconnodation units and a'u'
lock-offs shall be made available to the short-term
rental program.
Definitions:d.u. = dwelling unit or living unit with kitchen
a.u. = accommodation unit or lodge room
a.u. lock-off = A dwelling unit may include one attached
accomnodation lock-off or lodge room.
see the attached zoning analysis and unit use analysis
I.
**Please
charts.
IT. REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST
The Garden of the Gods project is located in the Public
Accommodation zone alist;ict. The existing SDD zoning that
was obtained in 1987 was originally reguested because the
project did not meet the definition of a lodge, was over the
iftowaUte density by .5 dwelling units and had a total conlnon
area that exceeded Lhe altowable. In respect to all other
zoning standards the project met the reguirements of the
Publii Acconmodation Lone district. This new Special
Developnent District request differs frorn the Public
Accourm-odation zoning and existing sDD in the following ways
A.Definition of Lodqe:
The proposal does not meet the definition of a lodge.
accoiaing to the zoning code, Section 18.04.zLo,
Definition of a Lodge:
rrA lodge means a building or group of associated
buifdinqs designed for occupancy.prirnarily-as the
tenporailt lodging prace of individuars or families'
eitler lir acc5nrnoaltion units or dwelling units, in
which the gross residential floor area devoted to
accomrnodati.on units exceeds the gross residential
floor area devoted to dwelling units, and in which
all such units are oPerated under a single
management providing the occupants.tltereof' custonary notet services and facilities'rl
The Public Acconmodation zone requires that, at a
minirnurn, 518 of the total GRFA be devoted to
accommodation units. 53* of the GRFA is in
accommodation units in the existing building. The
approved Special Developnent District allocated 27? of
t-otaf cRF to accornrnodation units- In other words,
there is a 4* increase in GRFA devoted to a.u''s when
comparing the old SDD to the proposed SDD.
GRFA:
Tlre next SDD has a total GRFA of 18'460 square feet' The
proposed GRFA is 855 square feet over the allowable'
bhe- existing SDD is under the allowable GRFA by 857
square feet] The PA zone allows for 17 '594 square feet'
B.
Setbacks:
In previous SDD reviews, the existing building was
prolosed to be remodeled so the setbacks were not
Lnairgea. rn this request' the building will be -courpietely rebuilt. For this reason, the setbacks are
no ionger-a given. The existing building encroaches
into tf,e west, north and south setbacks. Below is a
sumnary of how the existinq building setbacks compare to
New SDD
nt\( IEasr ao ft/9J'
West f, ft A'ft'
North I ft..l,s-ft.
@w@ing)
-z ltSouth*ft6,{f,'
v
Existinq
East 20 ft
Ylest ,2 ft
North 1.4 ft
South 9 ft
In respect to all of the other zoning standards and parking,
the project meets the requirements of the Public
Accomrnodation zone district.
rrr. zoNrNq CoNSTDERATTONS RET,ATTVE TO THrS PROPOSAL
A. Uses:
Please see Section Iv.B
B. Densitv,/GRFA:
Please see Section IV.B
D.
E.
Setbacks
See Section IV.F
Heiqht
The height proposed is within the maximum allowed
feet for a sloPing roof.
Site Coveraqe
The site coverage is betow the allowable of 9 '677feet. The proposed site coverage is 7r787-square
feet.
Parking requirements are met for this proposal .
of 48
square
ParkinqF.
rv.ALUATION OF THE PR
CRITERIA
USING SPE DEVEI,o ISTRICT
A.
Relative to Architecturalt, Buffer Zones, IdIntenta
B.Uses, Activi and
effic
uses and act
Stvle, BuIk Buildin
acter, V sual
ch ide a atible
nsh with sur undin
SI
The architecture of the building is significantJ-y
upgraded by this proposal . The use of stone dnd stucco
a-aiitional-landsclping, removal of six surface parking
spaces and underground parking will inprove the-
aipearance of th6 building. ihe roof has been designed
s-o- tftat there will be no irnpacts on the designated view
corridor. The building location is basically.the sane'
Ilowever, areas where the building encroached into the
setbacks have been decreased slight1y at the closest
points (north and rtest setbacks) . The proposal will
have a positive irupact on the character of the
neighborhood.
Densitv
The proposal is one du under the allowable density for
the Fublic Acconmodation zone district. For PA
zoning, 12.5 dwelling units (d.u.) are allowed' l1'5
dweltinq units are proposed. (Please remember 2
acconrnodation units-= 1 dwelling unit). rt is positive
that the project is actually under the allowable
density.
Lodqe Definition
Sinilar to the approved SDD, the amended SDD falls short
of neeting the aLiiniti.on of a lodge which would require
that nore than 50* of the GRFA be devoted to
acconmodation units (a.u.'s). However, tbe nehr SDD
actually allocates nore GRFA (Lt2L6 sq ft) to-
accornrnodation units than the existing SDD. The average
size of the accommodation unit is also increased in the
new proposal from 287 square feet (existing SDD) -to 372
squa-re teet. The nunbei of acconmodation units does
decrease frorn 16 ( accommodation units plus acconmodation
unit lock-offs--otd SDD) to 15 accommodation units and
accommodation unit lock-offs in the new proposal' A1so,
the nunber of dweLling units has been decreased from I
d.u.'s to 6 d.u.'s in the new proposal . However, the
GRFA for the dwelling units has increased from l2,]-4l
sguare feet (old sDDi to L2,648 square feet in the new
SDD for d.u.'s.
In general , the new SDD is an improvenent over the
exiiting sDD in that the number of d.u.'s is decreased,
the size of the acconmodation unit is increased' and the
project is no longer over the allowable density. The
ifi6nt increase in enre (866 s.f.) does not have a rnajor
negitive impact on the project or surrounding
properties.
Restricted Units
As stated in the previous SDD memo, the Rarnshorn project
was considered to be a similar proposal to the Garden of
the Gods. In analyzing this type of request, the staff
has taken the position that uraintaining rental
restricted units for the bed base is positive for the
eomrnunity. The intent of the requirement that a
rnajority-of the project square footage be devoted to
aclornrnodation units is to naintain the purpose of the
Public Accommodation district as a rrsite for lodges and
residential accornrnodations for visitors.rr (Section
r.8.22.110)
Due to the fact that Special Development District zoning
is once again requested, there is some fl'exibility in
how the iitent of ttre public Accommodation zone district
may be maintained without neeting the precise
re-guirernent to have a najority of sguare footage devoted
to accommodation units. The staff originally analyzed
this project in terms of available rental units orilkeyslfr i.e., au's or du's that are available for rent'
The-niw proposal has 21 rrkeysrr available for guests'
this nunbei of rrlgEvsrr is based on the fact that 15
accornmodation unit3 and 6 dwelling units are available
as POTENIIAL short term rental units for guests' of the
21 F6!ent-T51 rentable units, 18 witl be restricted as
snoit tern rentals including a dwelling units. The
percent of units available for short term rental
increases frorn 7o* or L7 rrkeysrr to 858 or lSrrkeys'rl
GRFA
The additional GRFA (866 square feet) is due certainly
to the fact that units area being expanded, but also
because the circulation within the structure has been
designed in a more efficient manner.
Employee Housinq
Tbe applicant has also agreed to improve the existing
enprolle unit situation for the building. Two enployee
units will be added having a total square footage of
L,8o2 sguare feet. The total existing squ?re footage
devoted to enployee units will be increased by Lo72
sqluare feet when compared to the existing SDD.
c.
D.
A11 parking reguirements are net.
Confornit ].licab
ance Pol
el sof Vailw
P es Urban PIans
I,AND USE PI.,AN
The Land Use Plan also supports this proposal in the
following rrays:
1.3 The quality of developrnent should be naintained and
upgraded whenever Possib1e.
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used
rnore efficientlY.
3.2 The village and Lionshead areas are the best
location ior hotels to serve the future needs of
the destination skiers.
3.3 Hotels are inportant to the continued success of
the Tovrn of VaiI, therefore conversion to
condominiurns should be discouraged.
4.2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable
so long as the existing character of each area j-s
presenred through irnplernentation of tbe Urban
besign Guide Plan and the vail Village Master
PIan.
5.1 Additional residential growth shoul-d continue to
occur prinarily in existing, platted areas and as
appropiiate in-new areas where high hazards do not
exist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made
available through private efforts, assisted by
Iinited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail,
with appropriate restrictions.
5.5 The existing ernployee housing base should be
preserved and upgraded. Additional enployee
iousing needs slou1d be accomrnodated at varied
sites throughout the conmunitY
F.
E.dentificati
Not applicable.
buil
tiqa of na
ocatio
ve to tural turestv of the
ed for both vehicles and
off s te tra
rovlslons
--.-_
esponslve
oes
and
The applicant has developed a site plan that is
functional and has a high level of aesthetic quality.
The amount of open space, mass and bulk of the building
ind pedestrian/vehicular ci-rculation have been.planned
in a- sensitive manner. An inportant question is why is
it appropriate to allow the new building to encroach
into the 20 foot setbacks? These encroachments are
supportable, as the configuration of the building'
acLess, and parking are urade more functional with some
ftexilitity tor th; 20 foot setbacks. The building
could be pushed into the northeast corner of the site
which wouid create problens for traffic circulation,
separate the buitdiirg fron pool amenities and possibly
inpact the Vorlaufer to a greater degree.
Under the new sDD, the building will continue to
encroach into a drainage and utility easernent. A11 of
the utilities except for the cable TV have vacate$rthe ,J7'teasement. Public Works wilL agree to vacatetltealz<a*f*.'
6,{fuarainage easement as long as the applicant agrees to"0 constrrict curb, gutter, ind other necessary.drainage
inprovements to the east, north and south sides of the
property.
vecretation aII et
connunitv.
e circulati sten desitriansstion.
The Ramshorn has built a sidewalk along the south west
side of their property that also extends over to Golden
Peak. It nakel sLnse for the Garden of the Gods to add
the two sidewalks, as pedestrians coming frorn the
transportation center witt walk along both sides of VaiI
Valle| Drive. Guests of the Garden of the Gods wil-l
also use the sidewalk.
The present bus stop is located at the northeast corner
of tire property. The new southwest location is better
H.
for the orf,ners of the Garden of the Gods in that the bus
stop does not block the visibility of their site' (Four
trels will need to be relocated due to the new bus
stop. ) In addition, safety is increased for vehicles
entEring and existing off the Garden of the Gods
properti as well as ior the general public'. - It is very
ieaionaLte and approprlate to request that the applicant
rnake these irnprov-rnents given the request for an sDD'
ctional aes tic I nq and o ce ].n
er ze erve 1f
eation ons.
The project proposal includes the following landscape
improvements:
* nett planters along the west side of the pool
* Landscape buffer along west side of property
,t existin| spa by pool ieplaced by landscaping* 4 on-siie iurelce parking spaces replaced by
landscapingt 2 parkiirg ipaces on P-2 parcel removed and replaced
by sidewatk and Planters
'r cirrb and gutter lna any asphalt work necessary to
handle the drainage problerns witl be rebuilt
The landscaping proposal is extremely.positive and will
add to an "ireidy weff landscaped project' The only
area of concern is that 4 trees will need to be
relocated or replaced to allow for the bus stop'
I.Phas lan or subdivis tha 1In ntain
kable unctio efficient re ationsh
o the develo t of the aI Deve opment
Not applicable.
surnmer of L991.
The entire project is to be built the
District.
V. VAIL VILI,AGE I.{ASTER PIAN ANALYSIS
Below is a
relates to sunmary of howthis proposal .
the vail Village Master Plan
A.Illustrative Plans:1. Land Use Plan:
The Garden of the Gods property is indicated as
"medium/hlgh density residentialrr. This section
states thai a najority of the Village's.Iodge rooms
and condoniniun units are located in ttris land use
category. The goal of the plan is to naintain
these aieas as predoninantly rrlodging oriented with
retail developn-nt liroited to small arnounts of
rf accessory retailtrtr.
The proposal generally conpties with this
description of the land use category.
open Space Plan:
- This plan calls for planting buffers along the east
siae 6f vail valley Drive adjacent to the surface
parking on the P-2 Parcel .
The applicant has worked with the Planning
oepartrnent and Town engineer to arrive at a
solution that renoves the existing planters and
private parking from the pubJ'ic right-of-way to
Ittow splce for a new sidewalk and planters.
3. Parking and Circulation Pfan:
This plan calIs for sidewalks along both sides of
Vail Valley Drive.
Sidewalks are included in the proposal .
4. Conceptual Building Height PIan:
This property falls wlthin the three to four
uraxirnirn ianse of building stories. A story is
defined as nine feet of height with no roof
inctuded. The proposed height falls under the
public accomnohation zoning maximurn for a sloping
ioof of 48 feet. There are no impacts on the
designated view corridor #5. Please see the
attathed letter from Eagle Val1ey Engineering and
photo of the view corridor-
Sub-area Concepts
The Garden of the Gods falls under the east Village sub-
area No.7. This plan states that the rnost important
public improverrenis in the sub-area relate to pedestrian
2.
B.
10
and bicycle safety. The public right-of-way should be
maintained and expanded for public use wheneverpossible. Sub-area 7-3 and 7-4 relate specifically to
this property. The plan states:
1. #7-3 Vail Valley Drive Sidewalk - A sidewalk
(separated frorn the road where possible) through
the- sub-area linking the Gotden Peak base facility
with the VaiI Transportation center. Landscape
irnprovernents and pedestrian crosslralks to be
inLluded as required to meet demands of pedestrian
traffic. Special enphasis on 3.1, 3.4.
2. #?-4 Parking Lot Infilt - Presently utilized as
parking for adjacent properties- While zoned for
parking (covenint restrictions also Iinit use of' tnis parcel to parking) , this site could
accommodate a srnall lodge. Practica] difficulties
in developing this site include the covenant
restrictions-in naintaining on-site parking for
existing and future demand. Possibl'e public uses
for this site include pedestrian and bus
circulation inrprovements. Special emphasis on 2'I,
2.3,2.6t 3.1r 5.3, and 5.4.
The proposal conplies with Sub-Area 7-3 and does not
protriUit the eventual irnplementation of 7-4.
Below is a sumrnary of the goals, objectives, and
policies that relate to the Garden of the Gods
proposal:
GOAL #1:
ENCOUR,AGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVEI'PMENT !{HILE PRESERVING
THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILI,AGE IN ORDER
TO SUSTAIN TTS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY.
1.3 Ob'iective:
Enlrance new development and redevelopment through public
inprovements done by private developers working in
cooperation with the Town.
Vail Viltaqe Master Pl.an Goals, obiectiYeF., Pglicies'to@
ll
1.3.L Policy:
PubIic improvements shall be developed with tle
participalion of the private sector working with the
Town.
GOAL #2:
TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR
ROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILI.AGE AND
THE COMMUNITY AS A }IHOLE.
2.3 obiective:
Increase the nunrber of residential units available for
short tern overnight accomnrodations.
2.3.1 Policy:
The development of short tern acconrnodation units is
strongly encouraged. Residential units developed above
existini density-levels are reguired to be designed or
managed-in a rnanner that nakes them available for short
term overnight rental .
2.5 Obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations and
naintenince of existing todging and conmercial
facilities to better serve the needs of our guests'
2.5.1 PoLicv:
Recreational amenities, conmon areas, neeting facilities
and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as
part of any redevelopment of lodging propertj-es'
2.6 obiective:
Encourage the development of affordable trousing units
through the efforts of the private sector.
2.5. l- Policv:
Enployee housing units may be required as part of any
nei oi redevelolnent proj-ct reguesting density over the
allowable by existing zoning-
L2
2.6.2 Policv
Eurployee housing shall be developed with appropriate
re-str-ictions so as to ensure their availability and
affordability to the local work force.
2.5.3 Policy
The Town of Vail uray facilitate the development of
affordable housing Ly providing linited assistance'
GOAL, #3:
TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANC]NG OF THE
WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILI,AGE.
3. l- Obiective:
Physically inprove the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
3.1.1 Policy:
Private development projects shall incorporate
streetscape inprovenents (such-as Paver^ treatments,
landscapi;g, lighting and seating areas) along adjacent
pedestrian rtays.
3.4 obiective:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only wallcways
and ac-cessible greenspace areas' including pocket parks
and stream access.
3.4.2 Pol-icv:
Private development projects shall be required to.
incorporate nei sidewalks along-streets adjacent to the
proielt as designated in the Vail village Master PIan
inaTor Recreation Trails Master Plan.
GOAL #4:
EO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND
GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES .
IJ
4.1.1 Policv:
Active recreational facilities shalI be preserved (or
relocated to accessible locations elsewhere in the
Village) in any development or redevelopment of proPerty
in Vail Village.
GOAL #5:
INCREASE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY' AND IMPROVE
AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCUINTION SYSTEM
THROUGHOUT THE VILI,AGE.
5.1.5 Policv:
RedeveloPment projects shall be strongly encouraged to
provide irnaergiouira or visually concealed parking'
Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors
throughout tbe village.
5.4.2 Policv:
Medians and rights-of-ways shalL be landscaped'
For the sake of brevity, staff wilt not address each goal,
p-fity, and objective 36parately. The project supports the
vitlage PIan in the following waYs:
1. The redevelopment is a high quality proposal that
maintains ar-chitectural scale as well as alrnost all the
zoning standards for the underlying PA zoning'
2- Significant public inprovements are incorporated into
the redeveloirnent sucir as sidewalks, the bus stop, and
landscaPing.
3. Short-term accomrnodation units are upgraded'
4. Large and nore functional employee housing units are
proposed.
5. The pedestrj_an experience is enhanced by sidewalk and
landscaPe inProvenents.
L4
Underground parking is included, while surface spaces
are r6rnoved.- The reroaining parking is visually
screened. The project meets its reguired parking'
Public transportation is improved and nade safer as a
result of the new bus stoP.
IV. STAFF RECOMI.IENDATION
The staff recorunends approvat of the proposal' .Basically,our position is very siirilar to our recommendation on the
Rarnshorn project. ls stated previously: "Althougb the
i"uUifity of the end product to neet the strict definition of
a lodge is not what w-e would ideally like to see, we feel
that fhe property will continue to function as a lodge and
meet the intLnt of providing high guality guest
accommodations in tire Public acionuroaation zone district."
The applicant has provided significant improvements through
the rldeveloprnent wtricn wiLl benefit both guests and owners
ofthecarde-noftheGods,aswellasthegeneralpublic.TheproposalmeetsthecriteriaoutlinedintheSpecial
Oeveloprnent District review, goals of the Land Use Plan, as
well as Vail Village Master Plan.
5.
1.
staff approval is contingent upon the applicant meeting the
following conditions:
The owners of the Garden of tbe Gods shall construct
The applicant shall subrnit a revised employee housing
agreeinint with a floor plan that clearl-y indicates the
15cation, tlpe of unit, and sguare footage for each
πt;'rroiriing unit. The two ernployee housing units
sn^aff'be restrilted pernanentlv. The agreement shall be
subnitted and approv&Tf tne owner and the Town of Vail
be f ore a bu i 1 d in;- p"ttii' i s-- is"gea-f;i,f-n;,P.r-o^j P9l r 4 F.4.* .,,7i 6 l&6 fi ,, 7 i"t G L -;i;rZ t . yln*tj a""/l tLu1 t t<'a
"fi rk / i-tp- ef t'l a @1k^ufl (
The applicant shalt sriUnit L written staternent agree1.ng
to re-sLrict the proposed acconmodation uni-ts,
accornmodation unit iock-offs and three dwelling units
as short term rental units on a pennanent basis' Even
if the project is conduminiurnized, these units shall let
ho inelldel in tslre eondorn'-.unigat*e,* but muet remain as
short term rentals. This written aqEga&ent shall be*#*
subrnitted by the owner and approv:ffif): *rh5t*2?j2iF"t,;;;ii;,ils i9^"]f is issue$ ibn,tX"*ei?A;Eh.'* 7k *r-rLC ar'o-'t-,ve"no*( a-#aF)AuT rLdv{ /v
t
2.
3.sidewalk and bus stop on the east side of their
property as well as a sidewalk and planters
6.
ttre-p-z parcel . The final design for the sidewalks, r,
plantersl and bus stop shall be-submitted by the 4
ippricant to the Publ-ic works Department and cornrnunity
oevelopnent Department for approval . Tbe sidewalks,
pLanters and bus stop shall be constructed subsequent to
Ltre issuance of the building perrnit and prior to the
issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the
project. rhe applicant shall subnit a written staternent
lgreeing to this condition for the Town attorney's
approvat before a building perruit is released for the
project.
If needed, the Garden of the Gods shall also provide a
public easenent for the bus stop, sidewalk, and signage'
ifre applicant shalt subrnit the easement aqreement to the
'i'own lttorney and Toun counciL for approval before a
temporary certificate of occupancy is released for the
proj ect.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct
curb and gutter as well as any other drainage (asphalt
work etc.i inprovenents necessary along the-north'
soutlr, ani ea-st sides of their property. Final -designfor the drainage irnprovements shall be subrnitted by the
appticant to the puUtic lilorks DePartment for final
a||rovaL. These irnprovements shall be constructed
sirl=eqoent to the issuance of a building pennit and
prior to the issuance of a temPorary certificate of
occupancy.
A revocable right-of-way agreernent shalf be conpleted
for any encroa6hments on the public right-of-way'. This
agreement must be subnitted to the conmunity Developnent
D6partnent and aPproved before a building permit will be
released on the Project.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall subnit a
utitity and drainage easement vacation to the Town
councii for approvil before a building permit may be
released for , the ,proj ect. , t , t -r ,7 All 4}<da@ lMA be aas u'd nl-tJ t(a- tu*ld
{econinendat/ions to the DUsiqn Review Board
The vent on the ,wes! side of the pool should be
removed/r ,0e4^a4 by /d}1*(niy
The north elevation of the building should have nore
transparency.
1,.
3. The four trees that will be either relocated or replaced
due to the constructlon of the bus stop should be
addressed. If the treee nust be removed, Iandscaping
that has substantially the sane positl.ve inpact should
be required.
17
TO:
FROU:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
o
Ng^nd Uxd s{'--
Planning and Environmental Comrnission
Connunity DeveloPment DePartment
February 12. L99o
A request to amend Special Development District #18,
vair virrage 5th riling, the Garden of the Gods Lodge'
Applicant: !Irs. A. G. HiIl FanilY
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
This project has received one special Developrnent District
ipp."iif-in 198?. Tbe approved-SDD Itas then revised in the
summer of 1999. Holreverl-ttte applicant never pursued final
J00 Ht+
approval from the Town Council. Under each 9f.tl:-P1:11:Y:;;;-;;;";t;; ah; applicant proposed to remodel the existins
building. With the Present est, the applicant would like
denolish the
The request to rebu
of ttre Gods includes:
6 dwelling units - L2t548 sq.ft. of GRFA'@
@
@
@
o
-6u."ottodation units g 4,086 sq.ft'
@.cototodation unit }ock-of fs g L,725
Foral: 15 accommodation units g 5,812
An increase in sqluare footage devoted to 2 enployee
a;"Iiil;-uniis = 1,802 sq.ft. of GRFA' The existing sDD
caLts for L au and 1 du liaving a total square footage of
730 sq. ft.
An increase in comnon area from the existing arnount of
3 ,575 sg. ft. to 3,712 sq. ft.
Construct sidewalks along both sides of Vail valley
Drive. New planters will be built adjacent to.the
piifi"g lot -on the east side of vail Valley Drive (P-2
Parcel) .
GRFAsg.ft. GRFAsq.ft. GRFA
Underground Parkingparking all-ows for
ivoli side) o
of 15 spaces. The underground
the renoval of 2 surface spaces
eand2 surface spaceS-on e
;ii";--;; €he sidewalk and pJ-anters. Landscaping is
piop"tea for the areas w{rere surface parking is removed'
)#.
] hTivo6 *:t.'-'"1.:"-t=Ht-ig'
r h 6^l'E
ldaq ttR'M''v'- d \
I
ffis-are renoved fron
ffitre;Efside of vail varleY Drive to
G
A\y
Build a public bus pull-off with bench on the southeast
corner of thE-prE perE1r;-----------"r
The exlsting height of the building is approxinately 43
feet (ridge elevation 8219 ft). Ttre proposed height on
the north-end of the buitding wilt be 43 ft 6 inches
(ridge elevation 82L9 tt 6 inches). Thg south half of
tfre Uuitaing has a height of 47 feet (ridge elevation
8223 ft). The existing zoning of the property (pubJ-ic
accommodation zoning) allows for a 48 ft. height for a
sloping roof. The designated view corridor #5 is not
rf,,,":.:: :l::.;:::'::" ,..",,""d ,. ,he ,i";1
L finished roof including any roof cap, etc. J
The applicant proposes to restrict all of the 1-1
accornrnodation units (5812 sg.ft.) as well as 4
acconnodation unit lock-offs and 3 dwelling units (2882
s.f.) as slrort tern rentals on a perlnanent basis.
A11 of the restricted accommodation units and a.u.
lock-offs shall be made available to the short-term
rental program.
Definitions:d.u. = dwelling unit or living unit with kitchen
a.u. = accomrnodation unit or lodge roon
a.u. lock-off : A dwelling unit may include one attached
accomnodation lock-off or lodge roon.
see the attached zoning analysis and unit use analysis
r.
**Please
charts.
II.
Ttre Garden of
Acconmodation
was obtained
the Gods Project
zone district.in 1987 was ori
Iocated in the Public
exist n1
In respect to a
reguirements of the
This new Specialfron the Publicin tbe following waYs
ls
The
nal
#h
Qtvtvgllgo>
z on ing standa=ftfll-tEE
Public Accommodation
Development District
Accommodation zoning
ln
proj ect rnet the
zone district.
request differs
and existing sDD
tex
A.Definition of Lodqe:
The proposal does not meet the definition of a lodge.
According to the zoning code, Section 18.04.2L0,
Definition of a Lodge:
trA lodge neans a building or group of associated
buildings deslgned for occupancy-prinarily as the
tenporary lodging place of individuals or families,
either in accornnodation unLts or dwelling units, in
which the gross residential floor area devoted to
acconmodation units exceeds the gross residential
floor area devoted to dwelling units, and in which
all such units are operated under a single
management providing the occupants thereof
customary hotel serrrices and facilities.'r
The Public Accommodation zone requires that, at a
minimum, 51t of the total GRFA be devoted to
accommodation units. 53t of the GRFA is in
accommodation units iffiilding. The
approved Special Developrnent District allocated 278 of
total GRFA Jtq acconmodation units. In other words,
there is a(a*lincrease in GRFA devoted to a.u.'s when
comparing t)6 old SDD to the proposed SDD.
GRFA:
L8.46O square feet. The
over the allowable. -
B.
1 GRFA Of
sguare feet
e
square feet. The PA zone allows for L7,594 feet.
c.Setbacks:
In previous SDD reviews, the existing building was
proposed to be rernodeled so the setbacks were not
changed. In this request, the building will be
conpletely rebuilt. For this reason, the setbacks are
no longer a given, The existing building encroaches
into the west, north and south setbacks. Below is a
surnmary of how the existing building setbacks compare to
The new sDD has
proposed GRFA is
,.--.( New SDD/
-€East 2O ftwest L ft
North 3 ft
East 2O ft
west .2 ft
North 1.4 ft
(exctuding retainingwall for underground Parking)
South 8 ft South 9 ft
In respect to all of the other zoning standards and parking,
tne pr-oject meets the requirenents of the Public
Acconmodation zone district.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS REI,ATIVE TO TH]E-!BOTQE4!
A.Uses 3
Please see Section IV.B
Densitv./GRFA:
Please see Section IV.B
Setbacks
See Section IV.F
Heiqht
The height proPosed is within the naximum allowed
feet for a sloPing roof.
Site Coveraqe
The site coverage is below the al1owab1e of 9,677
feet. The proposed site coverage is 7,787-square
feet.
F.Parkinq
Parking requirements are met this proposal .for
SPEC
B.
c.
D.
E.
of 48
square
IV.EVALUATION OF THE PRO
CRITERIA
USTN DEVEIOPMENT DISTRICT
tvle, Bulk, Buildin
a VisuaI
t
The architecture of the building is significantly
upgraded by this ProPosal.additional landscaP
The roof has designed
cts on the desiqnated view
ide a conpatib
e ations surroundin
uses and Et!iIi!Y-1
ic"Jrnt"Aation units (a.u.'s) . ttot"vtt' th"-ltffi
> 6EraloAl,&actuatly allocalegg o
e existing SDD. The
size of the a unit is also increased
are feet (existing sDD)nert proposal f unitssquare feet. Th rofac units plus accdecrease fron 15 (acc
A"i.ud I
sro;
aR
SO
whiit
reB.
s6tfattn-ere will be ri6-furpacts on the aleslgnaEeo vleh
corridor. The building locltion j's basically.the same'
i"t"""r, areas where tie building encroached into the
setbacki have been decreased slightly at the closest
ooints (north and west setbacks). The proposal will
lrave a iositive irnpact on the character of the
neighborhood.
Density
The proposal is one du under the allowable density for
tne'puUiic Accomnodation zone district' For PA
,""i"g, iz.s at"tting units (9:9') are allowed' 1l'5
awefriirg units are pioposed. - (Please remember 2
i""otto6ation unii='= i dwelling unit) ' rt is-positive
itrii-Ett" project is actually under the allowable
density.
Lodqe Definition
Sirnilar to the approved SDD, the amended SDD falls shorL
oi neeting the dEiinition oi a lodge whigh. wourd reguire
that more than 5OB of the GRFA be devoted to
>,;r,v6AIlr
lLaulo IiAIL
r$fY,h#
un
the number
d.u.'s to
of dwell
6 d.u.'s
new pro l- . Also,
g units has been ecreased fron I
in the new proposal.However, the
@ si91-!sfa,_e19_ffi
GRFA eased from 1.2, 14
It b'tE
/) iYl-*6?
Jn<fn generalexistsize of
pro
negative inpactproperties.
n GRFA (866 s.f.
on the proJect or surrounding
enent over
tnc , and
a
oes no e a mal or
the new
Ah > thc"rlw
As stated in the previous SDD nemo, the Ranshorn proiect
was considered to be a similar proposal to ttre Garden of
the Gods. In analyzing this tlpe of request, the staff
has_taken the posiilgLJhat Inaf;ta+nincl -feT*l
^--fasbrig-!-Sq-u!i-tF, foi.:--ttt' uca ha* i- posit
narnrnrrni tv- The intent of the requlrement that a
mal orrEy
courmunity.-The intent of the requirenEnFthat aneTorffof the proJect square footage be devotethe proJect footage be devole{
18. 22 . 110)
Due to the fact that Special Developrnent District zoning
is once again reguested, there is sorne flexibility in
how the intent of the public Accommodation zone district
rnay be naintained without neeting the precise
reguireruent to have a rnajority of sguare footage devoted
to accommodation units. The staff originally analyzed
this project in ter:ms of available rental units orrrkeysrrr i.e., du's or du's that are available for rent.
The new proposal ha available for guests.
This nurnber of rrkeYs d on the fact thaL 15-----accomnodation units and 6 dwelling units aft available-rerrtal' tmits'
poEen cted as
short ternpercent of
increases
/rzenfa---\
\= __,---,ihe additional GRFA (866 square feet) is due certainly
to the fact that units area being expanded, but also
because the circulation within the structure has been
designed in a more efficient manner.
Ernplovee Housinq
Alfne applicant has also agreed to improve the existing
llernploy-e unit situation for the building. Two employee
rentals including 3units available for dwelling units. The
short term rental
o
units will be added having a total square footage of
1,802 square feet. The total existing square footage
devoted to employee units will be increased by 1072
square feet when compared to the existing SDD.
c.
D.
I,AND USE PI,AN
The Land Use Plan also supports this proposal in the
following ways:
L.3 The quality of development should be maintained and
upgraded whenever Possible.
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used
nore efficiently.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best
location for hotels to serve the future needs of
the destination skiers.
3.3 I{otels are inportant to the continued success of
the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to
condominiums should be discouraged.
4.
I
It
I
lr
\
\\d.
I
\
I
i
I5!
I
!I
2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable
so long as the existing character of each area is
preserved through inplenentation of the Urban
Design Guide Plan and the Vail- village Master
PLan.
1 Additional residential grottth should continue to
occur prirnarily in existing, platted areas and as
appropriate in nelr areas rthere high hazards do not
exist.
3 Affordable enployee housJ-ng should be made
available through private efforts, assisted by
linited incentives, provided by the Town of Vai1,
with appropriate restrictions.
.5 The existing enployee housing base sbould be
preserved and upgraded. Additional ernployee
housing needs should be acconunodated at varied'sites throughout the conmunitY
Identification and rnitiqation of natuf?l, aTrl/of qe919qic
ffit ttre property on vrhich the spec
Not applicable.
te lan r.di
rovls
re
v
conrmunity.
be pushed into
The Ramshorn has built
side of their Property
locatio open space
onaf development
eaturesof the
to produce a
The applicant has developed a site plan that is
functional and has a high level of aesthetic guality.
encroach
These encroachments af there funy for the 20 foot setbacks.
the northeast co
The bu
could
which would create roEl-€drs-.fo ationi
ct the Vorlaufe;t-rron pogl__arc!$ics
to--a-gre6ter degree.
b1
Under the new SDD, the building will continue to
encroach into a drainage and utility easement. All of
the utilities except for the cable TV have vacated the
easement. Pubtic Works will agree to vacate the
35#+if,ffi ;,ffi "l:"3,,3= otl!,"# *:3 l:r"3ffi ;.;:
improvement-s \terfhe east, north and south sides of the
prbperty. 44ttM '
I
The circulation desi or both vehicles and
estr traffic
rculation.
te
{rtr
Peak. It makes sen or the Ga en of
the twai sl-aewatfi, as pedestrians ng
a sidewalkthat also
along
extends
the southover to I'test
Goldento add
es of Vail
t\ lftre present bus stop is located at the northeast corner
}t.h .)Kof ttre property. The new southwest location is betterVn, /\-
rr lttrrrlvl
tt.
n additj-oI; sareEy rs Lncreas:q. -r(ina existi;g off Lhe Garden o-f - the Gods
;;;p;;ai as well as ior the general public'.. rt is verv
llreasonable and appiopriate t5 request that-the applicant
U;il;-Ih;.. itpt""it"irtt given the request for an sDD'
The project proposal includes the following landscape
irnprovenents:
Gods in that the bus
of their site. {Xgfto the new lrus
In addit
The landscaPing
add to an aI 4 trees will neeQof
reloca or replaced to afF-w-for tlte bus s
1V at will lna
new planters along the west side of the pool
ii"a^=""p" buffer itong west side of property
""itti"i spa by pool ieplaced by landscaping
a on-slte iurflcL parking spaces replaced by
landscapingl-ititriitg ipaces on P-2 parcel removed and repraced
by sidewalk and Planterscirrl ana gutter ind any asphalt-work necessary to
tr""af" tft6 arainage prolterns will be rebuilt
vehiEles
and will
onl
-\*
\l
I.Pha
oroposal is extremelY Positive
v rLff landscaPed Project' TIte
wo
str
Not applicable.
sumner of 1991.
ff ent relat
a1 elo
The entire Project is to be built the
V. VAIL VILI,AGE IIIASTER PIAN ANALYSIS
Below is a sumrrarY of how the Vail
relates to this ProPosal.
Village Master PIan
A.IllustratjJt€-+Bls:1. -r.and -Use PIan:)
The carden of the Gods Property is indicated as
rrnadirrrn/hicrh densitv residentialrr. This sectionitv res
!hat=.q-age's I
retail development linited to small arnounts of
IIow space for a new sidewalk and planters.
This plan calls for sidewalks
vail vatley Drive.
along both sides of
-ana-co@hiniun units are located fn-Ettl5 land use
qateqelD---Thd g6ar-6-
tfG6;reas as predoninantly rrlodging oriented with
2.
Itaccessory retaililtr.
The propo-al generally conplies with this
description of tbe land use category.
This plan calls for planting,buffers along the east
side of VaiI Valley Drive adjacent to the surface
parking on the P-2 Parcel.
he applicant has worked with the Planning
epartnent and Town engineer.to-arrive at a
olution that renoveE the existing planters and
rivate parking fron the public right-of-way to
3.
B.
Sidewalks are included in the proposal .
This property falls within the-gbJp#r*rs. A story is
eftned a
included. t'Etproposed height fal1s under the
public accornnodation zoning maximuru for a slopinq
ioof of 48 fe-gF. There are no impacts on the
designatEd-:flew corridor #5. Please see the
atta-hed letter fron Eagle Valley Engineering and
photo of the view corridor.
Sub-area Concepts
The Garden of the Gods falls under the east Village Sub-
area No.7. f
;@s--i-D-the srrt=area re+ate te Pc4aq+rian
10
and bicycle safety. The
expandedpossible. Sub-area 7-3this property. The plan
public right-of-waY should be
for public use whenever
and 7-4 relate sPecificallY to
states:
L. #7-3 VaiI Valley Drive Sidewalk - A sidewalk
(seParated fron the road where possible) througlt
€trJ sul-area linking the Golden Peak base facit ity
with the Vail Transportation center. Landscape
improvements and pedestrian crosswalks to be
inltuaea as requiied to meet denands of pedestrian
traffic. Special emphasis on 3.1, 3.4.
2. #7-4 Parking Lot Infill - Presently utilized as
parking for adjacent properties. While zoned for
parking (covenant restrictions also linit use of
tfris pircel to parking), this site could
acconnodate a smalJ- lodge. Practical difficulties
in developing this site include the covenant
restrictions-in naintaining on-site parking for
existing and future demand. Possibl'e public uses
for this site include pedestrian and bus
circulation irnprovements. Special ernphasis on 2.L,
2.3,2.6r 3.1, 5.3, and 5.4.
\\;*"x:€";i: :::iti:i ffil"i:Hlli3"' ;? ;:l . $'.tfrr"{t 1'
CIESVail V Master an GoaI ob
and Action teps that a e Gods
Proposal .
Below is a surnmary of the goals, objectives, and
policies that relite to the Garden of the Gods
proposal:
GOAL #1:
ENCOI'R,,AGE HIGIT QUALITY REDEVEI,OPMENT WHTLE PRESERVING
TH8 UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILI,AGE IN ORDER
TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COI{!,IUNITY AND IDENTITY.
L.3 ob'iective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment througtt public
improvements done by private developers working in
cooperation with the Town.
11
Pulrlic improvements shalt be developed with tle
participalion of the private sector working with the
Toltn.
GOAL #2:
TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR
ROT ND ECONOI.IIC HEALTH Al[D VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND
THE COMMT'NITY AS A WHOI-,E.
2.3 ob'iective:
fncrease the nuurber of residential units available for
short terrn overnight accomnodations.
2.3.L Policv:
The developrnent of short term accomnodation units is
strongly encouraged. Residential units developed above
existin| density-levels are reguired to-be designed or
managed-in a manner that makes them available for short
terrn overnight rental .
2.5 obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations and
maintenince of existing lodginq and comnercial
facilities to better serve the needs of our guests'
2.5.1 PoIicY:
Recreational amenities, common areas, meeting facilities
and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as
part of any redevelopnent of J.odging properties.
2.5 obiective:
Encourage the development of affordable housing units
through the efforts of the private sector.
2.6.L Policv:
Employee housing units may be required as part of any
n"i ol redevelopment project reguesting density over the
allowable bY existing zoning.
L2
2.6.2 Policy
Ernployee housing sball be developed with appropriate
reitri"tions so as to ensure thej-r availability and
affordabitity to the tocal work force.
2.6.3 Policv
The Town of Vail rnay facilitate the development of
affordable housing Ly provlding linited assistance'
GOAL *3:
TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCING OF THE
WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOIII THE VILI,AGE.
3.1 obiective:
Physicalty irnprove the existing pedestrian ways by
J.andscaping and other inprovements.
3.1.1 Policv:
Private development projects shall incorporate
streetscape inlrovernents (such,as Paver. treatments,
iina"c"piirg, lighting and-seating areas) along adjacent
pedestrian ways.
3.4 Obiective:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways
and aclessibte ltreenspace areas, including pocket parks
and stream access.
3.4.2 Policv:
Private developnent projects shall be reguired to
incorporate new sideialks along.streets adjacent to the
proje-ct as designated in the vail ViIIage Master Plan
lndTor Recreation Trails llaster PIan.
GOAL #4:
TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND
GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES.
13
Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors
througbout the Village.
5.4.2 Policv:
Medians and rights-of-ways shall be landscaped'
For the sake of brevity, staff wilt not address each goal,
policy, and objective separately. The project supports the
Vittage Plan in the followinE waYs:
- '-1 . The redevelopment is a high guality proposal that -naintains arLhitectural scale as wel-l as almost all the
zoning standards for the underlying Pa zoning'
the redevelopnent such as sidewalks, the bus stop, and
4.1.1 Policv:
Active recreational facilities shall be preserved (or
relocated to accesEible locations elsewhere in the
Vitlage) in any developnent or redevelopment of property
in Vail Village.
GOAL #5:
INCREASE jrHE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY' AND I}IPROVE
AESTHETICS OF THE TR,,ANSPORTATION AND CIRCUI,ATION SYSTE}'I
THROUGHOUT THE VILIAGE.
5.1.5 Policv:
Redevelopnent projects shall be strongly encouraged to
provide underground or visually concealed parking.
landscaping.
short-terf, accommodation units are upgraded.
Large and rnore functional ernployee housing units are
proposed.
The pedestrian experience is enhanced by sidewalk and
Iandscape improvements.
--..r.
-\.
\
L4
\,
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recomrnends approval of the proposal . .Basically,our position is very sirnilar to our reconmendation on the
Rarnsirorn project. As stated previously: ttAlthough the
inability of-the end product Lo meet the strict definition of
a lodge -is not what wL would ideally like to seer-we feel
tnat €he proPerty will continue to function as a lodge and
meet the intLnt of providing high guality guest
accornmodations in the Publi; Acionmodation zone district."
The applicant has provided significant improvenents through
tne rL-development wtrictr will benefit both guests and owners
of the earden of the Gods, as well as the general public'
The proposal neets the criteria outlined in the Special
oeveiopirent District review, goals of the Land use Plan' as
well as vail viLlage ltaster PIan.
staff approval is contingent upon the applicant rneeting the
following conditions:
The appt-icant shall subnit a revised ernployeg housing
agreeinint with a floor plan that clearly indicates the
15cation, type of unit, and sguare footage for each
employee froiriing unit. The two employee housing units
snift-be restriited permanently. The agreement shalI be
subrnitted and approvEilfrf,Ewner and the Town of Vail
before a building pernit-is issued for.the project'.- fr"4"ed( Zl The applicant shall subrnit a written 3ta*eriea't agreeing\-' to reitrict the proposed acconnodation units'
accomnodation unit lock-offs and three dwelling units
as short tern rental units on a permanent basis' Even
if the project is condurniniunized,.these units shall nc#ie ilcliael in- tne ccneen*niunizat'fnrr*sfTq-t remain as
short term rentalE. This written agreement shall be
subrnitted by the owner and approved by the staff before
a building permit is issued for the project.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods sha1l construct a
sidewalk and bus stop on the east side of their
Underground parking is included, ryhif9 surface- spaces
are r6moved.- The-renaining parking is visually
screened. ?he project meets its required parking.
Public transportation is inproved and made safer as a
result of the new bus stoP.
l{
ll
(',r**)
l5
,l...ml-w@\tF-vl-vv
\n-tongrty as well"as .-?i9:*?1!, 1ld-!l"l::t:.3ql-i:::t t"-the'P-2 parcel . The flnat design for the sidewalks,
J plantersl and bus stop shall be subnitted by the- ipplicani to the Public ttorks Department an$ connunity
, olielopnent Departnent for approval . The sidewalks,
planteis and bus stop ehatl be constructed subsequent to
Lhe issuance of the buildJ.ng pernit and prior to the
6.
issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for theproject. The apPlicant shall submit a written statement
lqreeing to this condition for ttre Town attorney's
approvat before a building pemit is reLeased for the
project.
If needed, the Garden of the Gods shall also provide a
public easenent for the bus stop, sidewalk, and signage.
rhe appticant shall subnit the easement agreenent to the
town ittorney and Town council for approval before a
temporary certificate of occupancy ls released for the
proj ect.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct
curb and gutter as well as any other drainage (asphalt
work etc.) improvements necessary along the.north,
south, and east sides of their property. Finat design
for tire drainage inprovements shall be subnitted by the
applicant to the pulfic works Departrnent for final
approval . These improvernents shall be constructed
slLsequent to the j.Esuance of a building pernit and
prior to the issuance of a temporary certlficate of
occupancy.
A revocable right-of-way agreenent shall be cornpleted
for any encroachments on the public right-of-way. - This
agreernent must be subnitted to the Cornrnunity Developnent
D6partrnent and approved before a building pernit will be
released on the Project.
The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall subnit a
utility and drainage easement vacation to the Town
counci-I for approval before a building permit nay be
released for the Project.
Recomnendations to t@
The vent on the yest side of the pool should be
removedol'SC@.nlrl -
The north elevation of the building should have more
transparencY.
2.
l6
3. The four trees that wlll be either relocated or replaced
due to the constnrctlon of the bus stop should be
addressed. If the treec nust be renoved, landscaping
that has substantially the same positive inpact should
be reguired.
L7
,:r:',:,,::,NEW SDD :,
51% GRFA IN AU'S
16@7:742 SO.FT.10 Au
6 AU LOCK OFFS""
16 @ 4s96 SQ,FT.
1T AU
4 AU LOCK OFFS
i5 @ 5812SQ. FT.
NA 2 @ 6745 SQ. FT.I @ 12141 so. FT.6 @ r2648SQ. FT.
NA
1 AU 610 SO. FT.
1 DU 51s SO. FT.
1.5" @ 1125 SO. FT.
1 DU 215SO. FT.
1 DU 515 SO. FT.
2 @ 730 So. FT.
1DU 901
1 DU 90r
2DU @1802 SQ. FT.
l7s94SQ. Fr.14543 SQ. FT.16737 sQ.FT.18460SQ. FT.
TOTAL DENSITY 12.5 DU 1O DU 13 DU (AUS + DUS)t 1.5 DU (AUS + DUS)
4399 so. FT.3575 SO. FT.4360 SQ. FT.3712 so.Ft.
45 FT. FI.AT ROOF
48 FT. SLOPE ROOF
42Ff .SAME i3FT. 6'' NORTH END
47 FT. SOINIT END
:: :: ,r : ::::' :::i : ::
I : :t! :, i i: , :;::t:,iii:ai!:: ,,
,, :i :, ,,, :,: ',, | ,,i '::ii:::!: ':
sFrBAcKs,,i;'.;..
: : :: :: :: :.:i::::r::.i
20Fr.EAST 2O.O FT.
WEST.2 FT.
NORTH 1.4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
EAST 2O.O FT.
WEST.2 FT.
NORTH 1,4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
EAST 2O.O FT.
WEST 1 FT.
NORTH 3 FT.
SOUTH 8 FT
SITECOVEFAGE r2096',SQ. FT.6363 SQ. FT.6831 SQ. FT.7214 sQ.Ft.
I-ANDSCAPING,.:6598; sQ. FT.OK OK OK
22 REQD.
28 EX.
27 REQO.
28 PROPOSED
26 REQD.
29 pnoposeo
I,IINTER 1990
GARDEN OF TIIE GoDS
ZONING AI{ALYS$
* Restricted enployee units are noC counted towards denslty or GRFA
*tr I DU equals 2 AU
*** Standard parking requlrenents applled
**** A DU in a nulti-fanlly bulldlng nay lnclude one attached accottr-
modarlon unlr (AU lock-off) no larger lhan one thlrd of the toEal
floor area of che DU. A lock-off ls noE couuted for density. Lock-
off GRFA ls added to the total DU GRFA. Parking for a lock-off ls
calculated by addlng the AU lock-off to the DU GRtr'A' The DU
parking requirements are appJ-ied to the total GRFA for the DU
plus AU lock-off.
IIINTER 1990
GARDEN OF THE GODS
I'NIT USE AI{ALYSIS
* All AU and AU lock-offs shal1 be used for short-tero rental
tbrough out the year.
PAZONE EOSTING "'lr:r:i:,ni:OLD SDD :i:ii',.;:i:j,:.:,: NEW SDD ': r:,
51 %53%
27%
AVG. AU 287S.F.
3LZ
AVG. AU372 S.P.
49 o/b 47%73 0/b 69%
NA 0
16 AUS @ 4s96
I DU @ 1134
5730 S.F.OF 34%
15 AUS 5812*
3 DUS 2882.5
8695 S.F.OR 47 %
r;'iii:T,TOTAL KF/S :il:NA 18 24 2L
NA 0 17 KEYS OR 70 7o r8 KEYSOR 862
d{$iud]r-tr+ln|rdi.lr,\*t1Arr$i,iii,r1'.,.! "}t:
January 29, L990
tls. Pan Hopklns
Snovden & Hopklns Arehitects
201 Gore Greek Drive
Val1, CO 81657
Re: Garden of the GodE Expanslon
Dear Pan,
Per your reguest I have revleved the lnpact the above mentlonedvould have on the Tovn of ValI vlev corrldor fron Vlev Polntelevatlon of the highest existlng north-south ridge line of thels 8219.0 feet.If the rldge ras noved to the east seven feet the
line could be built to an eLevatton of 8219.5
encroach lnto the deflned vlev corridor.
feet and it
Please call lf I can be of any further assistance on this project.
I i ncere Iy,
Eagle Valley Surveying, fnc.
expans I on
15. Thestructure
nev rldge
vould not
\-G.t*'o*-n*-:
Dan Corcoran, P.L.S.
Pres ident
41 199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagle-Vail
Post Off ice Box 1230
Edwards. CO 81632
303-949- 1406
810 Race Street
Derver, CO. 40205
f'ebruary i, 1990
PIa::ning Comnission
3::y of Vail
tlaiL, 1O.
ieaies and gentlemen:
You stroulC be extremelyploud oi the c?re and concern
you and. your pred.ecessors in office aeve d'evoted' to
neji:-:rg VaiL unlc-ue in all the rvorld.. ?ire relatively
Iow buildings, the protected. liEht aiC air everywhere'
tre fl-owers - all tnese nake ttre vili-aEe an agreeable
ad-;:ii:n by man ln a lcvely vaIIey. .i'e have been oitne:s
at.iail for over 21 years a:rC have ci:erisbed not only ine
view of tbe Gores but or' ttie skiers w:rkirg tbeir wa;;
dow:t lcld. peak. t.Je are acrcss the sj:eet fron tne 3:arien
of ine Gcds builditg, in the seconi llcor oi t[e v:rlaufer.
'..,ie have stuired the oroposei extersi:: cf the buili'i::3
and feel we nust protest. I sulpose ,te have no rislt tO
seintain our view t',-r the exient neCeSs3ry nev Constructlon
is :.ri-tci: t'r:e orCinances. 3ui it w:ii be sucir a sad'
sten backward' a::C one wtic:t rvill leal to a seri "us itn-
pairne::= cf vailrs i::ternaiional reru;ation ( your p=iceless
asset: ) if you sta:t allowi:r8 a fel.r feet greater nass here
a:rd. t:iere in the vi11a;e. It will aLways be econorically
edvsntage.?us Ec a lgncc,vner aro. the :axpayinE rublig f,o make
lul:ei|-use oi land. Our prcpert;'r ani the Ohristiana and
all the rest are no d.ifferent. tsut tee advantage is snort
:?ta. As time goes on, not only the oleasure of tne Dresenl
or.rljers r+i1l be d.iminished. but tnelgnG va]ues as we1l.
?'1 ease aon't add to the mass an;r\.'ae:te in the vi-1la6el lhant
vou lor liste::ios !c us.
C,i nnar.o'l vv-!JJervaJ tl7- /-.t,l)., , V..hoe//
!soma s E. e::d
F'na^-\-*Vir3inia;'J. lraxon
(708) 37€.5300
ROBERT W. GALVIN
I3O3 EAST ALGONOUIN ROAO
ScHAUMBURG. tLLtNOtS 6Ot9€-tO€5
February 6, 1990
Planning and Environment Connission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage RoadVail, C0 81557
Ladies and Gentlenen:
You are presently deliberating on the issue of the renodel
and reconstruction of the Garden of the Gods facllitles on
Gore Creek Drive and Gore Creek Road.
This property happens to be across the street fron the Vor-
Iaufer Apartment Bullding ln which building I have recently
becone an apartnent owner. I acquired the apartment prior
to knowing of any changes in the Garden of the Godsfacilities and an pleased to be inforned abouf the plans
that are under consideration.
As one that has an apartment that looks to the south and to
the east I ask that the nost serious considerations be
given on the part of those who eust nake the appropri.abejudgenents, to the least serlous effect on the views that
we have had fron our apartraents in the Vorl-aufer building.
We happen to be tbe owners of Apartnent /1203.
If the footprint of the building were to exfend further fo
the east than presently or lts overhanging eaves were to be
a blocking to us, the effect could be sonewhat significant
as far as the present pleasures of the occupancy of our
current apartnent.
Thank you for your consideratlon.
wishes
J,/LW
RWG: ch
cc! Art Carroll
oberl W. Galvin
SE
P
LF &
LANTE
IONI P
S & GINN
o
AN
ERS
Phone AC 601 326-2841 235 East Main, P.0. Box 367
Marks, Mississippi 38646
February 2, 1990
Planning and EnvLronmenf,sf QsrnrnJ 59 {9n
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail , Colorado 81657
Dear Con"nr sSion Board:
I an wrlting ln regards to the plans fot the new Garden of ltre Gods Club
butlding. I have been the owner of a Vorlaufer Condomialum (/1303) for
eleven years. I have Just been in Vall and have seen the proposed bulLding
expansion p1ans.
I arn hlghly disturbed over how the plans affect our bulldlng. My top floor
unlt will l-ose 3/4 of lts vlew of the nountalns. The people on the lolter
floors w111 be hurt even nore. Not only will ny view be destroyed, but I
am afraid the value of ny place w111 be reduced. llhy canrt the new buildlng
be placed so lte can all be happy? It !s not fair for one party to obstruct
the view of so nanY.
Sincerely,
/trqr,t*" n g<4.
Vlrginla N. Self
n{s/np
Samml A. Mccray
Altred L. McCray
MCCRAY & MCCnny
Lawyers
Suite 390, Cleypool Building
tll30 Undon Av€.
Dayton, Ohio 45432
Area Cod€ 513
254-6155
Fax 513 254-2171
January 24, 1990
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
?5 S. Frontage RoadVail-, CO 81657
Dear Sir:
Re: Garden of the Gods Lodge
The undersigned are the original owners of apartment
condominium 301 in the Vorlaufer in Vai1. we are advised that the
owners of the Garden of the Gods Lodge are proposing to demolish
their building structure and rebuild that lodge in accordance with
new plans. we have been favored by a report from the Community
Development Department to the Planning and Environmental Commission
of Vail dated January 8, 1990 which contains various comments on the
proposal of applicant, "Mrs. A. G. HiIl fami1y", concerning the
Garden of the Gods Lodge project.
As neighboring owners to the Garden of the Gods Lodge
remodeling project the undersigned would like to approve the
foltowing comments and urge the Planning and Environmental
Commission to implement them as follows:
1. Sidewalks - ValLey View Drive badly needs sidewalks leading
to tIE--G6Ie-d Peak facility. The pedestrian traffic of skiers
in the morni-ng is heavy. It is only a question of time until
some pedestrian skiers will be struck by hurrying motorists.
2. Bus tur - ValleY View
orive , both bus
traffic, motorist traffic and pedestrian traffic. A bus turn-
out at the appropriate bus stop will ease traffic circulation.
A park bench for waiting bus passengers will afford convenience
to Vail tourists.
3. Underground parking - Vail parking is always at a premium.
In the event the present building is to be demolished then
underground parklng for the patrons of the new lodge should be
required.
Objections to interference with 'view corridor"
As original owners of the Vorlaufer apartment we purchased our
apartment in the Vorlaufer building based upon the view conidor
which our apartment had as a result of the old Valhalla buildingpermit. We object to any interference with this view corri.dor
through the vehicle of demolishlng the existing Garden of the Godsbuilding and thereafter building a new building so as to obstruct orinterfere with our view of the mountains. The old Val-halla bui.ldinqpermit has already been modified once in order to accommodate the
Garden of the Gods building. The applicatlon for a new buitdingplan should be required to honor the original view corridor whichthe Vorlaufer building enjoys.
Thank you for your consideration of these natters.
Yours very truly,
Vorlaufer 301 C dominium Ordners
*--4 A,ut
L. Mccray, Trust
c.Arthur CarroII
Connie Knight
A. W. Crranror pR, JR.
'lll,ib
February 2, 1990
Planning and Enviromental Comnission Town of VaiI
75 South Frontage RoadVail, CO 81657
Dear Conmissi-oners:
I an wtiting to you to express nry dieappointment over your
treatnent oi me ls an owner of a Vorlaufer condominiurn' Uy
dlsappointment Liee in the fact tha! you have scheduled a
neetiirg for L2 February 1990, to which I cannot attend' to
deal with the teardown-and subseguent rebuilding of a nuch
larger Garden of the Gods which lies directly in my view -pat6. I have no quarret with tearing-down the-Garden of the
Gods and rebuilding it but, it should not be for the benefit
of some and the lois for others (i.e.including invading their
view corridors.l As of this writing, I have received no
info:mation or facts on which to assess its imPact on me
enotionally or financially.
I would like to poEtPone this meeting at least one month or
longer from the proposed date if at this meeting decieions
are to be rnade that-wiIl effect my enJoyment of ny Vorlaufer
condo as well as my financial invegtment. The deJ.ay is to
review the infonnation r hope you will send me so I can be
knowledgeable when I attend the neeting.
ffi.\^'-\L-..
cc: Art CarrollBetty Penner
Sr,'rrE 8O7
45OO CoIJ Al'ENrlE
D-rr,ras, TExAs 75205
(21.1) 521-1995
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 479-2138
(303) 479-2139
office of communily development
Revised
October L7, L99O
Pam Hopkins
Snowden and Hopkins
20L Gore Creek Dr.
VaiI , Co 81557
RE: carden of the Gods
Dear Pam,
As per our rneeting on October 1.1., 1990 Ltith Mike Mollica and Greg
Hall, the following schedule for site irnprovements will apply for
the Garden of the Gods project unless other arrangements are
made:
1. Upon the issuance of the building perrnit a development
agreement shal] be in place addressing all off-site
improvernents that the applicant is reguired to install as
per sDD #19, ordinance l-4, Series of L990. A letter of
credit for L258 of the estimated costs for all of the off-
site improvements will be reguired as part of the
development agreement.
2. A final design for all off site irnprovements, which
shall incorporate the final recommendations of the VaiI
Village Streetscape Improvement Plan, must be subnitted to
the Town of Vail Engineer and Office of Community
Development by Septenber 1, 1991. Upon final approval of
the plan by the Town staff, a revision of the original
development agreement, including the letter of credit, [aY
be required.
3. Prior to the issuance of g.!y Temporary Certificate of
occupancy all on-site improvements shall be completed.
Should these improvements be inconplete the Town will
require that the owner post an additional letter of credit
for 1258 of the estinated amount of the on-site improvernents
before a T.C.o. wilL be issue.
1. 1
lti.l
;ir
..1i
Pam Hopkins
October 15, 1990
Page 2
4. A11 funds assoclated nlttr the developrent agreernentthe letters of credl-t w111 be releaeed to the owner uBon
conpletl-on and Town approval of the work associated wlth
such agreeuant.
Please contact n€ as soon aa poseible gbould you have anyguestions or discrepancleg slth thle gcbcdule.
cc: Kristan Pritzllike ltollica
Greg llall
LarrY Eskwith
Don llare
Sincerely,
Shelly llello
Town Planner
r:i
75 roulh trontage road
Yail. colorado 81657
(303) t17S2138
(303) 479'2139
office ol communlly development
october 15, 1990
Pam Hopkins
snowden and Hopkins
201 core Creek Dr.Vail, CO 81657
IiEs carden of the Gods
Dear Pam,
As per our meeting on October 11, 1990 with Mike Mollica and Greg
HaI1 , the following schedule for site inprovements will apply for
the Garden of the Gods project unless other arrangements are
made:
1. Upon the issuance of the building pernit a development
agreem-nt shall be in place addressing all off-site
irnprovenents that the applicant is reguired to instal'l as
per SDD #19, Ordinance 14, Series of 1990. A letter of
credit for 125t of the estirnated costs for a1l of the off-
site irnprovements will be required as part of the
developnent agreenent.
2. A final design for all off site impr<,,vements, which
shall incorporate the final recommendations of the Vail
Village Streetscape fmprovernent Plan, must be subnitted to
the Town of Vail EngJ.neer and office of Cornnunity
Developnent by September 1, 1990. Upon final approval of
the plln by the Town staff, a revision of the original
developnenl agreement, including the letter of credit, may
be reguired.
3. Prior to the issuance of anv Temporary Certificate of
occupancy all on-site improvements shall be conpleted.
Should these inprovernents be inconplete the Town will
require that the ottner post an addltlonal letter of credlt
foi fzSt of the estirnated amount of the on-site irnprovements
before a T.C.O. will be issue.
Pan Hopkins
October 15, 1990
Page 2
4. A11 funds associated wlth the development agreenent
the letters of credit wilt be released to the owner upon
""tpi"ii"t "tta rotott-"pp"ova1 of the work associated wlth
such agreement.
Please contact De as soon as possible should you have any
Er"Jtiot= or discrepancies with this schedule'
Sincerely'
or
cc: Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Greg Hall
Larry Eskwith
Don Hare
shelly ttell
o
io,f-7 q,c
fii,W lrw* 'i" +\^kw r,uit\ W Wz ret"oakdv'
(r y AAt^re \arwyvv'-
k-o'a^x' ., wB4't'vvv P I bul^hfr^=
$r^u 5.
snbwoon & HoPKrNs nfrecrs LETTCB @F T-RANSnfl 0TTAL
201 Gore Creek Drive
vArL, coLoRADO 81657
TO
\./
ARE SENDING YoU X Attached E Under separate cover via
/tl
tr Shop arawirlgs ffirint, E Plans ! Samples
"*' 2/ao/q O l'""
NO.
aTTENT roll-MTl arflH
the following items:
E Specifications
twE
tr Copy of letter n Change order
(303) 476.2201
coPtEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
o 4,l144n l- //
r/?.2 llhv*il.4ffislht/f tr
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked
D/ For approval
X-rot your use\/p As requested
below:
D Approved as submitted
0 Approved as noted
U Returned for corrections
Resubmit-copies for approval
Submit-copies for distribution
Return-corrected prints
tr
tr
tr
E For review and comment
tr FOR BIDS DUE 19- - PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO
,,nn o..QtrL-.
PRosJf'zao? /@-l tG ord|, 16' 0r,l tt .ncloasnar .?. not ta notad, klndbt notitt sr tt onca.
Thr undccl.gned nrabrrt l brlng lhr solc tloobars o! p-Z Af O9clslt6n,rcknovlcdgr Ehat ch. astrchrd Er.h1bl. "A,, reprcrr"ii irr"-rirocst.d prrklngto the Hergercr Hrll ltrrrrr rruor rrlttrin stri corpoigironii- r..t propGrtydrocr{brd oo thr aElrch.d Drhi;il-";;]"fr..u.or co pasrtrsph z,s (l) of thlAgrceoenc dacrrt Scpccobrr 16r Lgl6.
Drtrd rhr doy md yrrr s! mt forth belon.
Rrnohorn Lodgt
Condoolnluu Areoclrttoq
Dr,ctt:fue> tEt . tq a O Byl
or.,r, 2lz4.a
,
Deta:2 l-t -7O-
Drto:8yr
DoG.:
Vcl1 tratla Earc
CoqdolnluD Aoroglotlon
BY:
Itrga-;rer
**tItl.*ttlt*tl.ttlttttlt**tX*ltt**+{+S{rt+rl ,f.rl.*rtrt t*{.f+{r*$rt(*{ }t}lrrl.*rl.rl.+*r}frl.rlr*rl fitrlttt,f* P"ot
TRfl|l!;tlIT I CIN REFLlRT
- Tl".underalgned nenrbcre, betng the eole uerrbere of p-2 Aesoclotton,
acknowredgc that the attachcd Exhtblt 'A,r ropresent,r rho Allosoted parkingto thc l'largnreL lllll l.larltal rrust wlttrln the crlrporatlonrr re&l ptopcrtydcacrlbcd on lhe attsclred Exhlblt "Bt', purgtranE to psragreph 2.s ir;'of ile.Agreenent datcd Septcmber 16, 1926.
Doted thc day ond ye{rr s6 set foruh belov.
Ranfhorn l,odge
Condootntum A9€oclot{oD
' DaL€t
ut* 24a ,/Y(.,
Byr
By;
Do!6 i Byr
Vatl Tralle
Condonrlnlum AGroclotlotr
ValI T East
*oc 1a
Date:
, .i.
\
i
Exf{rgrr .,€"
Il,It'l1
lt
tt..'
r (t\) t
I
. i , f., i., 1, .
''lrrr ili'|llti t I1l:.;' . .
/l'l,rV t0 N R,r.rU C tt
1'rrif.rf 1 Lctpac;
I? axp
r-:^-==-
,/ rl .t
"
t'
rr^ r 14 - llo,l''^ /\ lz'[\l+/ '' t tAu-.--l l-1t' l/(
.t.
6Ar.pr=,,-t ur- rilE Gc'os C/ur: ,'
[1"19 IVIEUFIEFI, aERAFrNt, MEUHEFT tNC
t s [TrF.{ r57|fJ w. 44.Tr{ AVE
[ [ [ l:rEl\lvE:Ft. trr:]tr-.r.ltrlrt rrr-t n-r',.:,
toi p-2. vrll v!llrsc Ft(thCoIo r ado Flllng. C.unty of Eag!c rnd Strle of
lu0
A Parl of ,! vlqlccd partlon ot ltanson Rinch R(rad betre€n Core C(eekRoad nnd cor. C.nek brive ar lrlarted ln va!l viftagc F!fth f t l!n..r.counlY-of EilgIc. st.ee of colorado, ";J ,";; pirelcularly dr.rc:ibqda: folloe3:
Corrunencing !t :o!nt 9n Che Center !l,nc of Hans )n p.anch Ro!d., 3aidPoinl being L!- poine b! lnrercec:ion of the ien. cr linc o( s.ldl|a:llon Ranch Foad Jnd the ltgrthcalCeEly lLnc of COaa Creek no,!d:thence ttor:h. eterly .l,ong th! Centcr it"" of said Hanron Ranchllo^.1 ,rnd on an ongle of 90.00.00. frollt !aid llo;rh:a3(erly llne ofCore C-c:k Road 52.94 faee !o a point of crtrvr, !. enca alonq .iaidCenter Ilne and along ! curvr ro Lhc Lefr ha"tng . -iiJir"-.i rii.lrr^,rr, a c,.niral an<;le of 17.21'06-, an arc dlsranec ot !JJ.J9 te. rto ! Foi,nt of tangenl; thenLc atong said Ccn:3r llnc and a.lonq 3aidta..rent n disrance of 2O.OO icae Eo . point of :nqcq:rec--:on ,riil- ehcgoutheesr:rl!' !ine of Gorr Cleak orj,ve; thence on an anglc to theIef: of 90'00'00" and .long Jai.d Soucheesterly l!n. ,tO.Oo frer:
.thencc on ar anglc cc the ia(t o! t8O.CO.CO. ind aIcnS t!..lior!hseslerly line cf llan:on nnnch Rt!d anC alanE ..r arrrr.r fc thetj,cht lra -lng a rndius o( IO.OO lee:. a Ccnrrat ariglc cf 90.tC'^--,an lrc distance ot lt,.4l fe^C:o a goi,nt Of cOrn2eund a!r!ve: thc3c=along said i;o!ttrlJesterlt !inc.nd.Ic::g said c?r.rpound cur!.. rn rh..righc hovi.no a radius o! l4l.{t fec:, i Cen!ral anqlr of .t .Z!,05:,
an arc dista,rce of t15.87 leci to a point of !.angerre: thonc. rlonqsnld N6t'ths-.t.!.!y !in|! .n<l ,rlong said tdng.nt lZ.qa (.ct to.Pornt ol curv€: Lhencc along !aid Northvcacrrli- l,inc .:nd .1un9 acurv! lo th,.. r:9hi: haviag a radlus of 20. OO f aet. a Ce:.:trnl .n?!co! 90'!0'00', :n arc dlstEnce of ll.aZ fe?r to o polnt oflncerse.iion l,ich lhe Norqh!asisrly ttne of Gor. Crerk Road; tl.:cnceon on angIc to the lef: of 180.C0'00' anci along !!id Norrhe..sr!rlyIj,na ,10.00 (eec to th. truc potnc o( becinnlng.
ti
: ' .' {}'t:'
q
ou't
/
!f{-'a
oF
32
"[iOJ
Jt!
aot-
u,o
irl
\$e'".\rhi' r
Y
Y
o.'ot
o7
/,
/(a
\\
\
\
Tg atr
i'.'{,r; \
'i
\
Ar(",,?ofo
q4'
N
I
D.
\,,
\\\
\Nl
\
I
l'
I
il
$l
I
,;|
'r'li)'
\t//
/frf / ^\,i'{iiii
The undersigned meubers, ber.ng the sor-e members of p-2 Assoclatlon,acknowledge that the attached uxnrtrt ,A" represent" ii.-airocated parkingto the llargaret llir-r ldarital Trust wlthln the corporationr s rear propertydescribed on the arrached lihigl! "i;, po.",r"ot ro paragraph 2.S (J.) of theAgreenent dated Septenb er ].:G, L916.
Dated the day and year as set forth below.
Date!
Ramshorn Lodge
Eondonlnium Assoclatlon
By:
t,/Dare: 9,/lz,/qrt
ar,By:
DatetL lz -7O -
Date :
Date:
By:
Vail Trail-s East
Condoninium Association
BY:
Condonlnium Assoclatlon
---
EI'TATE OF A. G. HILL
5000 Thanlcsgiving Tower
Dallas, Te:ras, 75201
July 11, 1988
P-2 Association
303 East l?th Avenue, Suite 1000
Denver, Colorado 80203
Attn: Charles H. Cowperhwaite
Gentlemen:
The undersigned, Independent Executrix of the Estate of A. G. Hill' deceased'
pursuant to Article II, paragraph 2 of the Bylaws of P-2 Association, does hereby
appoint and designate Donald C. Hare as the individual person who shall vote
and hold offices and directorships on behalf of the Estate of A. G. Hill. This
appointment shall continue until terminated or changed by written notice.
ESTATE OF A. G. HILL
l/ ;. ,'l
,
AGREEI'{ENT
t0
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this fty day of
a'\ll\c [r te aa b c l- | L97 6, by and between WHITE ENTERPRISES , INC . ,
a Colorado corporation of P.O. Box 1068, Vai1, Colorado 81557,
ROBERT T. LAZIER and DrANE \t. LAZIER of p.O. Box 1327, Vail,
Colorado 81657, A.G. HILIJ of 2500 First National Bank Building,
Dallas, Texas 85202, successor Vail Investment Group, Ltd.,
VArt TRAfLS CHALET CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, a Colorado non-profit
corporation of 2101 E.4th.Ave; DenverrColorado 81657 and VAIL'
TRAILS EAST CONDOMINIUI.{ ASSOCIATION, a Colorado non-profit cor-
poration of P.O. Box 95, Vailr Colorado 81657
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the parties have contracted with VaiI Associates,
Inc. to purchase a pracel of real property described in Exhibit
A hereto ("subject property");
WHEREAS, the parties desire, prior to conclusion of such
purchase, to memorialize their agreements on some details of
ma+agemenL of the subject property;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits redoundj-ng
to each hereunder, the parties agree as follows:
1. The parties agree that, they will establish a corporation
under Lhe laws of the State of Colorado, the Articles of fncor-
poration of such corporation will contain tbe fotlowing provisions:
a. The narne of the corporation shall be.:
P-2 ASSOCTATION
b. The corporation shall have perpetual existence.
c. The corporation shall be organized as a Colorado
non-prof it corporation.
d. Our attorney, Richard H. llart, is to proceed
promptly to draw up Articles of fncorporation and Bylaws,
act,ing as tlre sole incorporator.
,
e. The registered office of the corlroration shall be at:
2l0t E. 4th Avenue
Denver
Colorado 8020G
f' The agent for service of process at such address sharl
be:
John Stoddart
S. The principal purpose of the corporation shatl be to
own improved and unimproved real estate and to manage the
same for its members as a vehicre parking rot and recreationar
facility.
h. Membership shalr be limited to five entities.. Member-
ship shall not be assignable without consent of arr members
except that upon transfer of that property commonly known of
as The T.ivoli Lodge by Robert T. Lazier and Diane J. Lazier,
of that commonly known of as The Ramshorn Lodge by White
Enterpri.ses, fni., or of that commonly known of as The Val-
ha1la Lodge by A.G. Hill , the membership of such prior or./ner
shall be transferred to such ne$r owner upon the corporation I s
review and reasonabre acceptance of dispositive documents.
i. No part of the income or profit of the corporation
shall be paid to the members, officers or directors.
j. The corporation shall be dissolved and liquidated
upon sale of its rear property unless the members unanimousry
agree to continuance of its existence at such time. rn the
event of dissolution, the corporation shalr be riquidated
.i
and after all debts of the corporation have been satisfied-,
the remaining assets shall be sold or distributed in kind toithe menrbers at that time in good standing in equal shares.
Any member owing any amount to the corporation, whether for
assessments or otherwise, shall first repay such amount
before becomLng entitled to any such distribution
-2-
k. The corporatLon shall have flve directors, repre-
senting and designated by each of the five members. Members
of the first board of directors shall be:
Albert G. White
416 Gore Creek Rd. (Box 1068)Vail, Colorado 81657
|
Robert T. Lazier
386 Hanson Ranch Road (Box 1327)VaiJ., Colorado 81657
A. c. HtlI
2500 First Natlonal Bank BuildingDallas, Texas 75202
ilohn Stoddart
2101 East 4th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80206
Charles H. Cowperthwaite
433 Gore Creek Drive (sox 95)Vail, Colorado 81657
2. The Bylaws of such corporation shall have the following
provrs]-ons 3
a. Annual meetings of members shall be held in the
month of December annually.
b. A quorum for members and directors meetings shaLl
I' be a majority of parties entitled to vote.
c. Only members in good standing shall have a vote.
A member shall be in good standing only if he has fully paid
all assessments or other amounts due to t.he corporation.
d. Voting with respect to members and directors may be
in person or, Uy proxy.
e. No compensatLon shall be paid to any officer or
director.
f. The corporation shall have four officers, a president,
vice president, secretary and Lreasurer excepL that one indi-
vidual can hold concurrently all offices except those of
president and secretary, whlch offices must be held by
different individuals. The board of directors may provide
other officers from time to time. ':
g. A11 officers shall be elected by and shall be members
of the board of directors.
-3-
h. The term of office. shalt be one year or until a
successor is elected and quallfies
i. Removal of officers requires a two-thlrds vote of
the members.
j. The corporation shall have customary indemnification
povrers with respect to acts of officers and directors on
behalf of the corporatLon,, to the extent such acts were not
negligent or a result of misconduct.
k. conveyances of real property by the corporation may
be made by the president, affixation of the corporationrs
seal being attested to by the secretary.
l. Bank accounts in the corporationrs name may be con-
trolled by signature by any one officer.
m. Other instruments affecting the corporation may be
executed by any one of the four principal officers.
n. The fiscal year of the corporation shall begin May I
and close. April 30 each year.
o. The bylaws may be amended on two-thirds vote by the
directors or the members
p. No audit of corporate books shall be required without
majority vote by the membetrs or the board.
q. The corporation shall obtain funds from members by
assessment from time to time. All assessments shall be made
equally to all mernbers to cover all expenses unless (1) the
board by unanimous vote otherwise determines, or (21 the aIIo-
cation of plrking spaces results in a difference of five or
more spaces between the member allocated the largesL number and
that allocated the smatlest number of spaces, in which case
assessments shall be prorated among members based on numbers of
spaces. All assessnents shall be due when made, shall bear
interest at l8 per month or fraction from due date if not paid
rvithin one month of such due date. No member shall have a vote,
nor shall, any director serving on behalf of any such member be
entitled to vote if an assessment due from such member is one
month or more past due
r. Any member three months or more past due wiLh respect
to any assessment or other amount claimed by the corporation
-4-
-v
shatt irrevocably lose all rights t,o membershlp hereLn and
all rights to use of any corporation asset's on the tenth day
after notice in writing has been sent by the corporation to
such memberrs last known address, unless within such time the
amount claimed is paid. Nothing hereunder shall prevent pay-
ment under protest.
s. The board of directors, by majority rule, at any
regular or special meeting regularly constituted and attended
in person or by proxy by a quorum shall have the followJ.ng
specific powers!
f) To allocate parking withln the corporationrs
real property between members and to determine how best to
satisfy memberst desires for equal numbers of.spaces and for
. convenience of eachi and such al-location shall as closely as
practicable follow current useage. Notice of such allocation
shall be mailed to each member within seven days after such
allocation and such allocation shall automatically become ,
effective within 30 days thereafter unless the proviso herein-
aft.er provided shall be invoked.
PRbVIDED, HowEvER, that each member who feels
agrieved by the allocation, within 30 days following mailing
of such notLce may object by written notice to the president
of the Association on the following two grounds: (a) that
the number of spaces allocated to him and the convenience of
use thereof for vehicle parking are inequitable in comparison
to the number and convenience of use of such spaces allocated
Lo the other inembers and (b) that the location of the spaces
as allocated to hin, is ineguitable in comparison to the loca-
tion of sp'aces allocated to other members. If within 30 days
after such notice of objection the complaining member as one
party and the Association as the other party shal-l not mutually
agree on an allobation, the matter shall be decided by arbi
tration as follows: withln seven days after expiration of such
30 days, the Association shall choose one independent
arbit,iator and the conrpJ.aining member shall choose anot.her
independent arbitraLor. If such arbitrators are unable to
-5-
o
reach a decisl-on which shall be btnclihg on both partJ-es
within an additional seven days' such artiLrators shalL' on
or before such date, appoLnt a third independent arbl-tra-
tor who shall determlne the controVersy wlthin an additional
seven days.
2)Toreallocateas.isdeemedreasonabLefromtime'
to time pursuant to any change in circumstances' including'
by way of illustratlon, possible relocation of the right of
way of Gore Creek DrLve, subJect to the above proviso'
3) To determlne in its sole discretion what' if
any, recreational facllitles, landscaping or other improve-
ments should be provided from time to time on the corpo:cationrs
real proPerty; providedl however, that any single improvement
which the board reasonably expects will exceed $5,000 in
total cost shall not be undertaken without prior approval
of at least two-thirds of all rnembers of the board entitled
to vote at such time' .
t. No member will permit long term parkJ-ng of buses'
campers, trailers, trucks or similar vehicles on any portion
of the subject property without pernission by the corpora-
tion in advance
frl Nothing herein shall prevent improvement by a member
\J
of the portion of the subjec! property aLlocated to him
.on therefor has been gbtained in advanceprovided permission theref,or has ' ,,
fronthecorporationandprovldedthatsuchmemberpaysall
costs of such improvement and indemnifies the corporation
aga.inst any c'laims against the corporation based thereon'
v. Partition of the subject property shatl be available
to the members upon majority vote at any time' provided' how-
everthaLanypartymaywithdrawatanytimeafter(1)comple.
tion of landscaping plans or (2) four years after the corpora-
tion acquires tttle to the subject property' whichever first
occurs. AII expenses incidental' to any such parLition shall
shall be shared egually by the partles and all applications
and surveys shall be prepared by the corporalion unless
another allocation be approved by a unanimous vote of the
membeis. UPon partition, the party or parties requestlng
.l
' -6-
a
partition shall be entitled to conveyance in fee simple
of the portion or portions of the subject property allocated
to such party or partJ-es at the date of such request and
shall cease to be members of the corporation.
ld. The other provisions hereof notwithstanding, no
party shall be a memb6r in good standing untir and unless
the portion of the subject property used by such member at
and prior to acquisition thereof by the Association is
paved except for reasonable landscape areas. To the extent
that any such portion is not paved at the date of such acqui-
sition, the Association shall pave the same and charge the
member with the cost thereof as a special assessment, payment
of which sharl be made as required above with respect to
other assgssments and penalties for non-pal,rnent of which
shall be as above provided.
3- the plrtieb tiereby agree that upon formation of the sald.
corporation, tliey will assign their interests in the contract with
vair Associates, rnc., whereby they propose to acguire the subject
property, to such corpJration. Arl obrigations of each of the
lundeLsigned among themselves sharr thereupon inure to the benefit
of the corporation. To the extent that vail Associates, rnc.
does not recognize such assignment, the parties hereto agree that
they wirl individually or joining with such corporation satisfy
a1l obligations due to vail Associates, rnc. pursuant to the
Agreement for Purchase and Sale of the subject property.
rN wrrNEss wHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands
and seals as of the day first above written;
h )J\^aA-
,t{:
VAIL TRAILS CHALET CONDOMINIUI\T ASSOC.
-7 -I
-/ ,/
STATE oF )24-aJ )ln - ) ss.
county ot ,Qa-ly'au4
. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before
ly'r/,- day of - 6t).r-T,u ^/-t...,2 -, L976 by A. G. HILL.
By:
Vlitness my hand and official seal .
My commission expires:
me this
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Eag1e
)) ss.
)
The foregoing .instrument;)l) day of DL{&IL
was acknowledged before me
, 'L976 bY ALBERT G. WHITE,
thisPresidentt
WFiEe EnterpriseEJnc.
'i{itness rny hand and official seal.
My cornmission expisgg ' lJ'7 Crrrii::i::: l'::,1:','; -l :ir 27. lo73
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Eagle
The foreg<iing instrument was acknowledqed hefore me this
22nd day of Septullul_, 1976 by JoltN SToDDART,asAE-&lEvafl-rrairs cffi Associltion. l-J;.A-[i
Witness my hand and official seal.
)) ss.
)
My commission expires: ,- lltt"L2'.-1977
"\Bt^, ^^l (L-.*p,
-7--N6EaiV Public
ubzrlLg DUNIAP. Notary Public,
in and lor Dallas CountY, Texas
My commission exoires June l, tglr
-8-
I) ss.
)
':
The foregoing lnstrument was acknowledged before me this
22 dav of - Seplenber I Lg76 by CHARLES H. COWPERTHWAITE,
Eo a ;A ueirue r, -ViTf-EFiif-s-TE's t c o ndom i n ium A s s oc i a t io n'
Witness my hand and offl'clal seal .
STATE OF COLORADO }
) ss.
County of Eagle )
My commission expires:
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Eag1e
foregoingl]K'!:'acknowledged
by ROBERT T.
before me this
LAZIER.ofq ..r' r 1976
witness my hand and officLal seal.
My conmassl-on exPtres 3
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Eagle
ss.
'I
:
before
LAZIER.
.,i
me this
My commission expires:
ii
-f
Kecord o/ Proceedings
BY-LAWS
of
P-2 ASSOCIATION
ARTICLE I
Object
1. Purpose. The purpose for which the Association isformed is to own improved and unimproved real property in theCounty of Eagle, State of Colorado, and to manage the samefor its members, on a non-profit basis, as a vehicle parkinglot and recreational facility.
2. Memberrs fmprovements. Nothing herein shall preventimprovemen@ortion oi ttre Associationrsproperty allocated to him provided permission therefor has beenobtained in advance. from the Association and provided that suchmember pays ati costs of such improvement and indemnifies the t
Association against any claims against the Association basedthereon.
ARTTCLE II
Mernbership, Voting. Quorum, proxies
, I. !{embership. }Iembership in the Association shall belimited to-EEe-f-oLT6win! five etiiti.s,
I,\ihite Enterprises, Inc.
Robert T. Lazier and Diane J. LazierA. c. HiltVail Trails Chalet Condominium AssociationVail Trails East Condominium Association
each of which five here herein designated a member. Membershipsha1l not be assignable without consenL of all members exceptthat upon tiansfer;of that property commonly known of as TheTivoli Lodge by Robert T. Lazier and Diane J. Lazier, of thatcommonly known of as The Ramshorn Lodge by l,lhite Enterprises,fnc. , or of that commonly known of as The Garden of the GodsClub at Vail (fprmerly Valhalla fodge) by A. G. Hi11, ort-he previously accepted successors or sultr persons, the member-ship of such prior ov/ner sharl be transferred to such nevr olrnerupon the Associationt s review and reasonable acceptance ofdispositive documents.
2. Designated fndividual. In the event a member is acorporatio@-nr6ie than one individual, or anyother entity which is not one natural person, such membershall from time to time designate to thc Association, inrvriting, the individual naturar person who sl'rarl vote and holddirect.orships on behalf of such mcrnl>er and sharl in alr ottrerrcsPects affecting the Association I'ravc the exclusive voicc ofstrch nrember. Any member nlay change its dcsignated individualat any time by written notice t,o lhe Associal.ion. The
Kecord of Proceedings
designated individual shall in all events be one of the
seveial individuals or partners holding the nembership or the
personal rePresentative thereof, or in the event any such
irember is a corporationl an officer, director or trustee
thereof.
3. Voting. Each member in-good standing being
present in-$-erson or by proxy shall be entitled to one vote.
Cumulative voting is prohibited. '
4. Quorum. The presence either in person or by proxy
of a majoriE'-oE memberl entLtled to vote shall constitute a
quorum 6r tnE Association for all purposes unless-the repre-
ientation of a larger group shall be required by law, by the
Articles of Incorp6rationr-or by these By-Laws, and in that'
event representation of the numLer so required shalt constitute
a quonrm.
5. Proxies. Votes may be cast in person or by prgxy',
proxies muEE$l_Tiled with the Secretary before the appointed
time of each meeting.
ARTICLE III
Administration
l. General. The Associat.lon shall act through a Board
of oirectoiE-EE-Terein provided.
Meetings of the Association shall
Board of Directors may determine.
r 3. Annual Meetings. rhe first annual meeting of the
essociation-EfialT-E6-EdE ln 1977. Thereafter, the annual
meetlngs of the Assocl,ation shall be held in the month of
Decemb6r as the Associatl.on may by maJority vote approve' At
eich such meetLng, there shaLl be elected a Board of Directors
in accordance wiih the requirements set forth herein. The
Association may also transact such other business of the
Association as may properly come before it.
4. Special Meetings. special meetings of the Association
for any puifiose or puipoEes other than Lhose regulated 5y statute
may be ""ffea by the Piesident' or uPon a petition signed by a
nra]ority of the members of the Association. Such petition shall
stite tLe purpose or purposes of such proposed meeting' No
business shall be transacted at a special meeting excePt,as
stated in the notice thereof unless by consent of three-fourths
of the Association members present, either in person or by Proxy'
5. Notice of Meetings. The President or secretary shall
give or caffitice of the time, Plage and purpose
5f notaing each annuil or special meeting by mailing or hand.-
deliverin6 such notice at least ten days-but not more than fifty
days prioi to such meeting to each Association mernber at the
telp.Lti.re addresses of siid members as they appear on the
records of the Association. i ..
6. Adjourned Meetilgi. If the number of Association
menbers ne@te a quorum shall fail to attend
2.
be held at
P1ace of Meetings.
such place as the
-2-
Kecord o/ Proceedings
in person or by proxy at the time and place of meeting, the
Chairman of the rneetingl or a majority of the Association
members present in person or by proxlr may adjourn the meeting
from time to time until the necessary number of Association
members shall be in attendance. At any adjourned meeting at
which a guorum shall be presentl any business may be trans-
acted which rnight have been transacted at the original meeting.
7. Waiver of Notice. Any member may at any time waive
any notice@iven-under thes6 By-Laws, or by
statute or otherwise, and the presence of a member in person
at any meeting of the members shatl be deemed such a waiver.
ARTTCLE IV
Board of Directors
1. Number and Qualificatlon. Unless modified pursuant
to Articte aws, the affairs of this
Assocl.ation shall be governed by a Board of Directors consisting
of five members. Each member shall be a member or the
designated individual of a member.
2. Poriters and Duties. The Board of Directors shall have
the powersffisary for the administration of the
affairs of the Association, and may do all such acts and things
as are not by law or by these By-Laws directed to be exercised
and done by the members. The Poh'ers of the Board of Directors
shal1 include, but not be llmited to, all of the rights and
duties of the Board of Directors as set forth elsewhere in
these By-Lavrs and.the ArtLcles of Incorporation and shall also
include the power to prornulgate such rules and regulationspel-taining to such rights and duties as may be deemed proper
and which are consistent with the foregoing. The Board of
Dl.rectors may delegate such duties as aPPear in the best
interests of the AssocLation and to the extent permitted by law.
3. Election and Term of Office. The term of the Di.rectors
named in t shaLL be until the first,
annual membership meeting or until their successors are duly
chosen and qualify. Their successors shall be elected at the
first annual meeting of the menbers of the Association. A new
Board of DLrectors shall be elected by the members at each
regular annual medting thereafter and each Director shall hold
office for a term of one year or until a successor shall be
elected and shall qualify except as hereinafter otherwise
provided
;
4. Vacancies. The Board of oirectors shall have no
authority -to--Ellf-nacancies caused by any reason.
5. Removal of Directors. A Dl-rector may be removed only
by the parffi he represents.
6. Compensation. No compensation shall be paid to
Directors for TEEir services as Directors. No remuneration
shall be paid to a DirecLor for services performed by him for
the Association in any other capacJ-ty, unless a resolution
authorizing such remuneration shall have been adopted by t'he
Board of DLrectors before the servlces are undertaken.
- 3-
o
:
Kecord of Proceedings
-
7.Orqanization Meetinq. The first meeting of a newly
elected somll be held within thirty days of
L2. Adjournments.
any meeting f,rom day to
prudent or hecessary in
that no meeting may be
days.
election at such time and place as shall be fixed at the
meeting.at which such DLreltors were elected, and no notice
shall be necessary to the newly elected Directors in order
legally to conssitute such meeling, providing a majority of
the whole Board shall be present.
8. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Board of
Directors @ch time and place as shall be
determined, trom time to time, by a majority of the Directors,
but at least one meeting sha1l be held during each fiscal year.
NotLce of regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be
given to each Directorr personally or by nail, telephone or
telegraph, at least ten days prior to the day named for the'
rneeting.
9. SPecial Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of
Directors mat-Ee-cafGA-Ey the President on ten daysr notice
to each Director. given personalLy or by mail, telephone or
telegraph, which notice shall state the time and place and
purpose of the rneeting. Special meetinqs of the Board of-oirectors shall be called by the President or Secretary in
like manner and on tike notice on the written request of at
least fifLy peicent, of the Dlrectors.
10. Waiver of Notice. Beforer' at' or after any meeting
of the eoaid--6ETfiEE6i6l any Director may, in writing, waive
notice of such meeting and such waiver shall be deemed equiva-
lent to the giving of such notice. Attendance by a Director
at any meeting of the Board shall be a waiver of notice by
him o? the time and place thereof. If all the birectors are
pr{esent at any meeting of, the Board, no notice shall be
iequlred and -any business may be transacted at such meeting.
11. Quorum. A majority of the Board of Directors Lhen
enLitled to-voEA shall constit.ute a quorum for the transaction
of busLness, but if at any meeting of, the Board there be less
than a quorum presentl a majority of those present may adjourn
the meeting from tirne to time.
The Board of Directors may adjourn
day or for such other time as may be -,the interest of the Association, provided
adjourned, for a period longer than thirty
ARTICLE V
Officers
1. Desiqnation. The officers of Lhe Association shall
be a presia$E, a vice-president, a secretary and a treasurer,
all oi whom shall be elected 5y and from the Board of Directors.
The Directors may appoint an assistant secretary-and an
assistant treasuierr-and such other officers as in their
judgment may be necessary, such officers need not be Directors
6r fremters 6f tne Associition. Any individual may hold several
offices except that the offices of president and secretary must
be held by different individuals.
-4-
Kecord o/ Proceedlngs
. 2. Election of Officers. The officers'of the Association.
sharr ue e@e Board of Directors, at the
organization meeting of each new Board, and shall hold office
at the pleasure of the Board.
3. Removal of Officers. UPon an affirmative vote of
two-thirdsffiheBoardofDirectors,anyofficer
may be removed, either with or without cause, and his successor
elected at any regular meeting of the Board of Directors, or at
any special meeting of the Board called for such PurPose.
4. President. The President shall be the chief execu-
tive offic6T-6F-EEE Association. He shall preside at all
meetings of the members and of the Board of Directors. He
shall have all of the general powers and duties which are
normally vested in the offLce of tne president of a corporation,
including but not limited to the power to appoint committees
from among the members from time to time as he may, in his
discretionr'decide is appropriate to assist in the conduct of
the affairs of the Association.
5. Vice-President. The Vice-President shall preside at
meetings wE-en-EEE p?es:[t[ent is not present. He shall have such
duties as are delegated to hirn by the President or the Board of.
Directors from time to time.
6. Secretq5l. rhe Secretary shall keep the minutes of
all meetingE-oE tEe membersi he shall have the custody of the
Seal of the Association; he shall have charge of the membership
books and such other books and papers as the Board of Directors
may directi and. he shal-l , in general, perform all the duties
inqident to the office of Secretary.
I' 7. Treasurer. The Treasurer shall have the'responsibility
for AssocieEion:Eun'ds and securities and shall be responsible
for keeping full and accurate records of all receipts and dis-
bursements in books belonging'to the Association. He shall be
responsible for the deposit of all moneys and other valuable
effects in the name, and to the credit, of the Association in
such depositories as may from time to time be designated by the
Board'of Directors,
8. Compensation. No compensation shall be paid to officers
for their seivfEEE as officers'. No remuneration shall be paid to
an officer for services performed by hirn for the Association in
any other capacity, unless a resolution authorizing such remuner-
atioh shall have been adopted by the Board of Directors before
the services at'e undertaken.
ARTICLE VI
Indemnification of Officers and Directors
The Association shatl indemnify every Director or officer,
his heirs, executors, administrators, and representatives against
all lossr'costs and expenses, including counsel fees, reasonably
incurred by htrn.in connection with any actionr' suit, or proceeding
to r.rhich h- rnay be made a party by reason of his being or having
been a Director or officer of the Associationr excePt as to
matters as. to which he shall be finally adJudged in such action'
suit, or proceeding to be liable for gross negllgence or wilful
-5-
,..,:.'...',
t
o
'I
Kecord of Proceedings
misconduct. In the event of a settlement, indemnification shallbe provided only in connection with such matters covered by the'settlement as to whieh the Association is advised by counselthat the person to be indemnified has not been guilty of gross
negligence or wilful misconduct in the performance of his dutyas such Director or officer in relation to the natter involved.The foregoing rights shall not be exclusive of other rights towhich such Director or officer may be entitled.
ARTICTE VII
Powers, Rights and Duties of
The Association and Members Thereof
The Association and its members shall have all the poi{ers,rights, duties and obligations set forth in the Articles ofIncorporation of the Associationr'in these By-Laws, and as anyof the same may be duly adopted or amended. No transfers of
membership in the Association shall be made except as providedherein.
ARTICLE VIII
Corporate Seal
1. The Board of Directors shall provide a suitablecorporate seal containing the name of the Association, whichseal shall be in the custody and control of the Secretary.Attestation by the Secretary to any seal or facsimile thereofsha1l be conclusive evidence thereof.
. 2. ff and when so directed by the Board of Directors, ad{plicate seal may be kgpt and used'by such officer or otherperson as the, Board of birectors shall name. .
ARTTCLE IX
Miscellaneous
1. Books and Accounts. Books and accounts of the Associa-tion shal-l@ direction of the Treasurer inaccordance with reasonabLe standards of procedure and prudence.
2. AudittlE. At Lhe closLng of each fiscal year, uponwritten dernEi?i-oE-a majority of th6 Board bf oirect6rs or ofthe membersr the books and records of the Association shall beaudited Liy a Certified PublicrAccountantr'whose report willbe prepared and certified. In default of such'demand, theTreasurer shall prepare and certify such books and recordswithin thirty days of the end of such fiscal year. Based uponsuch reports the Association will have available for inspectionby its members a statement of the inconre and disbursements ofthe Association for each fiscal year.
3. fnspection of Books.required tm
Association shall be ;available
Association for lnspection at'
Flnancial repoqts, such as arethe membership records of theat the principal offices of the
reasonable times .by any member.
4. Execution of Assocla!1on Docullents. With the prior
Board of Directors, all notes, checks, and
I
-6-'
authorization oE-TIE
o
Ke co rd
contracts or other obligations,shall be executed on behalf of
the Association by any principal officer of the Association.
5. convevance of Real Propertv. conveyance of real
property U xecuted by the Presl-dent'
affixation of the Associationfs seal being attested to by the
Secretary
6. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Association shall
commence on ltaff-End' end on April 30.
ARTICLE X
Amendment of By-Laws
These By-Laws may be amended by the affirmati.'. .rot. ot
2/3 of the members of the Board of Directors or members of the
Association entitled to vote at any time and present or
represented by proxy at any validly constituted reguJ-ar or
special meeting called for such purpose. A statement of any
proposed amendment shall accomPany the notice of any regular
or special meeting at which such proposed amendment shall be
voted upon.
obligations of the Members
1. Assessments. The Association shall obtain funds from
members Uy-as$ssrnffi from time to time. A11 assessments shall
be made equally to all members to cover all expenses unless(I) the Board of Directors, by unanLmous vote otherwise deter-
mifies, or (2)'the'allocation of parking spaces administered by
the Association results'iri a difference of'five or more sPaces
between the member allocated ,the largest number and that
allocated the smallest number of spaces, in which case assess-
ments sha1l be prorated among'member.s based on numbers of
spaces. Al] assessments shall be due when made; shall bear
interest at It per month or fraction from due date if not paid
within one month of'such due date. No member shall be in good
stand'ing and have a voter 'nor shall any director serving on
behalf of any such member be entitled to vote if an assessment
due from such member Ls one month or more past due;
2. Loss of MembershiP. Any member three months or more
past due w@ assessment or other arnount-claimed by the esiociation ihall irrevocably'lose all rights to
membership hergin and all rights to use of any Association
assets on the tenth day after notice in writing has been sent
by the Association to such memberrs last known. address, unless
within such time the amount claimed J-s paid; Nothing hereunder
shatl prevent pal.ment under Protest. Upon termination of
memberihip of lny member, the number of'Directors of the Associa-
tion shall be reduced by one and ArtLcles of Amendment to the
Articles of fncorporation shall be prepared reflecting such
reduction. , ,.. .,,'' | -:,.'.i1'. ;
3. Use of Parkinq Spaces. N9 member will permit.long
term parki@ trailers, truckd or similar
vehicles on any portion bf tne Association's property without
permission by the Assoqiation ln advance.
o
, rr'
t:
t?zzoaazta-d oF
P,Ut<tJZ-
4. Paving. The other provJ-sions hereof notwithstandingl
no one shafl-Ee a member ln good standing until and unless the
portion of the subject property used by such member at and
prior to acquisition thereof by the Association is paved
except for reasonable landscape areas; To the extent that
any such portion is not paved at the date of such acquisition,
the Association shall pave the same and charge the member with
the cost thereof as a speclal assessment, payment of which
shall be made as required above with respect to other assess-
ments and penalties for non-payment of which shall be as above
provided.
. ARTTCLE Xrr
i
,1. {llocation of Parking SPaces : '
The Board of Directors, by majority ruler at any regular
or specLal meeting regularly constituted and attended in person
or by proxy by a quorum shall have the foltowing specific
powers 3
(a)' To allocate parking within the Associationrs
real property between members and to determine how best to
satisfy membersf desires for equal numbers of spaces and for
convenient locatioti thereof,' and such allocation shall as
closely as pricticable follow current useagd. Notice of such
allocation shall be mailed to each member within seven days
after such allocation and such allocation shall automatically
become effective within 30 days thereafter unless the proviso
hereinafter provided shall be invoked.
PROVIDED' HOWEVER, that each member who feels
agtieved by the allocatl-on, within 30 days followJ.ng mailing
of'such notlce may obJebt by written notice to the President
of the Association on the following two grounds: (a) that
the number of spaces allocated to him and the convenience of
thereof for vehicle parking are inequitabte in comparison to
number and convenience of use of such sPaces allocated to the
other members and (b) that the location of the sPaces as
allocated to hirn is inequitable in comparison to the location
of spaces allocated to other members. If within 30 days after '
such notice of objection the complaining member as one party
and the Association as the other party shall not mutually agree
on an alldcation, :the matter shall be decided by arbitration as
follows: within seven days aft,er.expiration of, such 30 days,
the Association shall choose one independent'arbitrator and the
cornplaining member shall choose another independent arbitrator-
If such arbitr4tors are runable to reach a decision which shall
be blnding on both parties within an additional seven days,
such arbilrators shill, on or before such date, appoint a third
independent arbl-trator who shall determine the controversy with-
in an additional seven days.
(b) To reallocate as is deemed reasonable from time
to time pursuant to dny change in circumstances, including, by
way of illustration, polsible relocation of the right of way
of-Gore Creek Drive, ;uUj9;9 a:l,an. gbove provlso.
(c) To determine tn'its sole discretlon what, if
any, recreational facilities, landscaping or other improvements
sh6uld be provided from time tb tipe on the corporation's real
property; irovided, however, that iny single J-mprovernent which
-8-
use
the
7
Ke co rd .tl
.::
the Board reasonably expects will exceed 951000 in total costshall not be undertaken without prior approval of at least'two-thirds of all members of the Board entitled to vote at suchtime.
ARTICLE XIIT .
Partition
Partition of, the Associationrs property shall be avaitableto the members upon maJority vote of lft-memLers entitled tovote at any time, provided, however, that any party may wlth-draw at any tirne after (1) eompletion of landscaping plansor (2) four years after the,Association acqtrirds title to itslnitial property, whichever fLrst. occurs. AIl expensesincidental to any such partitlon shall be shared equally by themembers and all'appllcatlons 'and surveys shall be prepared bythe Association'unless another allocation be approired-by a
unairimous vote of the members,.'. Upon'.partLtLonl-tf,e parly orparties requesting partltion shall be entitled to conveyancein fee simple of the portion or portions of the Associat,iontsproperty allocated to such party or parties at the date of suchrequest and shall cease to be members of the Association.
ARTICLE XIV
Dissolution
The Association shall be diss-olved and liquidated uponsale of its real property unless the members;unanimously agreeto continuance of its existence at such time. fn the event ofdissolutionr, the Association shall be liquidated and afterall debts of the Association have been satisfied, the remainingadsets shall be sold or' dlstribuied in klnd to lthe members atthat tjme in good standing in equal shares. Any member owingany amount, to the Association, whether for assessments orotherwLse, shall first repay'such amount before becomingentitled to any such distribution.
I
-9