HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 Town Council Memos from Community DevelopmentTO:
IP FROM
Town Council
Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: Revisions to Subdivision Regulations after first reading
DATE: February 1, 1983
On January 4, 1983 the Council passed the Subdivision Regulations and Construction
Design Standards on first reading with a number of changes as delineated in a memo-
randum from the Department of Community Development to you dated December 28, 1982.
These changes were incorporated into the regulations, and they were published in
their entirety in the Vail Trail on January 14. Although you have not received a
copy of the revised ordinance, we have revised our copy as per your motion on
January 4.
As staff and others have continued to review the regulations, a number of minor
adjustments are recommended upon second reading as follows:
A. Page 2 (C) has been re- written as per previous instructions to read
as follows:
proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type
and extent of improvements required;
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict
with development on adjacent land;
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality
and the value of buildings and improvements on the land;
4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the town's zoning
ordinances, to achieve an harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among
land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives;
5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and
efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation,
and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public
facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision;
C. These
regulations are further
intended to serve the following
specific purposes:
1. To
inform each subdivider
of the standards and criteria by
which development
proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type
and extent of improvements required;
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict
with development on adjacent land;
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality
and the value of buildings and improvements on the land;
4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the town's zoning
ordinances, to achieve an harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among
land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives;
5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and
efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation,
and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public
facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision;
Revised Sub Regs -2- 2/1/83
1 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to estab-
im lish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures;
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage
facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and manage-
ment of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the
integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land.
B. Page 8, 17.08.060 title of section should read: "Condominium Unit"
C. Page 21, #13 at the end of the sentence, add: "as per example in Chapter 17.32."
D. Page 21, #14 should read as follows:
14. Certificate of dedication and ownership as per example in the appendix.
Should the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership provide for a dedication
of land or improvements to the public, all beneficiaries of Deeds of Trust
and mortgage holders on said real property will be required to sign the
Certificate of Dedication and Ownership in addition to the fee simple owner
thereof.
E. Page 21, 15(e) delete everything after "proposal".
F. Page 20, #4 after "buildings," add "units"
G. Page 26, 17.22.030, second sentence, add #14 after #13.
H. Page 72, 8th line: change "plotted" to "platted"
9th line: change "state" to "style"
-- included signature blocks for individual or corporate owner
I. Page 73, added a separate surveyor's certificate for condominium maps
0. Page 74, delete "vested in''
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development
SUBJECT: Requested Changes to Subdivision Regulations
DATE: 2/4/83
1. Page 10, Section 17.08.170 Street, Private
"Private street" shall mean any street not dedicated to the public for
purposes of vehicular use and meeting one of the following:
1) exceeding 75 feet in length
2) providing access for more than two dwelling units
2. Page 16, (h) 3rd line: delete "land slope percentage"
3. Page 18, top - delete first 2 lines (repeat of bottom of p.17)
4. Page 18, 17.16.115 (C) lst line: change "final plat" to "preliminary plan"
5. Page 25, 17.20.030 (3) 2nd line: insert after "...the plat" "according
to review criteria as outlined in Section 17.16.110"
6. Page 25, 17.20.030 (1) 1st line: change "two (2)" to "three (3) copies,
two of which must be mylars"
7. Page 26, 17.22.010
building official"
8. Page 26, 17.22.050
which must be myla
9. Page 26, 17.22.030
10. Page 26, 17.22.030
owner."
(1) 2nd line: after "design review board" add "and chief
of the town...
1st line: change "two" to "three (3) copies, two of
rs"
lst line: change "may" to "map"
2nd line: delete "along with the signature of the
11. Page 42, Streets should read " Arterial, collector, local, minor streets
and driveways are those defined in Section 17.08.02."
12. Page 53, 17.28.320, add "E. Driveways_ Any private access for two or
fewer dwelling units."
13.
CLASS.
"Driveway
14.
15.
16.
Page 54, Street Width add DESIGN 'MAX MIN CURVE FUTURE
R.O.W. PAVED WIDTH SHOULDER SPEED GRADE % RADIUS ADT
- 12' it - 8 20'
Page 43, add "ADT ------------ - - - - -- Average daily traffic"
Page 54, 7. Block Lengths - add "For repairs a block will be defined as
the distance between any two consecutive intersections of public streets."
Page 5, 17.04.040 (B): change "three miles" to "one mile."
{
i
2/9/83 Subdivision Regulations Changes
Page 9, 17.08.120 2nd line:
change "public streets" to "public streets, roads or easements" and intended...
2. Page 15, 17.16.070 (A)2, 2nd line:
after "prepared" insert "and certified"
3. Page 19, 17.16.130 (B ) 4th 1 ine :
after "PEC" insert "and the applicant" and after "hearing" insert "in the
staff memorandum."
4. Page 23, 17.16.250, 5th line:
after "town manager" add "or as supplied by the contractor in the form of
a firm bid proposal."
6th line: after "estimate" add "if needed."
6th line: after "if needed" "The guarantee shall be, at the option of the
applicant, one of the following: a cash escrow or performance completion
bond,and shall give the town..."
5. Page 24, 17.16.330, change to read as follows:
"All required improvements as outlined in 17.16.150 must be installed within
4 years of the date of PEC approval or the plat shall become instantly invalid.
All right..."
6. Table of Contents: add new section 17.32.150 CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION
FOR MORTGAGE MOLDER OR DEED OF T RUST HOLDER
7. Add new page 73 for certificate in #6 above. Change remaining pages to
appropriate number.
8. Page 21, #14, 4th line: change "sign" to "complete"
5th line: change "and ownership in addition to the fee simple owner thereof"
to: "for mortgage holder or deed of trust holder as in Section 17.32.150."
:7
17.32.150
6
r CERTIFICATION OF DEDICATION FOR MORGAGE HOLDER
OR DEED OF TRUST HOLDER
40 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that
being the holder of a mortgage or deed of trust
on the real property situated in the Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described
as follows:
containing acres, more or less; as shown on this final plat under the
name and style of
a subdivision in the Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado; agrees to the dedication
and setting apart all of the public roads and other public improvments and places
as shown on the accompanying plat to the use of the public forever; and does hereby
agree to the dedication of those portions of said real property which are indicated
as easement on the accompanying plat as easements for the purpose shown hereon; and
does hereby agree to the granting of the right to install and maintain necessary
structures to the entity responsible for providing the services for which the easements
are established.
Executed this
day of
, A.D. 19
we TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: February 15, 1983
SUBJECT: SUB DIVISION REVISIONS TO ELIMINATE REFERENCE TO .REGULATION
OF NEW CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS IN CHAPTER 17.26
1. p.30, 17.26.010 5th line: delete "developments " - change to "conversions
2. p.30, 17.26.010 (A) 2nd line: delete "condominiums and"
3. p.31, 17.26.020 (D): delete section
4. p.32, 17.26.030. lst line. insert "conversion" between "condominium"
and "project"
5th line: same as above
5. p.32, 17.26.050 lst line: delete "condominium projects and"
6. p.32, 17.26.060: delete section
7. p.32, 17.26.070: delete "Additional" in title
8. p.30: delete "Condominiums and" from chapter title
9. p.32, 17.26.040: add "conversion" after "condominium" in lst line
10. p.38, 17.26.110: change "Section 17.40.100" to "Section 17.26.100"
OTHER:
1. p. 8, 17.08.060: change to read as follows:
17.08.060 Condominiums
Condominium means a building containing condominium units which means
an individual air space unit (any enclosed room or rooms occupying all
or part of a floor or floors in a building of one or more floors to
be used for residential, professional, commercial, or industrial purposes
which has access to a public street) together with the interest in the
common elements appurtenant to said unit._
Be T0; .TOWN COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 16, 1983
SUBJECT: Summary of Planning and Environmental Commission's discussions
concerning problems in Vail Village with congestion from vehicles
I. PROBLEMS
The following are the problems acknowledged and /or identified by the PEC in
regard to this subject:
A. Under Ordinance 17 of 1980 one vehicle is allowed in the core per building
permit. Each small retail space can have a building permit for the lease -
holder's project. This has produced as many as 7 vehicles allowed at
one building at one time during the winter months, because interior work
is now allowed year -round in the cores.
B. Contractors working in the core have brought unnecessary vehicles into
the core in the morning and let them sit all day (often directly in
front of retail businesses). Although this is allowed under the current
ordinance, it has caused problems for delivery vehicles which cannot
find a loading zone to park in due to the number of construction vehicles.
C. In at least one instance, a major project in the heart of the core was
not finished according to the agreed upon (between the building official
and the contractor) schedule. This pressured the Town into allowing con-
struction to continue throughout the ski season.
D. There simply are not enough parking /loading spaces within Vail Village
to adequately handle the demands for them.
II. SOLUTIONS
The following are some suggested solutions which the PEC generally agrees to:
A. Overall, there is not a need for a severe change in our existing regulations,
although some minor changes and fine tuning should be implemented.
•
P.
Construction vehicles -2- 3/9/83
B. Major projects in the cores should be required to post a completion bond
No with liquidating damages if not completed on schedule.
C. A major loosening of the regulations on construction in the cores during
off- season will not significantly speed up the project. Fencing is very
important for both the contractor and the public safety and should be
constructed the first day of the job. Loosening of some of the regulations
from mid -April to mid -June and from early October to Thanksgiving is a
good idea.
D, Often it is not necessary for contractors to have any vehicles all day
long, while at other times they may need more than one vehicle. The building
official should recognize this and possibly regulate on a daily or weekly
basis the actual needs of the project to better accommodate the contractor
when he really needs a vehicle (or more) and to eliminate unnecessary
vehicles from the core when they are not needed.
E. More communication should take place between the core rover and Checkpoint
Charlie personnel with respect to the existing situation of the core's
ability to handle more vehicles. In other words, when all the loading/
parking spaces are full, this should be communicated to Checkpoint
Charlie, so that even more vehicles cannot enter. The core rover position
could possibly be expanded to be more of a host for tourist information
purposes. The core rover definitely should not be driving a vehicle through
the core, as this is directly contradictory to what we're trying to accomplish.
F. Congestion due to construction vehicles may be relieved at times by providing
an area for storage of large structural members only, near the core. A
possible site is a portion of the charter bus parking area north of the Ath-
letic Club. This would be allowed on a temporary (one or two days) basis
only.
G. It would not be prudent to disallow interior construction during the winter
months, because this would be unfair to the leaseholders who take control
in the fall. Empty shops throughout ski season do not benefit anyone. If
shops do remain unoccupied during ski season or peak summer season, they
should be in an aesthetically pleasing condition.
•
MEMORANDUM
No TO: Town Council
FROM: Dick Ryan, Community Development Department
DATE: March 17, 1983
SUBJECT: Vail LionsHead Mall Construction
Some members of the Town Council have requested that the Community Development
Department see if phasing of some improvements in the Lionshead mall in 1983
would reduce construction time in 1984. Also, to determine what safety areas
need to receive attention in 1983.
Below are estimated Town of Vail costs for some of the construction and safety
items in 1983:
1. Phasing of all construction recommendations for 1983
a. Looping water main
The Water and Sanitation District are meeting next week to determine
what their priorities are for new water main construction in 1983.
Looping of the water main in the fall of 1983 can save up to 2 or 3
weeks of disruption in the mall area in 1984. Town costs are estimated
to be approximately $30,000 for our part of the looping costs. Our
recommendation is to go through and install the water main in 1983 so
that we can have pedestrians use the mall and not have a major trench
down through the middle of the mall in 1984.
b. Design and engineering
The estimate for design and engineering fees is $150,000. This would
allow time for bid packages to be developed, sent out to contractors,
returned, and to determine the most favorable cost for the Town of Vail.
We would also be able to determine which areas need to be redesigned
in order to meet the budget. Since we will not be using a construction
manager for the project, we can request individual bids, have time to
review them, request additional contractors submit bids if necessary
and to have the best price for the work that needs to be done. Our
recommendation is to go through and do the design and engineering work
through the summer and in the fall and get bid packages sent out late
fall, and get them back so that we can determine costs and move ahead
with the project.
2. The following are items that we consider need immediate attention
but are considered band -aids because they will not be part of or a limited
part of construction in 1984.
a. Thelight system within the Lionshead mall has been failing for several
years. There are lights in front of the Sunbird and between Montanero's
Lionshead Mall -2- 3/17/83
and the Sunbird that currently are not operating. There may be other
problems that we don't know about and will have to correct. Our estimate
is to have approximately $8,000 available in order to insure that the
light system will be working for the entire summer and next winter and
also to increase the amount of light by putting new light bulbs in
throughout the mall. The amount of light coming out of the present
street lights was noted as a problem by merchants and property owners
at a meeting that was held yesterday regarding mall design.
b. Stair repair
We need to go into the mall and repair certain stairs that are a safety
problem. It is estimated that to repair the stairs so that they would
be in good condition for the summer and for next winter would be approxi-
mately $5,000 in expense.
c. Removal of the berm by the Vail Cookie Company, Charlie's Gondola
Ski Shop, Current's Jewelry
One of the main problems that has previously been noted in the Lionshead
mall is the inability of the tourists to actually be walking near where
the shops are located. It is our recommendation that we would go
through and remove the berms that are along the area by the Lionshead
Center Building and that we would repair the area with an asphalt patch
over this area. In addition, comments were received that we would like
- fie�� some moveable planters in that area, so that we would not
just have a major asphalt area for this summer, but that it would be
broken up with planters. Estimated cost for doing this would be approxi-
mately $18,000.
0
These are the recommendations for items that need to be handled immediately in
the Vail Lionshead mall.
Yesterday, Steve Patterson, myself and Jeff Winston had meetings with Public
Works and the Fire Department regarding the mall design and in the afternoon
had meetings with Lionshead merchants and property owners regarding the final
design of the mall. The meetings were extremely positive. They are definitely
interested in continuing and insuring that the project moves ahead. They also
had some good suggestions on minor modifications that should be incorporated
in the final design.
In discussing with Bill Pyka the need for funds to continue with the program
of phasing the Lionshead mall and taking care of some of the problem areas,
Bill stated that we should be able to have short term borrowing in order to accom-
plish the needed construction or rehabilitation in 1983. It is the staff's re-
commendation that we follow the approach outlined in this memorandum.
TO: Town Council
9 FROM: Department of Community Development, Peter Patten
DATE: April 4, 1983
SUBJECT: Follow -up memorandum on PEC discussions of
Village Core construction matters
At your last work session it was requested that more input from PEC on longer
term solutions to construction - related problems in Vail Village be communicated
to Council. I have listened to the tapes of the meetings and can now more
specifically summarize the PEC's discussions.
The PEC, through their discussions identified the overall problems as one
of parking and vehicle congestion related to both construction and delivery
vehicles and not one of a more general, more stringent need to regulate
construction itself. This was stated by chairman Corcoran in the February
28th meeting when he stated toward the end: "It's come down to more of
a parking problem rather than construction problems."
Thus, the general feeling of the commission was that there was no need to
introduce more regulations on overall construction activity in the Core,
but to take a hard look at existing Ordinance 17 of 1980 for minor modifica-
tions to better handle the vehicle congestion to which construction is signifi-
cantly contributing. However, it was generally agreed that delivery trucks
and construction trucks be treated in a similar manner, or at least on an
equal priority basis.
Also, there was some discussion from various members on differentiating
between major and minor projects with regard to how they are regulated.
It was felt very detailed scheduling, including specific parking requirements
of major projects was extremely important, and that this all be worked out
between the general contractor and the building official before a permit
was issued. Requirements of facade aesthetics (i.e. a clean, good looking
exterior appearance) were important as well. Minor projects should be required
to get in and out as fast as possible and when they will least impact the
tourists and businesses. This period was determined to be the day after
ski season ended until mid -June and from early October until the day the
mountain re- opened.
0
A
MEMORANDUM
T0: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: April 13, 1983
SUBJECT: Revision of the floodplain regulations in Chapter 18.69 and
floodplain maps in order to meet the requirements of the
Federal Insurance Program
SUMMARY
In order for local property owners to be eligible for Federally subsidized flood in -.
surance the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is requiring local governments
to adopt Federally authored floodplain maps, studies and specified regulatory manage-
ment measures. The Town of Vail must adopt a new set of floodplain maps and must
revise the hazard chapter in order for property owners to remain eligible for flood
. insurance. Details concerning the Federal Insurance Program, the differences between
the Federal floodplain study and our current, Hydro -Triad study, and an explanation
of the revised regulations follow.
I. INTRODUCTION. THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE P ROGRAM
The National Flood Insurance Program enables property owners to buy flood insurance.
at reasonable costs. In return, the Federal Government requires communities to
enact floodplain management measures.
A local government enters the Insurance Program in two phases: Phase One is the
"Emergency Program" and Phase Two is the "Regular Program." Vail has been in the
Emergency Program since 1976. Entrance into the Emergency Program enabled property
owners to purchase Federally subsidized flood insurance. Vail is now poised to
enter the Regular Program, which requires adop + ion ' d � of Federal flop map and revised
p
,
regulations, but yet allows the property owners to purchase more comprehensive
insurance.
are met.
•
•
Fed Insur. Program -2- 4/T13/83
Vail will be dropped from the Insurance Program unless Federal regulations
The premiums charged a property owner are assessed according to a structure's lowest
floor elevation in relation to the elevation of the "base flood." - The base flood
is often called the "one hundred year flood, or, more specifically, a flood having
a one percent chance of occuring in any given year. The Federal floodplain maps,
called "Flood Insurance Rate Maps" (FIRM), outline the base flood and call it the
"A" zone. The "A" zone is further refined into numbered zones (Al, A2, A3,...A30)
that reflect the degree of flood hazard for a particular area. The FIRMS also list
a zone "B" which designates areas of 500 -year flood and zone "C," areas of minimal
flooding. The Federal regulations, as well as the Town of Vail regulations, deal
only with the 100 -year base flood.
II.
A COMPARISON OF STUDIES, THE FEDERAL. STUDY AND HYDRO -TRIAD
Vail is a fortunate community in terms of natural hazard regulation, for it now
has two floodplain studies. The first study, completed by Hydro -Triad in 1975,
became the technical basis of the Town's current maps and regulations. The Federal
study was completed in 1980. A comparison of the two studies reveals that the base
flood elevations and boundaries are amazingly similar- -the base flood elevations
in each study usually illustrate a difference of no more than a half -foot at any
given point along Core Creek. (See Table I). But there are important differences
in the studies: The Federal study is based on more current topography (some of
the cross - sections of Gore Creek, including bridges and culverts, have changed between
1975 and 1980); the sub -basin creeks (Bighorn, Pitkin, Mill Creek...) have been
included in the Federal study; and the Federal study has used a more sophisticated
computer program than the one Hydro -Triad used eight years ago.
The Federal study is thus a more complete and current study than that of Hydro-
Fed. Insur. Program -3= ,4/13/83
•
L
Triad. But the Federal study does have a major drawback: the study does not include
the West Vail area. It ends at the 1980 Vail corporate boundaries. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency is at this time unwilling to complete their study for
the West Vail area. Thus the Town, in order to remain in the National Flood Insurance
Program, must adopt two sets of floodplain maps and studies. One, the Hydro -Triad
study, for the recently annexed West Vail area, and the Federal study for the rest
of the Town.
The Federal maps have one other major drawback: They list a profusion of terms
which describe a relatively simple concept: the 100 -year base flood. The Federal
maps list Al -A30, A0, AH and Zone B flooding of less than 18 inches - - all describing
zones covered by the base flood. Hydro -Triad simply calls the base flood area
"floodplain." The proposed revisions incorporate all the above terms as "flood
hazard zone." The "flood hazard zone" is simply another name for what the Town
has been regulating since 1977- -the floodplain.
III. A COMPARISON OF REGULATIONS, FEDERAL AND LOCAL
The Town of Vail now prohibits the construction of any structure, with the exception
of recreational structures, within the floodplain. Congress, in the FloDd Disaster
Protection Act-of 1973, outlined various minimum floodplain management regulations
local government had to adopt in order to enter the':Regular Insurance Program.
These regulations allowed structures to be built in the floodplain under certain.
conditions. In this sense, Vail's current floodplain regulations meet aid exceed
Federal requirements.
However, Federal regulations do set forth requirements pertaining to strictures
which are currently standing within a floodplain. The Federal regulations state
Fed Tnsur Program -4- 4/13/83
that if these structures are "substantially improved" their lowest floor elevation
must be raised above the base flood elevation. (See definition p.6) There are approxi-
0 mately seven buildings in Vail which are currently standing, at least in part, in
the floodplain. Language concerning the adoption of the new Federal floodplain
study and substantial improvements of structures currently standing within the flood-
plain will be the focus of the proposed amendment of the hazard regulations.
The Federal regulations also require that a specified department or person be officially
designated to administer floodplain regulations and to fill out an annual report to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Since the existing hazard chapter does not
specifically designate a responsible person or entity, a section should be added
designating the zoning administrator to fill this position.
The final Federal requirement has to do with variances given in the floodplain. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency has asked the Town to add some language stating
that no variances shall be given to build in the floodplain which would result in
. increasing the elevation, quantity or velocity of flood waters. The hazard chapter
already requires that an environmental impact statement be submitted from applicants
desiring to modify the floodplain; this section (18.69.040 (E)) requires that an applicant
must establish "that the work will not adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase
the quantity or velocity of flood waters." The amended section, which will prohibit
variances to be given to build in the floodplain where such construction will increase
the elevation, quantity or velocity of flood waters, complements this existing require
ment. The proposed language will still allow variances to be given in cases where
the applicant can prove that their project will not influence the quantity, velocity
or elevation of flood waters; an applicant will also have the opportunity to demonstrate
that a structure can be taken out of a flood hazard zone by various engineering means,
as was recently done by the Gallery Building,
•
Fed Ins Program -5- 4/13/83
IV. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
. The intent of the proposed floodplain amendments is to retain the content and method
of Vail's current floodplain management techniques, but yet add requirements for
the adoption of the Federal study and substantial improvement in order to meet
Federal requirements. The central theme of floodplain management - -to prohibit
construction in the floodplain - -will remain precisely the same as it has since
the hazard chapter was first introduced in Vail.
10
The proposed amendments add a nunber of definitions to the definitions . already
in the hazard chapter;.and add three sections concerning substantial improvement,
designation of the two sets of maps, and the designation of a floodplain administrator.
DEFINITION CHANGES
" Floodplain" has to be redefined to cover the profusion of names for the base flood,
and definitions of Flood Insurance Study and substantial improvement added. These
definitions will read as follows:
(1) 18.69.020(c) will read:
Flood hazard zone means that area covered by the base flood. The base flood
area is any numbered A, A0, AH, or area of 100 -year shallow flooding indicated
on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, associated work maps, and Flood Insurance
Study. The flood hazard zone is also any area indicated as floodplain as
defined by the Gore Creek Flood Plain Information Report 1975, as designated
in Section 18.69.040.
(2) 18.69.020(f) will read:
Flood Insurance Study means the official report provided by the Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency that includes flood profiles and water surface elevation
of the base flood.
0
Fed Insur Program --6- 4/:71/83
(3) 18.69.020 (g) will read:
Substantial improvement means any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of
a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value
of the structure. Market value shall be determined by a qualified assessor
designated by the zoning administrator. The market value of a structure is
determined either:
(1) before the improvement or repair is started, or
(2) if the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the
damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial
improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any
wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences,
whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the
structure. The term does not, however, include any project for improve-
ment of a structure to comply with existing state or local health,
sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to
assure safe living conditions.
SECTION CHANGES
The central section of the hazard chapter is 18.69.040, which restricts development
in floodplains, red hazard avalanche areas, and areas of 40% slope. This section
is revised in order to incorporate the new name for floodplain. This section will
read as follows:
I*
Fed Insur Program -7- 4/13/.83
18.69.040 Development restricted
No structure shall be built in any flood hazard
zone or red avalanche hazard area. No structure shall be built on a slope
of forty percent or greater except in single- family residential, two - family
residential, or two- family primary /secondary residential zone districts. The
term "structure" as used in this section does not include recreational structures
that are intended for seasonal use, not including residential use.
A section should be added which outlines which study applies to a particular stretch
of Gore Creek. The Federal study applies to the area enclosed by the Vail corporate
boundaries as of 1980, the Hydro - -Triad applies to the West.Vail annexation. This
section will read as follows:
18.69.045 Designation of flood hazard zones and flood hazard studies.
There are two sets of flood hazard maps and studies designated and adopted
for the Town of Vail. They are:
A. All areas designated as flood hazard zones in the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps and Work Maps, as well as the Flood Insurance Study dated
November 2, 1982, are hereby designated and adopted for the areas encom-
passed by the Town of Vail as of December 1, 1980.
B. The Gore Creek Flood lain Information, 1975 study and accompanying maps
are hereby adopted and designated for an area described in the West
Vail annexation plat, dated December 18, 1980.
Another section should be created for the substantial improvement of structures
standing in the floodplain. The Federal government requires that these structures
by anchored so they do not float away during a flood, and that the lowest floor
elevation be elevated to one foot above the base flood elevation. This section i
will read:
Fed Ins Program -8W 4/13/83
is
18.67.047 Procedures for the substantial improvement of legal, nonconforming
structures located, in part or in whole, in the flood hazard zone.
A. Structures which are substantially improved must be anchored to prevent flotation,
collapse, or lateral movement during a base flood event; substantially improved
structures must also elevate the lowest floor elevation, including basement,
to one foot or above the base flood elevation.
B. Applications for the substantial improvement for structures shall include the
following:
(1) Engineering drawings and specifications
the proposed structure will be anchored
or lateral movement during a base flood
the stamp of a registered, professional
(2) Floor plans and elevations illustrating
sufficient to illustrate that
to prevent flotation, collapse
event. Such drawings shall bear
engineer.
that the lowest floor elevation,
including basement, of the structure shall be elevated to one foot or
above the base flood elevation.
(3) Before a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued for a substantially
improved structure, an improvement location certificate shall be obtained
illustrating structure location in relation to property boundaries, building
dimensions, all utility service lines as built, easements, lowest floor
elevation, and roof ridge elevation. The improvement location certificate
shall bear the stamp of a registered,. professional surveyor.
The section designating a floodplain administrator is divided into three paragraphs.
The first paragraph designates the floodplain administrator, the second paragraph
calls upon the administrator to review the documents concerning substantial improve-
ment, and the final paragraph mentions the requirement for an annual report to
be submitted to the Federal government. This section will read:
Fed Ins Program -9- 4/13/83
0
18,67.049 Duties of the zoning administrator
The duties of the zoning administrator shall be to:
A. Review all building permit applications to ensure that the requirements of
this chapter have been satisfied.
B. Review improvement location certificates for substantially improved structures
to ensure that the lowest floor elevation has been elevated to one foot above
the base flood elevation.
•
C. Submit an annual report to the Federal Emergency Management Agency concerning
flood hazard zone management and development activity.
The final change is to prevent variances to be given for structures to be built
in the floodplain which would raise the base flood elevation. This can be accom-
plished by revising Section 18.69.060 of the hazard chapter, "Right of Appeal."
18.69.060 Right of appeal
Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to deny an interested person his rights
to appeal the decision of the zoning administrator in accordance with Section
18.66.030. Also, nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to deny an interested
person his rights to seek a variance from the requirements of this chapter,
exce t in �the case where a p structure or fill will raise the base flood
elevati or increase the ua ntity or velocities of flood waters during a 100-year
flood Variances shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 18.62.
[Change is underlined.]
The complete section shall read:
The rest of the hazard chapter will remain unchanged.
•
TABLE: I Fed Iris Program -10- 4/13/83
DIFFERENCE IN WATI:I�
CROSS SECTIONS WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS i SURFACE ELEVATIONS
I � ;
EIA H.T FIA i H.T. I µ
_... _ -� 7 , 9 93.7 -0.2 ;
A 18.3 _ �� 7,993.9 0.0
{ B 18. 8,002.7 8..002.7
-0.4
F 18.6 8,025.9 8,025.5 -p.3
A G 18.7 8,034.7 3 8,034.4
8,06S.i 8,064.7 X0.4
L 18.9.1 8, 077, 2 .0.9
1 18.9.3 8,076.3 1 -0.6 r
8,078.9 8,078.3
{ p. 19 8 079.3 -�0.4 i
8,079.7
{ P 20 S,lOO.i -0.1
j S 1 22 8,100.2 _
I 8,124.3 _ _ 8.1 1243 _ _ _ _ �.
V 2 _ .- 0.9
� x 23 3 8,130.5 � 8,131.4 + -. .
8 140.8 0.1 _
y _25 _ b i_40.7 -" - 4.9 f {
E AA 29 8,148.6 8,1.53.5
160.1
8 !
I AE 35 8,157.8 , 0.2
AF 37 8,161.8 8,162.0 t
8,162.4 8,163.8
1.4
B Ai 40.1 8,171.1 8,171.7 0.6 !
4 2 _ _ 8L-1 y _g�1 , Z _ .2.4 - -
AK = _ 8 18 3 _. 7 p -
Ml 2.2 0.4
j 8 8_3 .� -
�$,203.8~ 8,203.4 `
i AP 42.7 r 0.2
AR 44 8,213.8 8,214.0
0.0 !
I 8 224.6 8,224.6
AT ; Q5.2
0.9
8,237.6
AW 46 8,236.7 1.0
C AX ; 47 8,244,8 8,245.8 p,1 i
1 BA' 49.2 8,259.5 8,259.6 ( j
BB ' 49.3 8,264.3 8,264.-5 0.2
. 49.5 _ � _ � 8 281.1 - 8 , 2 �
BE x8,295.2 -0.2 i
BI 49.7 8,295.Q 0
3
BK _ _8 04.1 ! _ _8 304. _ . T
4 9. 8_ � z �. _. 0.2
8,315.2 +
I =B�Lj 49.8. i� 8, 315.0 _ 0 -
I 49 .9 _ _ 8_ 320.4 _ 8 3 20.5 _
BO - 49.9.2 8,333.9 r _ 8,335.0 -0.3 E
1 BS 51.2 8,365.7 8,365.4
$,388.5 -0.1 ..
BV 52 8 6 8,393.0 -0.8
k BW 54 , - -0.3 '
{ BZ 56.1 $,426.8 8,426,5 . `
` 8,437.5 8,438.8 1..3
{ CC 58.1 8,451.4 .0.2
CD 58.2 i 8,451.6 0.3
CE 60 8,466.9 8,467.2 '
_8 50 . 6 8 z 5 -
i CI 62.3 w L- 2.0 _
E CL � _ _ I 8,540.2 x,542.4 --
i _-- -----
k
r
MEMORANDUM
•
T0: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: June 2, 1983
RE: Appeal of DRB's Decision Concerning Beckett's Storefront
Expansion in Crossroads Shopping Center.
On June 1, 1983 the DRB disapproved an application to expand the Beckett's
storefront in the Crossroads West Building. The application is to expand the
store by approximately twelve feet, enclosing the existing pedestrian arcade.
(See attached plan and elevation.)
In their motion to deny the application the DRB cited Section 18.54.070, Para-
graph E, of the Design Review Chapter:
£, Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies and other building features that provide
shelter from the elements in winter and provide shade in the summer should
be encouraged.
The board felt that the six foot eave,located between the second and third
is stories, did not sufficiently protect pedestrians from the weather.
One board member specifically objected to the application in that it forced
pedestrians out of the arcade into a space closer to the parking lot. The
application was defeated by a 3 -2 margin.
�
�
\ .
-
.
11V
�
/
..
�
� }
-
�
& / /��\.
,
•
El
'n
G .
C
t
f
NEW Lj/ PrA Itq
T
i
i
f
i
MEMORANDUM
0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: June 6, 1983
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request to Amend the Zoning for
Special Develoment District No. 6 to Add as a Conditional Use Outside
Vending. Applicant: Van Ewing
The applicant has requested an amendment to Special Development District #6
to add outside vending as a conditional use. Currently the Town of Vail does
not permit any outside vending, except for the two popcorn wagons that have
been operating in Vail Village and Vail Lionshead for several years. If the
Planning and Environmental Commission recommends approval and Town Council approves
the zoning admendment, it would be possible for conditional use permit reqquests
for outside vending to be approved in S.D.D. #6. The discussion of outsid e
vending in Vail Village and Lionshead has been going on for several years with
Town Council. Concerns of the Council have been how to control, location,
number, competition with existing shops, restaurants, and do we want this type
of street life activity. Again the policy of Town Council has been to not permit
additional outside vending.
The Department of Community Development considers that with proper controls
limited outside vending is positive for the street life activity within Vail
Village and Vail LionsHead commercial areas. Both popcorn wagons currently
add to Pioneer Plaza and the LionsHead mall by developing a small activity area
for people to congregate and enjoy food, and by having something happen outside
on the street.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the amendment
to permit by conditional use review outside vending to Special Development
District #6.
it
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: June 15, 1983
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request to amend
Special Development District #6 to add as a conditional
use a popcorn vending wagon to conform in appearance with
those existing in Vail. Applicant: Van Ewing
At the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on Monday, June 13th,
the request for outside vending in Special Development District #6 was
reviewed. The Commission was concerned with the general wording of outside
vending, and after some discussion restricted the zoning code amendment
to a conditional use for a popcorn outside vending wagon to conform in appearance
with those existing in Vail.
n
U
�j
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: June 16, 1983
SUBJECT: Second reading of the view corridor ordinance
Enclosed please find a copy of the memorandum to the Planning and
Environmental Commission concerning the view corridors, the ordinance as
amended after first reading and the survey material which was completed.
Each photograph will have each foresight point designated so that
when an applicant inquires about how the view corridor restricts a proposal,
the exact surveyed points may be found easily by another surveyor.
•
•
0
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 5, 1982
SUBJECT: Listing and verbal description of proposed view corridors and focal points
NO.
DESCRIPTION
1
This view occurs from two steps
above the photograhic point on the south
side of the Vail Transportation
Center. The view is significant in that
it contains the Clock Tower and
the Rucksack Tower as focal points, but
also is one's first view of the
ski slopes as one comes out of the Trans-
portation Center.
2
This is a significant view because
it allows one to see the ski slopes
from upper Bridge Street as well
as directing one to the ticket and lift
facilities in the Village.
3
View number 3 allows one to view
the Gold Peak ski slope area from the
top of the steps connecting Wall
Street and the Village Plaza.
4
This is a view of the Gore Range
from an area just south of the Village
Plaza where it meets dill Street.
The viewer can see the Gore Range
as he walks east on Hill Street.
* 5 This is a view of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of
the Mill Creek Bridge.
* 6 This view is actually the third in a series with views 4 and 5 the first
two. It is from Hanson Ranch Road looking east to the Gore Range.
7 This is probably the best known and most spectacular view in the-Village
area. It is looking east to the Gore Range from the Gore Creek Drive
between The Lodge at Vail retail shops and the Gore Creek Plaza Building.
The Clock Tower is a focal point in this view.
FOCAL POINTS
1 The Clock Tower is a focal point in this view taken from the Mill Creek
Bridge on Hanson Ranch Road.
2 The Clock Tower providesan orientation reference point from this location
on the Willow Creek Pedestrian Bridge over Gore Creek.
* The development potential for intrusion into these views is located outside of
the Commercial Core I zone District, and thus, outside of the jurisdiction of
the Urban Design Guide Plan. Some amendments would be required in zoning or
in the Guide Plan to be able to protect these views.
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
w
u
C:�
W
�X4
u
E-4
a�
�
o
H
H
W
F(
as
4J
H
6i
H
N
ri
�7
7
r-I
r i
N
.-{ rl Q)
r4.'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,a •r-1 >
(U
V)
O
rn
110
Lr)
�o
O O
N
r�
00
00
00
00
00
r�
41 fn. _n
G m
•ri Q1
O in u
P.+ �4 G
Q) a)
7
(U w
I I1 V4
rI
t� 4-J
01)
co
I 4 0
td
•r-q
i-1
q +-) w
ro
a7 ,C 0
+s
r- n
-
•r-1 u
O
n
n
-
-
-
-
-
Sa Cn ' r
N
-%t
�
o
O
Go
f�
4 1 �4 bD
•rl
0
0
0
O
w U .,-
c0
00
0
0
0
0
0
�' td N
O
Lr1
Lfl
N
ul
N
U
CO
H W �4
�"'
M
C)
H
r--i
CJ
M
Cn
0
•
C
H
z
H
O
P�
Y
W
a�
44
ui
t
N
0
Pa
3
W
N � N
O
1.1 lJ C
0 t~ ca
.r .
0 0 +-)
Pa PA 5":
as
3 3 �
� m �
•mot •r-+ �
� P �
t 1 �
a � o
J-) `'G D4
U] U •ri
0
a
a
r 4
0
u
s~
.H
0
a
u
nn
as
>N
0
w
� m C-) ;::)
as
bq
G
ro
ro
•rl
M
.--I
�1
rl
0
0
0
0
4J
t
Q
N
�t
LV
n
-:t
ON
r
a�
G
ro
ro
u _
0
Q
O
N
—t
N
-:t
O
Ul
rl
0
0
0
0
S i
f—
CY)
OIN
1-1
O
00
00
OIN
O
z
N
N
N
(n
•
0
w
H
z
0
P+
w
H
aS
N
Lr)
J-1
r 4
•r-I
O
M aJ
4-J 4J P
O O a-1
P. P+
al
3 3 �
m a� �J
•� �4
P ❑+1
U)
C 4-3 44
ai ,1-, o
4 x
U] U •rl
q R3 al
O
4-J
O
la.
O
4
O
P,
41
DO
W
a5
O
w
� pn U Q
a1
ND
cdd
Et
+1
n
H
o
.H
rr)
CAS
O ul
0
0
0 0
a!
r
cV
N 00
N
rl-
00
OO r-
a�
Et
cd
u
0
o
(3
�
o
rn
-
Lr�
0
0
O
O
O
}4
00
OC)
r•
00
O
�'
rY
rrl
Ln
M
cr'1
•
•
0
H
F-1
O
W
I--i
m
a�
Ln
I
O
P.
Q)
�t N dS
TM 7
O
O O
4+ Pa
dl
W Q1 �j
4s
UZ
I I r4
. {
+J
0 u w
41 4 O
Er �
•r I 4-J
u 0,0
w U -H
F I m =
0
0
O
41
0
0
O.
.
a�
a4
0
W
C P4 U q w W
r-I
b0
ni
.0 -
•rl M r{
0 0
65 M �7
H 00
Lr) Qi N .7
1 O Lr) N
a o 0 0
00 co 00 !-
•
s~
-
O
-
N
Ln
+-r1
N
N
rl
O
0
O
O
L(}
Lr)
cn
It
-cr
O
O
0
Lr)
Ln
V')
Lr)
N
co
W�
M
M
M
[*Y
O
O
•
•
0
•
f 1
LJ
0
0
a
0
sJ
0
s�.
m
oA
w
•r�
m
u
v1
O
l
t�
W
U
q
S=l
r 4
3 �
_
O
(V
O
I
O
O
41
t--1
Lr)
U1
-t
c'1
a..J O
N
00
00
00
00
00
4 C .n
C co
•H 0
0 P4 aJ
Pi C
H v
O t•+
H
Fu m
.H
4-J
rI
C tJ w
cd
N C O
+-t
O
_
_
_
• 4-1
—1
Cl
C1
U
C14
0
Q
{.]i b0
•rl
O
O
O
O
O
U1 U •r-I
I
r-1
ID
O
cn
cn
H FQ w
�
N
N
N
N
N
•
f 1
LJ
lu
•
IT.
E-4
z
0
P-1
3
W
m
v
44
i
0
a
N �
•o V4 N
* •r-I �>
0 0
+- CL c
0
o co s-j
P �4 i~
m m
W (d ;I
H 0
1 I �
•
G 4-3 4-1
o0
U
41 p0
U7 U •rl
0
sr
a
a.
0
+1
r4
0
a
40
0
W
d as c) ra w w C--� %
as
OD
ro
r-I
4-1
o
rn
Cl)
�D
w
o
co 0
.H
0
r A
—4
N
N
r^I
Ul) O
r4
o
o
O
0
o
o
o 0
N
r-E
M
n"7
u'i
u)
0
00 Cq
N
OD
00
00
0o
00
0o
n n
m
00
ro
r-I
ro
O
v1
N
-
-
-
N
L!l
M
t0
(ON
M
r-{
N 1l
.
o
0
-�T
Vrz
-T
U')
r-i O
}4
�Jo
n
o
0
0
0
0 0
0
Lr)
ul
O
r-I
N
N
N M
P'
M
M
0
4
14
1
r-1 r- I
C]
r.
•
r 1
O
u
0
a
0
s�
0
P,
4-J
4-1
a�
ao
�
I
P4
-C�
Cq
{ J
Ga
W
4+
C7
:1i
W
h
^�
n
n
H
N
4.I O
r-I
O Pa
P4
H ;✓
4
I'D
n
00
N
.�
•
lf)
Lr)
N
N
O
to
O
n
0
0
0
o
00
a
IT
o
-t
0
ON
0
-4
0
N
0
r-S
0
c'1
O
N
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
00
00
04
n
4.J 4-3
G Q cU
O O +-1
P� Pa C
v
(1)
m
.� �4
4-1
G
q w
cd
ai O
+-J
F1 oo
m
n
(Y)
m
cr1
c
o0
00
0
0
0o
co
pA
rI
IT
r1
wi
N
N
O
O
rI
r {
rI
ri
U •,�
y4
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
[ cd 41
O
m
tr)
i/l
r-I
4
ON
m
.Y
d
=
N
M
M
It
-:r
d'
-It
It
r 1
•
i�
z
H
O
r
�i
U
0
P4
a�
v
w
I
0
a
ro
U
O
rI
4J 0
JJ 0
rI r� w
O •ri
Gz+ 0 qJ
44 JJ
r I QJ
� 3 �
U (J �j
O
f-4
I I !4
.
rJ
u w
m o
o0
� •rl .JJ
k4 M -C!
y-J SG CIO
rJ m m
0
0
a.
r 4
0
,J
0
a
an
,
0
w
� as U Q
a�
r-I
bO
`v
s0
H
{-J
u)
cn
N
M
y-J
-:T
M
r-I
M
0
0
0
0
O
r-
M
1
M
N
00
CO
o0
00
a�
r-I
DO
N
H
y-J
O
r-
M
1
M
N
O
N
0
ul
rl
o
o
o
0
y�
a
O
r-
00
o
co
00
00
00
x
N
N
N
N
•
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 13, 1983
SUBJECT: Past and present parking situations at the Vail Club Building
Council has asked for this information with respect to the appeal of the proposed
condominium onversion of the Vail Club building. The existing underground parking
for 15 spaces is proposed to be a general common element. To date, the staff has
not received a specific proposal on how exactly those spaces will be allocated.
The following shows you the current requirement for parking on the site (as if
the building were being proposed new today) and the parking variance history of
the project (to the extent this can be deciphered from our files).
A. EXISTING PARKING
USE
IREMENT UNDER TODAY'S ZONING CODE
APPROX SQ FT
PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Accommodation Units
CondominJums
Employee Housing
Restaurant /Bar
Athletic Club
19
15
6
7
25 - 30?
72 - 77 spaces
•
B. PARKING HISTORY
10,047
9,564
1,172
4,000 (56 seats)
12/76 16 car parking variance granted so more landscaping could be installed.
10/77 Vail Club requests parking variance for nine spaces for restaurant of
3,224 square feet (request subsequently withdrawn due to zoning approval
given because applicant proposed a reduction in restaurant size to 1860
square feet).
1/78 Parking for employee housing (3 spaces) given variance with conditions
that these units remain in that use "so long as the Vail Athletic Club
continues in operation." Also that such employee parking "should be
provided" on what is now the site of the Potato Patch Club with the
developer running a shuttle bus back and forth; and that "any parking
that is now or may be provided on the Vail Athletic Club site in excess
of the required parking may not be used in the future to obtain any addi-
tional parking variances."
10/78 Vail Club receives a one space parking variance to expand laundry room
into underground parking area,
V
TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 18, 1983
SUBJECT: Request under Section 18.64,080 - Change of Use to allow space C -1 at
the Lodge at Lionshead, Phase II to be converted from one non - conforming
use (interior decorators /furniture store.).to another non - conforming
use (psychological office): Applicant: Darlene Truchses
Under this section of the zoning code there are two criteria which the Council
is directed to review:
1. Council shall determine that the proposed use does not substantially differ
from the existin non- conformin use in terms of compatibility with the
character of the area in which it is located.
The office use should not conflict with the residential character of the
overall project. Deliveries should be reduced by this change in use.
2. Council shall determine that the proposed use does not increase or aggravate
the degree of nonconformity existing prior to any such change of use.
40 This general space in question was originally approved as an art gallery
(1974) at 675 square feet, requiring 2.25 parking spaces (1 space /300 square
feet). We have no record of the change in use from the art gallery to the
Finishing Touch. The proposed office - measures 788 square feet and requires
3.15 parking spaces (1 space /250 square feet). The difference is .9 space,
or 1 parking space required for the change in use.
Looking at parking at the Lionshead Lodge Phase II overall, under the 1974
regulations the project was granted an 11 space parking variance in March
of 1974. The year before, it was granted a 6 space parking variance. Currently
there exists 55 parking spaces (28 underground) and the current regulations
would call for 79 spaces.
The staff has no information on the actual parking situation in the project
(i.e. if there is a problem or not). We would assume that if one drives
to the project and there is no available parking, that one goes back to
the adjacent structure. The site is in the HDMF zone district and, thus,
cannot be eligible to pay into the parking fund. However, Section 18.52.160 -
Exemptions does provide a means by which the Council could exempt this proposal
from the one space parking requirement. Attached is that section.
•
Lodge LH -2-- 7/18/83
0 18.52.160 Exemptions
A. The town council by .resolution may exempt certain areas from the off - street
parking and loading requirements of this chapter if alternative means will
meet the off - street parking and loading needs of all uses in the area. Prior
to exempting any area from the off - street parking and loading requirements,
the council shall determine the following:
1. That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in
the interests of the town at large;
2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon
properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege
or benefit is not conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere
in the town;
3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improve-
ments in the vicinity of the area to be exempted;
4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provision of public,
community, group or common parking facilities; for provision of adequate
loading facilities and for a system for distribution and pickup of goods;
and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that
such parking, loading and distribution facilities shall be fully adequate
to meet the existing and projected needs generated by all uses in the area
to be exempted.
I*
A
TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 28k 1983
SUBJECT: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for Vail Associates
Snowmaking Pumphouse.
Enclosed please find the memo from us to PEC regarding this issue. We continue
to recommend approval after further study on the stream flow issue, but would
recommend the Council set forth the following additional conditions on the
conditional use permit:
1. Meters with 7 -day graphs should be installed on all three lines
(Mill Creek, Lionshead, and Gore Creek) in the snowmaking building
to monitor flows;
2. The approval should be for a one -year period at the end of which time
we could review impacts;
3. Council should make it clear that no approval for any subsequent
phase exists.
. 4. The Council should tell VA that they should know that before
any future phases are approved, we will require a hydrologic study
to be completed to determine what minimum stream flow on Gore
Creek should be.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 6, 1 983
SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit for a water collection gallery
and pumping station in and adjacent to Gore Creek below the discharge
point of the sewage treatment plant Applicant: Vail Associates
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
Vail Associates is requesting permission to construct a water intake and pumphouse
in order to remove water from Gore Creek for use in their snowmaking operations.
The proposal is located in the Agricultural and Open Space zone district.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Department of Community Development recommends
approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town.
The Town of Vail Council has supported the expansion of snow making facilities
on Vail Mountain. Use of effluent for snowmaking is considered a positive action.
The effect of the use on light and a ir, distr ibution of population, transp or t ation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and rec reation facilities, and other public
facilities needs
By not using treated water for snowmaking operations, the effect will be a benefit
to the community.
Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian
safet and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and
removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
The pumphouse will be located along the bike path but will not impact traffic along
the path in any manner.
Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located,
including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
The pumphouse will be located along the bike path (see site plan) and will have
minimal impact upon the area, Due to the nature of the structure, the noise during
operation will be minimal and inaudible from any existing or future residence or
business. Most pumping will be done during winter months. The visual impact
VA Water Colletion -2- 7/6/83
will be very insignificant to the area, especially if the structure can be designed
and colored to blend into the hillside.
Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the propos ed
use.
The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental
impact report is required by Chapter 18.56.
An environmental impact assessment has been completed by Vail Associates and permits
have been received by the Colorado Department of Health and the Army Corps of Engineers.
FINDINGS:
The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permit
be approved based on the following findings:
That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this
ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would
0 be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this ordinance.
STA RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the
use permit for the snowmaking water collection system. So long as
of the structure are minimal, the project will be a benefit to the
The Design Review Board should be made aware of the Town Council's
owners) concerns of ensuring that the structure blends into the hi
an unobtrusive as possible.
requested conditional
the visual impacts
community.
(as property
11side and is
•
. 1 ' l �� 1 �l ' I W_
`• �, ,J I rJI I'�i ���
w
'�� 00
cj i cn
cr
• i 1 �� I � \ \ cr_ ,
,.
X
G'\L� r,
tu
i {.��- ' -; i M U �i 145
{ x i I
LLI
I�� \
x '��,i �� �C1 �� �,'� o n
'
i �p d LL z Cb cj !cb p O LLJ J
LIA
LLJ
I < # Cr _ d
= Ld
co a r
f 0
f ,
MEMORANDUM
August 17, 1983
TO: Town Council
FROM: Dick Ryan
SUBJECT: Economic Study of Vail
Yesterday, the Town Council received a presentation on a proposed
economic study of Vail. One other organization has shown interest
regarding a possible study. If Town Council determines that a study
is needed, do you want to send out RFP's and review several firms?
This procedure would be similar to the process used for the Winter
Quality Study, for the Vail Library architect, and for the Lionshead
detailed mall design.
00
. MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: August 31, 1983
SUBJECT: Revised Design Review Board Guidelines and Procedures
Attached is a copy of the Design Review Board procedures and regulations as
revised. The staff has taken into consideration the comments received during
the two review sessions at PEC in addition to the public hearing with the
Design Review Board on May 4 and believes that the section should be adopted
as written, as it will enable the DRB to be more effective, possesses a greater
degree of predictability for the applicant, is better organized and is easier
to understand and read.
This item will be presented at your September 12 meeting for action and is
being mailed out earlier than the packet to enable the PEC ample time to
thoroughly review the changes. If you have any questions, please contact
Peter Jamar.
•
10
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: August 31, 1983
SUBJECT: Proposed Design Review Revisions
Attached are the proposed revised Design Review procedures and regulations.
The Design Review Board has held one public hearing and the PEC two public
hearings on the proposed changes, and the PEC will be acting on the revisions
at their September 12th meeting. The staff will give a brief overview of the
revisions at your September 6th work session.
is
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: August 31, 1983
SUBJECT: Appeal of Blu's Beanery Exterior Alteration
Attached are the two memos from the staff regarding the Blu's Beanery remodel.
The staff had originally recommended denial of the proposed design and then
recommended approval of the subsequent design for the reasons stated in the
memo. The PEC voted in favor of the project.
•
it
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Communi:ty, Develo.p.roent .
DATE: September 13, 1983
SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the Public Use zone district in order
to add private helipads as a conditional use.
THE REQUEST
Eagle Vail Helicopters desires to establish an on- demand helicopter charter service
based at the Eagle County airport. The applicants wish to construct a helipad
at the Ford Park snow dump which located within the Public Use district. The
Public Use district allows only emergency helipads and /or community use helipads
as a conditional use. Therefore, - the applicants request to add private helipads
as a conditional use within that district.
ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSAL
When analyzing this proposal, it is important to look at how the proposed use
relates to the purpose of the zone district and for what uses the district was
established to accommodate. The zoning code states that:
. "The Public Use district is intended to provide sites for public
and quasi - public uses which, because of their special characteristics,
cannot appropriately be regulated by the development standards prescribed
for other zoning districts, and for which development standards
especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or
project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section
18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The public use
district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds
and certain types of quasi- public uses permitted in the district
are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents
and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in
the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light,
air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted
types of uses."
In other words, the Public Use District is intended to provide land for public
facilities. The proposed helipad use is not intended to be public.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development staff recommends denial of the requested
zoning code amendment. We believe that the application is in conflict with the
purposes of the Public Use District and that potential conflicts could arise between
competition for the needs for future public facilities on Town owned property
and enabling the use of these Town properties for private enterprise. We also do not
believe that the helipad use would be consistent with the development objectives of
the Town due to the potential environmental impacts (noise), and the potential safety
issues. Due to the narrowness of our valley, the staff believes that the use would
significantly alter the character of the community and would not be compatible with
other land uses within the valley.
Helipad -2- 9/13/83
• At their September 12th meeting the Planning and Environmental Commission
p g 9
voted 5 -1 to recommend denial of the application.
•
•
EAGLE VAIL HELICOPTERS
July 25, 1983
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Attention: Richard Caplan
Town Manager
Dear Mr. Caplan:
Eagle Vail Helicopters (to be formed) and incorporated
in the State of Colorado shall be a division of Roto Whirl
Inc. of Wabash, Indiana. Eagle Vail Helicopters principals
in name are Melvin Hick, Chairman of the Board and chief
executive officer - Wabash, Indiana. Preston Ewen, President
Rochester, Indiana; Lewis Elin of South Bend, Indiana; and
Tracy Easterday of Indianapolis, Indiana remain as stockholders.
It is our desire to establish an on demand helicopter
charter service based at the Eagle County Airport. This
business would be a year around operation and would have
diversified activities consisting of:
A. Helicopter Ski Lift for Back Bowl Powder Skiing
B. Scenic Tours
40 C. Shuttle Service between Eagle County Airport
and the town of Vail
D. A shuttle service between Vail and Aspen and
possibly other close ski areas
E. What is referred to as Heli - hiking, a summer
activity where sightseers are flown to an upper
mountain region area for hiking and sightseeing
with a guide and picked up later at a pre - determined
destination.
F. Aerial Photography
G. We would like to assist the Forest Service and
local fire deparments with fire control.
H. We would like to provide a limited helicopter
air ambulance and assist in search and rescue
missions.
I. An on demand charter service to points of various
locations to be determined by the charter customer
being serviced.
. We are well aware of the need for noise abatement, and
feel this goal can be accomplished through proper pilot
technique, specified traffic patterns and altitudes and of
course,the proper choice of helicopters. In this case, we
� YS
CM
will be operating the Bell 7 as
P g Passenger Long Ranger and the
5 passenger Jet Ranger. All pilots shall be of professional
quality and experienced in the mountains. They shall also
be qualified under Part 91 and Part 135 of the Federal Aviations
Regulations and must meet the requirements of the company
operations and training manuals. All aircraft shall be
maintained under the maintenance . specifications of the
manufacturer and the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Our flight operations in the past have always stressed
safety as our main concern and shall continue to strive for
that continued reputation.
We feel strongly that the key to success in our
operation would be the ability to operate in and out of
a helipad near the town of Vail. We are prepared to build
and maintain the heliport at an approved sight.
At this time, we would like to submit a petition for
amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow for a helipad
to be- constructed at the Ford Park Snow Dump area.
I would like to thank all of those who have helped
us in Vail and the surrounding areas in our endeavor to move our
operation to Eagle County. I am ,looking forward to moving
there personally with my family and becoming part of the
community. I would like to thank you for considering this
proposal and hope it can be acted upon as soon as possible
so we can be established before the winter weather arrives.
Respectfully,
Preston Ewen
d.b.a. Eagle Vail Helicopters
PE:mh
U
r
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 15, 1983
SUBJECT: Appeal of the DRB decision concerning the mailbox clusters
Below is a description of the events leading up to the DRB decision to disapprove
the U.S. Post Office mailbox clusters.
1. February, 1981
Ernie Chavez met with Town Council at a work session to discuss mailbox
clusters. (See enclosed transcript of meeting.) Mr. Chavez left meeting
with the impression that he had approval to procure the mailbox clusters.
2. October, 1982
Staff members at the Post Office work with the Public Works department
in locating sites for the mailbox clusters.
3. April - June, 1983
• Phase 1 of the cluster project, consisting of 112 boxes arrive
and are installed.
4, July, 1983
The Town Manager requests that Mr. Chavez place the mailbox clusters
on a DRB agenda.
5. August 3, 1983
The DRB disapproves the mailbox clusters and suggests that the boxes
be annodized a dark bronze color. There is some discussion after the
meeting between DRB members and the Post Office concerning the possibility
of painting the boxes.
6. September 7, 1983
Having explored the possibilities of painting and annodizing the boxes,
the Post Office returns to the DRB. The Post Office reports that to
paint or annodize.the boxes would be costly and impractical. The DRB
disapproves the mailbox clusters citing 18.54.010(B)(C):
n
U
V
Mail Boxes -2- 9/15/83
B. To insure that the location and configuration of structures
are visually harmonious with their sites and with surrounding
sites and structures, and do not unnecessarily block scenic
views from existing buildings or tend to dominate the townscape
or the natural landscape;
C. To ensure that the architectural design of structures and
their materials and colors are visually harmonious with the
town's overall appearance, with surrounding development,
with natural landforms and native vegetation, and with officially
approved development plans, if any, for the areas in which
the structures are proposed to be located;
7. The second phase of the project, 231 boxes, has been bid and
sites located. Installation awaits resolution of the design
issue.
•
U
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 16, 1983
SUBJECT: Revised Design Review Board Guidelines and Procedures
The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended at their September 12
meeting by a vote of 5 -1 to approve the revised design review guidelines
and procedures. The following is a list of revisions made by the PEC to the
copy that you were given two weeks ago:
1. Section 18.54.030 Design Approval (p.3):
Terminology was added which exempts landscape maintenance and gardening
from this requirement in addition to the planting of additional landscaping
to an existing landscape plan.
2. 18.54.040 (C.3) (p. 9) Staff Approval:
Added terminology which specified that in the case where condominium
. association approval is required, it must be from a member of the condo
association that is authorized such authority and not merely the manager.
3. 18.54.050 (p.9) Design Guidelines
A. General
The PEC voted to add two guildelines which they had deleted in an earlier
review session:
2. Structures shall not visually dominate the townscape or neighborhood
or call undue attention to themselves unless they are of civic importance
and occupy focal sites.
3. In residential areas, the location and configuration of buildings
should maximize the privacy of surrounding dwellings and should intrude
into their views to the minimum.extent practical.
4. The PEC recommended that the plant list (p.12) be kept on file in the
Department of Community Development rather than as a part of the ordinance.
5. 18.54.070 Performance Bond (p.18) - recommended that the Council define
what "other accepted securities" were acceptable
6. 18.54.110 Lapse of Design Review Approval (p. 19)
The PEC recommended that wording be incorporated which gives the staff
approval to extend the period a Design Review approval is good for.
At the Sept. 20 Town Council work session these concerns were addressed
concerning the Design Review Board revisions:
1. Section 18.54.030 2.A. (p.8):
Concern about wording as referring to "next regularly scheduled meeting."
2. Section 18.54.050 A.3. (p.9):
Concern was voiced about intrusion into views.
3. Section 18.54.050 C.I. (p.10):
Comments were made regarding the prohibition of plywood siding and suggestions
were made to possibly limit the area and allow additions to be similar as exist-
ing materials if plywood.
4. Section 18.54.050 C.3. (p.10):
Concern about allowing weathering flashing, flues, etc. as well as annodized
or painted
5. Section 18.54.050 C.6 (p.10):
0 Concern about not allowing asphalt and fiberglass shingles.
6. Section 18.54.050 E.2. (p.14):
Suggestion that chain link fences should be allowed for recreational facilities.
7. Section 18.54.050 F.3. (p.14):
Suggestion that dish antennae be screened "substantially out of view" rather
than "totally."
•
MEMORANDUM
0 TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 21, 1983
SUBJECT: Revised Design Review Board Guidelines and Procedures
Attached is a copy of the revised DRB guidelines and procedures incorporating
the changes made by the PEC. Also attached is a summary of changes suggested
by the Council at their last work session.
The Eagle Valley Home Builders will have a written memo of the suggestions
that they made at your last meeting.
•
n
HOME BUILDERS` ASSOCIATION COMMENTS FROM 9/20/83
1. 18.54.010 Intent (p.1): Include wording "Recognizing that the landowners
(or homeowners) have a basic right to form and pursue their own personal
tastes and goals so long as they comfortably work with the spirit and
intent of the prevailing design guidelines."
2. 18.54.010, paragraph 3, 3rd line (p.1): change wording to read
.. "and general welfare of the community and its residents and..:
3. 18.54.020.C., 14th line (p.2): Change the word four to three and add
a provision stating "of which two may be members of the Planning and
Environmental Commission if necessary to comprise a quorum."
4. 18.54.030.A. 6th line (p.3): Add the words "or substitution" after
the word "addition."
5. 18.54.040 C.a (p.5): Insert the words "current (6 months)" before
"topographic survey."
6. 18.54.040 C.g. (p.6): Add the wording "For single and two - family lots,
it will not be necessary to provide drawings or models of adjacent structures."
and "Models for single and two - family structures shall not be required."
7. 18.54.030 2. 5th line (p.8): Insert the words "as specified herein"
after the words "additional items."
8. 18.54.040 2.A 5th line (p.8): Insert the words "as specified herein"
after word "needed."
9. 18.54.050 B.3. (p.9): Insert the words "the permitted" before the word
"development."
10. 18.54.050 C.3 (p.10): Delete the words "gray" and "white."
11. 18.54.050 D. (p.12): Would like to see minimum sizes acceptable included.
12. 18.54.050 E (p.16) Change to read "Fences shall not be encouraged except
to screen trash areas, utility equipment, etc."
LJ
m
F J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 28, 1983
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to
deny a conditional use request to install a major arcade at the
Inn at West Vail. Applicant: James Craddock
A chronological summary of events is outlined below:
June 27
On June 27th representatives of the Inn at West Vail appeared before the Planning
Commission to request a conditional use permit for a major arcade.
The application is to install seven machines in the hotel, five machines to be
housed in a room near the hotel lobby, and two machines in the lobby itself.
The proposal includes television supervision of the arcade room (see floor plan).
The Planning and Environmental Commission denied the application by a vote of
4 -2, citing that the proposed use would be injurious to the health, safety and
• welfare of the citizens of Vail. The majority of the commission felt that
supervision of the arcade with television cameras was inadequate given that the
arcade room was within the area in which people could carry alcoholic beverages.
The commission also felt that to grant the conditional use permit would be inconsistent
with past conditional use applications for major arcades (see minutes) in that
an in -room supervisor was not proposed.
The applicants failed to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Town
Council within the ten days allotted for such an appeal. A letter of appeal was
sent to the Town after the ten day period expired.
September 12
Since the applicant failed to submit a letter of appeal within a ten day period,
the Inn at West Vail returned with their request to the Planning Commisison. The
applicant revised their application stating that they would not allow food or
drink in the arcade and that it would be closed from 11 :00 pm to 7:00 am. They
also stated that they would add audio to the visual televison supervision scheme.
The Planning Commission again denied the conditional use application, stating
that there should be a full time supervisor in the room, a condition placed on
other major arcades. The application was denied by a vote of 5--1.
•
-2-
•
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
At both Planning Commission meetings the staff recommended approval of the
conditional use application. The recommendation of approval is based upon
an evaluation of the conditional use criteria outlined in Section 18.60.060:
The application does not conflict with the development objectives of the Town,
does not influence light, air, transportation, parks or schools, does not
create traffic congestion, nor does it have a negative or substantial influence
on surrounding uses. (See staff memo of June 22.)
The staff recommendation of June 22, with the associated stipulations, stands.
The stipulations are reproduced below:
1. That the noise of the amusement.devices does not disturb the nearby
businesses and guests in the Inn at West Vail. The applicant should
keep all the noise volume controls on the machines at a low level.
2. That the television monitoring system be operational during the hours
that the arcade is open.
3. That the conditional use permit should be granted for a period not to
exceed one year from the time the permit is granted. The applicant
should return to the Planning Commission in the month of September,
1984 for the review of their conditional use.
In conclusion, the application, given the proximity of the arcade to the lobby,
the small number of machines proposed, and the television supervision, is
not a danger to the health, safety and welfare of the Town.
�11
•
PEC MINUTES SEPTEMBER 12, 1983
b. Req_uest for a co nditional us pe rmit i ord to i nstall amajo arcade on
the first f of the In n at hes t_ Vail. Applicant: Inn at West Vail, James
Craddock
Jim Sayre explained that this was a resubmittal of an application heard by the
Planning Commission -on June 27th and that the application had not changed. Jim
said that the staff felt that because of the small size, the proximity to the
lobby, they recommended approval with three conditions.
Donna King, representing the applicant, stated that they had re- evaluated the
guidelines, and have decided not to allow food or drink in the arcade and to close
it between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am. They were also adding audio to visual coverage.
i Morgan said that he had no problem with this, Pierce wanted a time limit (there
was one in the conditions), Viele felt that there should be a full time supervisor.
Donovan felt that adding audio was a little better, and liked the idea that it
would be closed part of the time. Trout felt as Viele did, Corcoran was opposed.
Viele mo and T se conded to d eny the r e u� est_
M or an votin again
9 - - — —. again
The vot was 5 -1 wi
•
PEC MINUTES JUNE 27th 1983
7. Request for a conditional use permit in order to install a game parlour on the
> first floor of the Inn at West Vail. Applicant: James Craddock, Inn at West Vail.
k
Jim Sayre explained that the staff recommends approval with the television monitoring
because of the small size of the arcade. Gene Gilbert of the Inn at West Vail said
that there would be monitoring 24 hours a day. Morgan asked whether or not liquor
would be allowed in the arcade, and Gilbert said that there was no way to prevent
it, because it would not be violating the liquor license.: Piper asked if there
would be someone available if there were trouble, and Gilbert said there was always
someone on duty at the front desk. Trout asked if there were any rules concerning
liquor in arcades. Gilbert stated that in a test case it was decided that a minor
has the right to go into a public area, though the minor can't be served liquor.
Morgan reminded the board that if there were any problems the c.u.permit could be revoke
Pierce felt that this arcade could cause more problems than the larger ones becau�c
of the type of monitoring and because of the availability of the liquor. Donovan
asked if the hours could be limited, and Gilbert stated that they felt that since
it could be monitored 24 hours /day, there was no need to set certain hours. Later,
he agreed to limit hours if the PEC wanoed them to.
Sayre felt that since there were only 5 machines a television monitoring system
seemed adequate. Trout wondered if this could be precedent setting,, and stated
that with the liquor problem he could not support the request.
Trout moved and Pierce seconded to deny the request.
Donovan asked Gilbert if it would be possible to not have liquor in the room, and
Gilbert said that since this was a hotel, it was the nature of the facility to allow
people to carry drinks to their rooms, or other places, and that it would be difficult,
but perhaps a sign stating "No food or drinks in this room" could be placed. The
r motion was then restated as follows:
Trout moved and Pierce seconded to deny the request because the pr22osed location
of the,.use and the conditions under which it would be op erated or maintained would
Fe detrimental to the publichealth, safety, or welfare because there would be
no ive supervision. The vote to den was 4 in favor, with 2 (Morgan and Piper)
against denial, and Donovan abstaining
Corcoran reminded the applicant that he could appeal to Town Council within 10 days.
The reasons for voting for denial:
Pierce: liquor and children
Viele: major arcades need full time supervisor
Corcoran: liquor problem and no direct supervision
Trout: children, liquor, and no direct supervision
Morgan asked what provisions the Town had for checking numbers of machines in bars,
and was answered that there was no exact provision, and that a number of arcades
were grandfathered.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST JUNE 27
•
The arcade area wi11 be one room in the Inn at West Vail
noted as "Bell Captain" on sheet A -25 of the blue prints of the
structure. The room measures approximately 154 feet by 104 feet
for maximum deminsions. 'There is one window area 4 feet by 8 feet
on the east wall looking out into'a parking area. There is one
doorway in the south -west corner of the room. There will be five
standing game machines of approximately 33 inches by 25 inches and
70 inches tall. The arcade room will by under a television
monitering system twenty -four hours per day. Change will be
available at the front desk at any time of the day.
We will have an additional two table model machines in the
lounge area which measure approximately 24 inches by 22 inches
and are 30 inches high. The seven games will be for the use and
diversion of our clientel and will not be used in any advertising
campaign as a point of sales
L�
' t
1' r
r x --
_ TT
m
i `' 3
MEMORANDUM
.7
0
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 8, 1983
SUBJECT: Conditional use application to install a major arcade in the
Inn at West Vail. Applicant: James Craddock
BACKGROUND
The owners of the Inn at West Vail are returning to the Planning Commission with
their application to install a major arcade. This is a resubmittal of an application
heard by the Planning Commission (June 27th). Their application has not changed;
they wish to install seven machines in the hotel, five machines to be housed in
a room near the hotel lobby, and two machines in the lobby itself. The proposal
to supervise the arcade room with television cameras also remains the same.
(See staff memo of June 22.)
The PEC denied the previous application by a vote of 4-2, citing that the proposed
use would be injurious to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Vail.
The majority of the commission felt that supervision of the arcade with television
cameras was inadequate given that the arcade room was within the area in which
people could carry alcoholic beverages. The commission also felt that to grant
the conditional use permit would be inconsistent with past conditional use applications
for major arcades (see minutes).
The applicants failed to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Town
Council within the ten days allotted for such an appeal. A letter of appeal was
sent to the Town after the ten day period expired.
PLANNING COMMISSION JURISDICTI
The Inn at West Vail is resubmitting the same application arguing that the Planning
Commission "exceeded their guidelines" in refusing the conditional use permit.
They argue that the arcade ordinance itself did not address liquor and arcades
(see letter of August 26).
The Town attorney has informed the staff that the PEC has not overstepped its
authority in denying the permit. The motion to deny was made in terms of protecting
health, safety and welfare of the community. This power is quite broad, and can
include such items as the mixture of uses such as liquor and arcades.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff maintains its recommendation of approval. If you read down through
the criteria used in evaluating the conditional use permit, there is not one which
could be used to justify denial. The application does not conflict with the
0
Reapplication Inn West Vail -2- 9/8/83
development objectives of the Town, does not influence light, air, transportation,
parks or schools, does not create traffic congestion, nor does it have a negative
or substantial influence on surrounding uses (see staff memo).
The question is not whether the Planning Commission overstepped its authority
in denying the permit application. The question is whether the proposed arcade
will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The con-
ditional use chapter is designed to review applications on a case by case basis.
In this case, five machines in a r000m supervised with television cameras will
not be detrimental to the safety of the community. The staff recommendation of
June 22, with the associated stipulations, stands. The stipulations are reproduced
below:
1. That the noise of the amusement devices does not disturb the nearby businesses
and guests in the Inn at West Vail. The applicant should keep all the noise
volume controls on the machines at a low level.
2. That the television monitoring system be operational during the hours that
the arcade is open.
3. That the conditional use permit should be granted for a period not to exceed
one year from the time the permit is granted. The applicant should return
to the Planning Commission in the month of June, 1984 for review of their
conditional use.
•
0
I
MEMORANDUM
I0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
1 M
I
DATE: June 22, 1983
SUBJECT: Conditional use application to install a major arcade in the
Inn at West Vail, Applicant: James Craddock
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The owners of the Inn at West Vail wish to install a major arcade in the Inn at
West Vail. The conditional use application is to install seven machines in the
hotel, five machines to be housed in a room designated for such use, and two machines
are to remain in the lobby, The arcade room will be supervised by a television
monitoring system. (See attached statement and plans.)
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 13,600, the Department of Community Development recommends
approval, with three stipulations,. -of the conditional use permit based upon
the following factors:
Considerati on 'of Factors:
Relations and 'impact, of the use' - on development objectives of the town.
If the arcade is' managed properly, the use will not contradict the development
objectives of the town, v,hich call for the "harmonious development of the
town" and enhance "its established character as a resort,
Jhe effect of the use on light ai r, distribu of pop ulation. transp
faculties, uti scrioo faCiiliC and oilier
iuEf - i�f� act i6�es and J)Ubl is facilities nood
The arcade will not substantially influence the above.
effect' upo traffi r•r par ticular re ference to r on�estion, a ± r t orroti v e and
ietrtian safr'�nd converiie trar ic_ 1 ^ ] o,r and c ontra ace yss, m aneverabil it
and removes of sna�ifrom ��� street antl �arlc�bc; Gr .
The arcade should not substantially increase the demand for parking in the
Inn at West Vail,
Inn at West Vail -2- 6/22/83
Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located
including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surroun.djng uses
The arcade will be located in a 150 square foot room off of the lobby at the Inn
at West Vail. There are several businesses located near the proposed arcade.
Finishing Touch and Farmer's Insurance Group are the nearest. If the noise of
the machines is kept at a minimum, the nearby businesses will not likely be disturbed.
The arcade room also has a window facing the parking lot at the Inn. The Commercial
Core III zone district allows arcades with exterior frontage.
Such othe factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
use
The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental
impact report is reauired by chapter 18.56.
Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permit
be approved based on the following findings:
0
That the proposed location of the use is in-acco.rd with the purposes of this
ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would
be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this ordinance.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval are intended to be consistent with the stipulations
placed on other major arcades, with the exception here that supervision by personnel
is being replaced by supervision by television. In this case, the staff feels
the television monitoring system will provide sufficient supervision due to the
small number -5- of machines in the arcade room and its proximity to the front
desk. Other conditional use applications for a television monitoring system will
be judged on their own merit. The stipulations concerning noise and a one year,
renewable permit are similar to those placed on other arcades.
Thus, the staff recommends that the following stipulations be placed upon the
conditional use permit:
•
Inn at West Vail -3- 6/22/83
1, That the noise of the amusement devices does not disturb the nearby businesses
and guests in the Inn at West Vail. The applicant should keep all the
noise volume controls on the machines at a low level..
2. That the television monitoring system be operational during the hours that
the arcade is open.
•
3. That the conditional use permit should be granted for a period not to exceed
one year from the time the permit is granted. The applicant should return
to the Planning Commission in the month of June, 1984 for review of their
conditional use.
•
Is TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department /Peter Patten
DATE: October 3, 1983
SUBJECT: Information on Timesharing
At the September 20th work session, we again discussed timesharing.
The Council requested further information regarding cost /revenues
and generally the socio- economic impacts of timesharing. The title
of the study done for the American Land Development Association is:
"A Socio- Economic Impact Analysis of Resort Timesharing."
Enclosed please find copies of the following from Volume II of the
study: cover, table of contents and Chapter V: "Government Revenues
and Cost." Please come to my office or call if you'd like to see
other chapters of the study or have questions or comments.
•
•
MEMORANDUM
. TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 4, 1983
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE # 39
The following are suggested by the staff as changes to Ordinance 39 (Design
Review) in response to both the Town Council's concerns and questions and the
Eagle Valley Homebuilders' Association's concerns.
1. 18.54.020 c., (p.2), 14th line: Change the word four to three
2. 18.54.040 B .d. (p.4): Eliminate the words and fee
3. 18.54.030. 2 (p.8) 9th line: Eliminate the words the next regularly schedule
DRB meeting for decision and substitute of the next appropriately scheduled
Design Review Board meeting in accordance with the required application
submittal deadlines on file in the Community Development Department.
4. 18.54.030.2.A. (p.8), 5th line: Insert the words as specified herein after
the words additional items.
5. 18.54.050 B.3. (p.9): Insert the words the permitted before the word
development
6. 18.54.050.C.3. (p.10) 3rd line: Eliminate the words gray and white
7. 18.54.050.C.3. (p.10) 8th Tine: Change wording to read annodized, painted,
or capable of weathering so as to be non - reflective.
8. 18.54.050 D.1 (p.12) 9th line: Change wording in second sentence to read
..area. The minimum sizes of landsca e materials acre table are as follows:
Required trees
Deciduous - 2" caliper
Conifers - 6
Required shrubs - #5 gallon container
Foundation shrubs - shall have a minimum height of 18" at time of iantin
9. 18.54.050 E.1 (p.13): Add the sentence Fences shall not be encoura ed
except to screen trash areas, utility e ui ment, etc.
10. 18.54.050 E.2 (p.15) 5th line: After the word fences add or as required
for recreational facilities
11. 18.54.050 F.3. (p.14): Change wording totally screened to substantially
screened
12. 18.54.070 (p.15) last line: After the word security add the words that
has been approved by the Town
.0
lows
75 south frontage road
veil, colorado 81657
(303) 476 -7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 10, 1983
office of community development
SUBJECT: Request by the Planning and Environmental Commission
for Town Council to attend meeting on October 24.
At the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on September 26th,
the Commission requested that Town Council attend the PEC meeting of the
24th to hear the presentation on the Vail Village Inn proposal for phase
four. The public hearing is scheduled for 2:00 pm on October 24th
Before that, there will be a site visit, and it would be valuable for you to
also attend this part. A few days before the meeting, we will let you know
the approximate time for the site visit.
E
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 11, 1983
SUBJECT: Response to comments at first reading of Design Review Ordinance
(Ordinance #39, Series 1983)
The following suggestions are in response to the comments made by the Council
on first reading of Ordinance #39. The changes are aimed at eliminating or re-
phrasing sections which the Council had concerns with. These dealt specifically
with providing a statement about allowing flexibility, being sensitive to each
site, not mentioning private views, and the types of roof forms allowed.
The staff is currently reviewing the shall vs should issue and will make further
recommendations at next week's work session.
The following changes are recommended:
18.54.010 Inten (p. 1) Add the following as a fourth paragraph:
It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible
to the individual designer while at the same time.maintaining the remarkable
natural beauty of the area by creating structures which are designed to complement
both their individual sites and surroundings.
18.54.050 Design_ Guidelines (p.9) Remove items A.2 and A.3 and replace with:
2. Any building site in Vail is likely to have its own unique land forms and
features. Whenever possible, these existing features should be preserved and
reinforced by new construction. The objective is to fit the buildings to their
sites in a way that leaves the natural land forms and features intact, treating
the buildings as an integral part of the site, rather than isolated objects
at odds with their surroundings.
18 .54.050.04 Roof Form
(p.10) Change to read:
The majority of roof forms within Vail are gable roofs with a pitch of at least
four feet in twelve feet. However, other roof forms are allowed. Consideration
of environmental and climatic determinants such as snow shedding, drainage,
and solar exposure should be integral to the roof design.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT October 14, 1983
18.54.020 Insert at end of paragraph A.
The Design Review Board shall remain a seven member board until February 1984.
. After that time, the board will become a five member board.
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 14, 1983
SUBJECT: Revisions to the Ski Base /Recreation District After First Reading
The Council, in its motion to approve Ordinance 38 on first reading, made some
specific wording changes as well as directing staff to work with Vail Associates
and the neighborhood group on making the district more generic (less specific).
I. These changes are the specific ones in the motion to approve:
1. Page 1, 030 A 11: delete "headset rental"
2. Page 1, 030 B 1, last line: delete "and headset rental"
3. Page 4, 075 #7: delete "Alpine Slide"
4.
5.
II.
i
I 1.
Page 7, 170; 3rd and 4th lines: Change 33 feet to 35 feet
Page 7, bottom, delete staff recommendation section
The following are changes in an effort to make the district less specific
to a site and /or proposal. These have been agreed upon by staff, Vail
Associates, and the neighborhood association:
Page 1, 030 A #9: Meeting rooms for owner use and community - oriented organizations
2. Page 1, 030 A #10: Change "Vail Associates" to "Owners' Use"
3. Page 1, 030 C #1: Delete #1; re- number section
4. Page 2, 030 D: Change to read: "The following uses shall be permitted
outside the main building as shown on the approved development
plan."
5. Page 2, 030 D #6: Delete:
6. Page 2, 030 D #8: delete:
"tot lot"
"limited to their present size."
7. Page 2, 030 D #9: should read: "Ski School Activities"
8. Page 2, 030 D #11: delete "on the south side terrace"
9. Page 3, 050 A #2: should read: "Addition or expansion of storage buildings
for mountain equipment"
11
10/14/83 Changes to Ski Base /Recreation Dist. -2W
10. Page 3, 050 A #8: should read: "Public or Private Parking Structures
0 beyond the approved development plan"
11. Page 4, 075 #6: should read: "Surface Parking beyond the approved
development plan"
12. Page 6, 130, should read: "Lot Area" (i.e. delete "and site dimensions ")
Also, same section, should read: "The minimum lot or site
area shall be 40 acres of site area, at least one acre of
which shall be buildable area."
� 0
Is
MEMORANDUM
0 TO: TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 14, 1983
SUBJECT: The Design Review Ordinance ( #39)
The Community Development Department staff recommends clarifying the should
vs shall issue with the following provision:
18.54.015 Definitions and Rules of Construction
Any words, terms, or phrases used in this Design Review Guide shall be
defined and interpreted in accordance with the definitions contained in
Section 18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code, unless the context clearly indicates
a different meaning was intended. If the context is unclear, the matter
will be referred to the Design Review Board for final determination.
The distinction made between those items contained within this Chapter
that are mandatory and those that are discretionary is that statements
which are mandatory are prefaced by the word shall and the statements
or guidelines which are discretionary (or merely suggestions) are prefaced
by the words should or mom. In all instances, any particular or specific
controls over the general.
•
•
fowl
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476 -7000
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
office of community development
SUBJECT: Request by PEC to attend the meeting regarding the request to
amend SDD #6, the Vail Village Inn
DATE: October 21, 1983
On Monday the PEC starts with a field trip at 11:3OAM to review sites
under consideration for the public hearing part of the meeting. Then
a study session on Golden Peak and at 2:OOPM, the public hearing on SDD #6.
Please plan to attend.
•
0
TO: Town Council
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 26, 1983
SUBJECT: Appeal of Highland Park Proposal
At the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting of October 24,
Jim Morgan moved and Gordon Pierce seconded to approve the request with
conditions that the underground drains be installed per the staff memo,
and that they be installed prior to the issuance of final certificate
of occupancies on the presently constructed buildings and before any
new building permits are issued on the remainder of the property.
The vote was 5 in favor and 1 (Donovan) against. Donovan felt that there
should be some recreational amenities, such as a tot lot, in the open
meadow.
0
•
A
TO: Town Council
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 3, 1983
SUBJECT: Breakaway West Condominium Association request to landscape
a portion of the public right -of -way
The Breakaway West Condominium Association is undertaking a project to improve
their parking and landscaping.
Currently there are 14 parking stalls along Lions Ridge Loop which stand on
the right -of -way adjacent to Breakaway West. This parking was included in
the Breakaway West parking requirement when the project was built. But since
the parking stalls stand on the public right -of -way the public at large uses
these stalls. The condominium association has submitted plans which will incorporate
these stalls onto their own property. Plans have been submitted and approved
by the Design Review Board which incorporate this parking plan and the upgrading
of landscaping and drainage on the Breakaway West property.
Part of this landscaping plan is to landscape, using sod, the parking stalls
which stand on the Lions Ridge Loop right -of -way. The Public Works department
approves of the landscaping plan because it will lessen congestion around the
intersection and bus stop.
The Town Council needs to approve this landscaping plan since it will take
place on public property.
if
Yf� A
Tn
.. l 2 y ` '..y t ma i 4
F �
- , _ v - s •r , t q -'
} e r i
fy P £ z
- �
D
p l
' ?5 A 5 F ,ii ,_` r ? t 4��t�r ly�r,• ; d£�• v. �' b �, r
-
f i
5
�ye 5
� � v 1 t �� 1 i � � � f Ftr 'ice, p � `�'' d '"F. �,"'� ""'tSf�Y, �� #' r'�' • � �k+` S.
014
MEMORANDUM
November 7, 1983
•
TO. Town Council Candidates
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Draft of Vail's Community Action Plan: Focus 1985
During the past year and one half, several residents, business owners,
and community leaders have been involved in a process to develop Vail's
Community Action Plan: Focus 1985. Attached is a draft of the plan
for your review.
The next step in the process is to have public meetings where other
community residents and business people can review and comment on the
plan. The purpose of the plan is to have in several areas, a community
direction instead of waiting for the future to happen.
•
[7
MEMORANDUM
December 1, 1983
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Parking exemption for Special Development District #6
Proposed for Special Development District 6 is no less than 280 spaces within
the main building or buildings. For the entire development, Phases I through
V over 400 parking spaces would be needed. In order for the developer to
construct no less than 280 spaces, a parking exemption would be needed.
The attached resolution deals with this issue, and requires the applicant or
owner to pay into the parking fund a parking fee for any spaces required under
the off- street parking and loading section of the zoning code. The exact number
of spaces needed would be determined when final plans are available to review.
Until that time, we can only come up with an estimate.
a
MEMORANDUM
December 2, 1983
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Rezoning of Amoco service station site and amending
Special Development District 6
Enclosed is a draft of the November 28th Planning and Environmental Commission
meeting minutes regarding the rezoning of the Amoco site and amending SDD6.
The staff has a couple of concerns with the motion for approval:
1. We consider that the environmental impact report is not accurate, and
there are conflicting statements in the report.
2. There is not adequate justification for permitting the additional CRFA.
3. The statement, "..the architectural design features as presented on the
plans, elevations and model not be altered..." takes away the given authority
of the Design Review Board to review and approve this aspect.
MEMORANDUM
December 8, 1983
TO: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Discussion of allowing the possibility of additional lodge rooms, employee
units and gross residential floor area in Vail Village
During the past couple of months there has been discussion of permitting addi-
tional lodge rooms and additional gross residential floor area in Vail Village.
First, the Lodge at Vail received permission for additional rooms and additional
gross floor area because of a condominium plat showing air versus ground rights.
Second, there was a study session on the Sonnenalp where the PEC considered
that there were benefits in the redevelopment of the site, and the proposal
for more GRFA and more lodge rooms was basically considered a positive approach.
Third, there was the request for SDD6 to increase the gross residential floor
area of the property.
During the past month, the staff along with assistance from Larry Eskwith, Jay
Peterson, Nolan Rosall, Jeff Winston and Louise Allen has been working on devel-
opment criteria to permit additional lodge rooms, employee units and gross resi-
dential floor area in the Vail Village area.
This memorandum sets forth a direction for review and comment by the Town Council
and the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before this discussion takes
place, there need to be some basic policy questions answered.
1. What direction regarding redevelopment does the Town Council and the Plannin
an Environmental Commission want to take for Vail Village?
2. Does Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission want additional
accommodation units and gross residential floor area above the current
densit in the Vail Village area?�
If the answer to the above question is yes, then the staff would recommend that
criteria be established against which all p would be evaluated.
The staff feels that the criteria are essential to insure that quality developments
are approved, and that the scale of Vail Village is not dramatcially changed
by granting additional gross residential floor area. Vail Village is like
the crown jewel of Vail. Too much tampering could cause major problems, and
tourists may not want to visit Vail Village in great numbers. There is a
certain amount of redevelopment that is probably acceptable. The question is,
what is the threshold where an addition or redevelopment is acceptable? The
Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations was a good attempt
to test the new system of design and development in Vail Village. The staff
considers that there have been several projects that complement Vail Village,
and there are some problems with the Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considera
tions. Now is the perfect opportunity to look at what we want to accomplish
and to make changes in both documents.
Criteria - 2 - 12/8/83
OVERVIEW
An application to request additional lodge rooms
could only be requested in the Vail Village area
presented in this memorandum. This area will be
at the joint work session on December 13. The V
that are currently in effect only for Commercial
to allow for application over a much larger land
Change to a Planned Unit Development Process
or gross residential floor area
of the community under the proposal
shown on the map to be presented
ail Village Design Considerations
Core I would need to be modified
area.
The new application would need to be for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). This
would be primarily a name change from Special Development District more than
a substantive change. The staff and Larry Eskwith are recommending the change
from the Special Development District to a Planned Unit Development process.
First, we are probably the only community in the State that has a Special Develop-
ment District process. Most communities use, and developers understand the term
of Planned Unit Development. Second, State statues authorize communities to
have Planned Unit Developments as part of their zoning codes.
Density Increase
For properties that are existing lodges, it would be possible if all the criteria
are met to receive additional accommodation units or employee housing units and
gross residential floor area. An existing lodge could receive up to 20 accommo-
dation or employee housing units or 10% above the current zoning by right, which-
ever is greater. This is noted only as an example of how to potentially increase
density of a site.
Criteria for Approval of Additional Accommodation Units in Vail Villa
For all requests in the Vail Village area (noted on map presented December 13th)
for a density increase over the allowed units per acre.and /or gross residential
floor area, a Planned Unit Development must be applied for. A density increase
may be granted only for projects which plan their expansions to consist of 100%
accommodation units which cannot be condominiumized or time shared. In addition,
a density increase may be granted for employee housing units for only employees
of the lodge. Furthermore, the total gross residential floor area of the entire
project, after expansion, must consist of more than fifty percent accommodation
units in order to be eligible for said density increase.
Policy Criteria of Approval
In order to approve an application for a density increase, there must be a finding
for each project that:
1. The density and land use mix
area and consistent with the
and the applicable goals and
as amended from time to time.
as proposed are compatible with the surrounding
Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations
policies as established by the Town of Vail
The project will benefit the overall community and neighborhood of which
it is a part and that it fulfills a community need.
Criteria -3- 12/8/83
3. The project as proposed represents an improvement in terms of design
. and community impact over that which would otherwise be available under
the existing applicable underlying zoning.
Urban Design Criteria for Approval
Under the design criteria for approval for a density increase, we are recommend-
ing that the Design Considerations for Commercial Core I be extended to the
entire area in which lodge rooms are desirable.
The staff realizes that there are some problems with the Design Considerations
currently that would be changed as part. of this process. All Planned Unit
Development proposals for a density increase must meet all of the following
design criteria:
1.
The project reduces or does not increase the auto penetration into Vail
Village. Is the project utilizing alternative access points and private
parking relocation where necessary to reduce traffic conflicts in the
Village?
2.
The project improves the walking experience and provides continuity
to pedestrian ways (walkways, landscaping, lighting).
3.
The project provides an average facade height ratio of from 1/2 as high
as the width of the space enclosed to 1, a "comfortable" enclosure for
the street. (Or, when exceptions to these general height criteria occur,
special design considerations are given to creating a well - defined ground
floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome circumstances.)
4.
The project provides slightly irregular facade lines, gives life to
the street and visual interest for pedestrian.travel. Buildings jog
to create activity pockets with one or more of the following: low planter
walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks, textured changes in ground surface,
arcades, and raised decks.
5. The building heights comply with the following guidelines; up to 60%
of building may be built to a height of feet or less; no more
than 40% of the building may be higher than feet, but not higher
than feet or the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning
district. (Slight proportionate height increases are acceptable to
accommodate steeper roof pitches so long as the height of building side
walls is not increased. See diagram, Vail Village Design Considerations.)
6. The project preserves or enhances significant views from pedestrian
ways.
7. The project reduces or does not increase delivery function impacts on
pedestrian ways and increases overall efficiency.
8. The project does not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow
pattern on adjacent properties or public streets and walkways.
r1
Criteria -4- 12/8/83
9. The building bulk and massing create an acceptable transition to the street,
pedestrian ways and adjacent buildings, including stepping down to pedestrian
scale.
10. Roof lines conform to Design Considerations.
11. Plus other elements noted in the Design Considerations and Guide Plan.
Design Review Criteria for Approval
1. Roof overhangs.
2. Materials and construction of roofs shall be consistent with existing
roofs in the Village and shall be designed to be of high quality.
3. Architectural style, materials, color, transparency, windows, doors, trim,
design.
4. Landscape elements.
5. Accent elements.
6. Refinement of building facade design, including jogs, setbacks, etc.
7. Plus other elements noted in the Design Considerations.
Impact Mitigation
Because the Town of Vail is nearing full build -out of the originally anticipated
development, and because these additional PUD units will generate impacts
beyond those that have heretofore been anticipated, special fees will apply
to any units approved and constructed through the PUD review process. These
fees are based upon the estimated cost impacts of these added units, and upon
a policy determination that these units should bear an added increment of
cost beyond the normal per -unit development costs because of the contributions
these units will be making to peak crowding problems at Vail.
Impact fees will be determined as follows:
1. Parking Fee - 140% of the applicable parking fee /space per unit.
2. Recreation Amenity Fee - Applicable zone district /sq ft x 130 %.
3. Community Development Fee - $1.00 /sq ft x 120 %. These funds are to be
used for capital improvements to promote tourism
or to make community or urban design improvements
to enhance the visitor's experience.
Examples of eligible projects which will not pay some of the impact fees:
Dedication and landscaping of land
Cultural /museum facilities
Crowd /peak period management improvements
Urban design improvements on Town land
n
�J
Criteria -5- 12/8/83
Community development fees may be waived if, in the opinion of the Town Council,
a project has proposed an urban design improvement as called out in the Guide
Plan which will make a substantial improvement to the major pedestrian corridor
through the Village, or has provided a public amenity such as public art,
recreation amenity, or dedication of open space acceptable to the Town of Vail.
Procedure for Approval of a Planned Unit Development for Additional Density
Proposed is a two step a proach for a Planned Unit Development for additional
density. First, {Step I� before a developer spends a great deal of time and money on
a formal proposal, he would come before the Planning and Environmental Commission
and Town Council to find out if there are specific problems regarding the proposal.
The Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council would be providing
direction as to whether to continue to a more detailed application (Step II)
or whether they felt that there were too many problems. Even after a negative
response by the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission
at Step I, a developer still would have the right to submit a formal application
for Step II.
I. Preliminary Review
A. An applicant should first set up an appointment with a member of the
planning staff to review the Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations
for the area of the proposal. We would need to determine the level of
detail needed for Step I. Below is an example of what to submit.
1. A description of the project, including support graphics to describe
its proposed density, land use mix, and design concept.
2. Conceptual master plan for the ultimate development of the entire
property as well as a description of each phase of development,
when separate phases are proposed.
3. A narrative with supportive graphic documentation as to how the
project will meet the criteria establshed in the Urban Design Guide
Plan and Design Considerations and policies for Vail Village.
4. Evidence of ownership or control of land.
This material must be submitted to the Community Development Department
for review, comment and recommendation.
The plan will then be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission
to determine its compatibility with overall Town goals, objectives and
criteria and whether the appliant should be encouraged to proceed with
a more detailed submittal, defined as Step II, Detailed Planned Unit
Development. Furthermore, the Planning and Environmental Commission
will define the issues, if any, which need particular attention as part
of the Step II application. The Step I Planning and Environmental Commission
meeting will be a public meeting in which presentations by the staff,
representatives for the proposal, and interested citizens. A meeting
before the Town Council would also be scheduled. No formal, binding
approvals can be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission or
Town Council at the conclusion of the Step I process. Rather, the intent
Criteria -6- 12/8/83
of Step I is to give the applicant a considered opinion of whether the
proposal appears to be consistent with the planning policies of the Town
and whether a Step II application would be appropriate.
Step II. Detailed Planned Unit Development
A. The Step II application information presented below again is preliminary
in nature. The specific requests would be worked out if the Planning
and Environmental Commission and the Town Council want to continue with
this approval.
I. Design documents including:
a. Site plan
b. Building elevations
c. Circulation, parking, service
d. Shadow analysis
e. Preliminary landscape plan
f. Architectural intent statement describing all exterior
materials and colors to be used.
g. At -scale model showing all proposed improvements on site and
all existing buildings, at scale, on adjacent parcels.
h. Photo analysis of project in existing and proposed setting showing
views and relationship to adjacent buildings.
2. Narrative describing the relationship of the project to each of the
criteria as defined in the urban Design Guide Plan and the Design
Considerations and findings of the Planned Unit Development.
3. Draft of the architectural and landscape covenants which will be
implemented as part of this project and the methods of administration
and enforcement which will be adopted.
4. Detailed description of the Planned Unit Development as proposed.
6. Detailed overall master plan.
B. This detailed application for a PUD will be reviewed by the Community
Development Department with recommendations submitted in written or graphic
form to the Planning and Environmental Commission for its review and
consideration. A public hearing will be scheduled before the Planning
and Environmental Commission to consider formally the Step II application
for establishment of the Planned Unit Development.
Criteria -7- 12/8/83
The Planning and Environmental Commission will, after hearing all testimony,
recommend approval, with or without conditions or modifications, or denial
of the proposal.
C. Once formal recommendation has been made, the application will then be
forwarded to the Town Council for a public hearing for appropriate action.
CONN 11.UnN
If the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission want to permit
the possibility of additional lodge rooms, employee units and gross residential
floor area in Vail Village, we need to receive clear directions from both groups.
This would mean a busy January with several joint work sessions to establish
what you want Vail Village to be, to develop criteria for your review, and
to implement the proosal.
If there are other areas within the community where you would like the possibility
of additional residential density, we need to know this so criteria can be
established.
Vail is going through a transition experienced by many other resorts as they
get older. We can work to develop a plan for how this transtion should take
place, or we can sit back and let it happen. History will show that communities
and companies that plan for the transition have been more successful than
those who just let it happen. Let's work together to insure that Vail remains
a World class resort and continues to set the pace instead of falling behind.
MEMORANDUM
December 9, 1983
TO: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Background information for discussion on additional accommodation
units in Vail Village
1. Memorandum dated August 19, 1983 regarding allowing more density
in the Public Accommodation Zone District and Commercial Core I
Zone District
2. Planning and Environmental Commission minutes of the August 22 meeting
on additional density.
3. Lodging Characteristics of the Town of Vail, prepared by
Ruoff Partnership Architects, June 6, 1983
4. Lodge at Vail Competitive Marketing Analysis of Vail Village
June 1983, Pannell Kerr Forster
5. Winter Quality Study - Information on Lodging Units, March 18, 1983,
Gage Davis Associates.
6. Vail Village Design Consideration; June 11, 1980
f - .
S'
�J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 15, 1983
SUBJECT: Revisions and Comments to Special Development District 6
On Monday, December 12th, I sent a memorandum to Fred Hiller, Gordon Pierce,
and Joe Staufer regarding questions and issues that remain. A response letter
from Fred T. Hiller is enclosed for your review. Enclosures include:
1. Revised Environmental Impact Report -- We have not received the traffic
study. As soon as we receive the study we will hand deliver it to
Town Council.
2. The Urban Land Institute article, Timesharing and "Condotels:" Valuable
Additions Under the Right Conditions
3. The Urban Land Institute Project Reference File "Mariners Inn"
(The two Urban Land Institute reports were received today, and have
not been thoroughly reviewed by the staff.)
Discussion of the Issues and Questions
1. Bulk and mass of the building
It is the staff's understanding after a discussion this morning with
Mr. Hiller, Mr. Staufer and Mr. Pierce that there are additional modifications
to the Phase IV building. First, one more bay would be set back along
the South Frontage Road as recommended by the staff at the December 6th
Town Council meeting. Second, on the plaza side next to Phase III there
would be a similar step back of one bay of rooms.
On the Vail Road side to Phase IV there would be a decrease in the height
and another step as recommended by the staff. Also, the building would
be approximately fourteen feet longer to the south. This has a major impact
on the Food and Deli view from Vail Road.
2. Gross Residential Floor Area
The approved SDD6 Gross Residential Floor Area is 100,000 square feet.
Including the Amoco site zoned Public Accommodation an additional 18,817
square feet of GRFA could be constructed. If the entire site were zoned
Public Accommodation, there could be 139,217 square feet of Gross Residential
Floor Area.
SDD6 -2- 12/15/83
The applicant is proposing to lower the GRFA to 146,500 s ware feet. As
noted, the letter from Mr. Hiller states: "We will also if necessary
i for approval) reduce the room length by three feet which will bring the
GRFA down to 139,200. The room will not be as functional or as luxurious
as we had hoped. If we did build the rooms shorter and it becomes possible,
at a later date, to achieve additional GRFA we would shorten the balcony
and add to the length of the room. The bulk and mass would have no visual
difference."
As noted in the memorandum dated November 22nd and corrected November 30,
we can see an argument for the 139,200 square feet of GRFA. Also, there
would be an additional 3,700 square feet for employee housing. (If the Town
Council agrees to the adjusted GRFA, the ordinance would need to be changed.)
3. The Six Foot of Land of Phase III
There should be a letter regarding an agreement between the Phase III
owner and applicant regarding the six foot of land on Phase III by the
Town Council meeting.
4. Condo Hotel
The staff would recommend that the condominium hotel follow basically
the procedure established by the Town of Vail for condominium conversion
of a lodge room. We consider that this should become part of the SDD6
ordinance if approved by the Town Council. Besides what is noted in the
Town condominium conversion ordinance, we are concerned with a guarantee
to refurbish accommodation units and adequate maintenance funds. (The process
should be added to the ordinance.)
Condominium of Accommodation Units
An applicant seeking to condominiumize any accommodation unit within
the Town shall comply with the requirements of this section.
A. The requirements and restrictions herein contained shall be included
in the condominium declaration for the project, and filed of record
with the Eagle County clerk and recorder. The condominium units
created shall remain in the short term rental market to be used
as temporary accommodations available to the general public.
1. An owner's personal use of his unit shall be restricted to fourteen
days during the seasonal periods of December 15th through April
15th and fourteen days during dune 15th through September 15th.
These seasonal periods are hereinafter referred to as "high
season." "Owner's personal use" shall be defined as owner occupancy
of a unit or nonpaying guest of the owner or taking the unit
off the rental market during the seasonal periods referred to
herein for any reason other than necessary repairs which cannot
be postponed or which make the unit unrentable. Occupancy of
a unit by a lodge manager or staff employed by the lodge, however,
shall not be restricted by this section.
•
SDD -3- 12/15/83
2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall
subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium
. association of three times a rate considered to be a reasonable
daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation,
which assessment when paid shall be deposited in the general
funds of the condominium association for use in upgrading and
repairing the common elements of the condominiums. All sums assessed
against the owner for violation of the owner's personal use restriction
and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit of the condominium
association on that owner's unit, which lien shall be evidenced
by written notice placed of record in the office of the clerk and
recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, and which may be collected
by foreclosure, on an owner's condominium unit by the association
in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on real property.
The condominium association's failure to enforce the owner's personal
use restriction shall.give the town the right to enforce the restriction
by the assessment and the lien provided for hereunder. If the
town enforces the restriction, the town shall receive the funds
collected as a result of such enforcement. In the event litigation
results from the enforcement of the restriction, as part of its
reward to the prevailing party, the court shall award such party
its court costs together with reasonable attorney's fees incurred.
3. The Town shall have the right to require from the condominium associa-
tion an annual report of owner's personal use during the high seasons
for all condominium accommodation units.
B. The lodge shall provide customary lodge facilities and services including
a customary marketing program.
C. The condominium accommodation units shall remain available to the general
tourist market. This condition may be met by inclusion of the units
of the condominium project, at comparable rates, in any local reservation
system for the rental of lodge or condominium units in the Town.
D. The common areas of any lodge with converted units shall remain common
areas and be maintained in a manner consistent with its previous character.
Any changes, alterations or renovations made to common areas shall
not diminish the size or quality of the common areas.
E. Applicability: All conditions set forth within this section shall
be made binding on the applicant, the applicant's successors, heirs,
personal representatives and assigns and shall govern the property
which is the subject of the application for the life of the survivor
of the present Town Council plus twenty -one years. Any change shall
be modified only by the written agreement of the Town Council and the
owner or owners of the units which are condominium accommodation units.
The documents creating and governing the condominium accommodation
units shall be modified by the owners of such units only with the prior
written approval of the Town Council.
0
SDD6 -4- 12/.15/83
G. Procedure: The condominization of accommodation units shall be accom-
is plished pursuant to the subdivision review process. The applicant
shall provide the following documentatin to the Town at the time of
application to condominize accommodation units.
I. Proof of ownership;
2. Site inventory for the property indicating in detail the actual
location of any amenities serving the lodge;
3. Affidavit of services provided as is called for in sub - paragraph 2
above;
4. Designation and description of all employee units;
5. Plan of improvements to be made to the property along with estimated
costs therefor.
•
5. Employee Housing
The applicant proposed that the six employee housing units not be.sold,_ The
staff would recommend the same restrictions that were placed on other projects
in Vail be approved for SDD6. A question of the staff is who will own the
employee units? (Should be added to the ordinance.)
The following restriction should be added to the ordinance.
A. That the employee dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented for
any period of less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and that if it
shall be rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time
employees in the Upper Eagle. Valley. The "Upper Eagle Valley" shall
be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle -
Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A "full -time employee"
is a person who works an average of thirty (30) hours per week; and
B. That a declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed of
record in the office of the Eagle County clerk and recorder in a form
approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure
that the restrictions herein shall run with the land.
6. Construction Guarantee of Phase IV
The staff is concerned with the completion of Phase IV. We would recommend
as a minimum that before a building permit is issued a commitment from
a major financial institution be secured and presented to the Town of Vail.
(Should be added to the ordinance.)
7. Construction of Phase V
A major concern of the staff is the old building 5 remaining for many years.
We have not come up with any way of insuring that the new Phase V be con-
structed during the next couple of years. One suggestion presented to
the staff was to require construction of Phases IV and V start at the same
time.
•
SDD6 -5- 12/15/83
•
8. Dedication of Land
The applicant is proposing to dedicate one quarter acre of land. If the
Town Council does not want the land dedicated, we would recommend that
before a building permit is issued, the applicant present to the staff
for approval a long term plan for maintenance. (Should be added to the
ordinance
9. Revised Environmental Impact Report
The EIR without the traffic report was received this morning. After a
uick review there seems to still be a couple of conflicting statements.
Should not be added to the ordinance.)
10. Parking
The applicant is now proposing 350 parking spaces on site under Phase_IV.
The proposal presented two weeks ago to Town Council had approximately
280 parking spaces. (Should be added to the ordinance.)
As noted in the memorandum on SDD6 the staff considers that a majority
of commercial shoppers should park at the Village Transportation Center
or in the Vail Lionshead structure. By having 350 spaces on site, there
is definitely the opportunity to have space for condominium owners and
hotel guests, employees and shoppers. Again, the staff's concern is with
the amount of additional parking that should be on site because it will
add congestion to the 4 -way stop.
•
We feel that the Vail Village parking structure will need to be added to
in the future to provide for additional demand. As noted at the Town Council
meeting two weeks ago, there has been approximately 130 parking spaces
approved through additions or redevelopment in the Vail Village area. We
are going to have other proposals come before the Town where additional
spaces will be needed.
If an addition were constructed to the east of the Vail Village Transportation
Center, approximately 412 spaces could be added at a 1984 dollar cost of
approximately $7,696 per space or $2,280,000 -- estimated by James Ream, FAIA,
who designed both public parking structures:
For the entire property within SDD6, over 440 spaces would be required.
The exact number would be determined at the time a building permit would
be issued. Our recommendation is to grant a parking exemption if the SDD6
is approved and require the applicant to pay the applicable parking fee.
•
SDD6 -6- 12/15/83
•
RECOMMENDATION
The staff considers that the request for an amended Phase IV and V has improved
significantly. The applicant is proposing to make the modifications proposed
by the staff in building bulk and mass for Phase IV as outlined in this memorandum.
We consider that the bulk and mass is now acceptable. The Town Council, I think,
realizes that Phase IV is not a small building along the Frontage Road and
Vail Road. There definitely would be a new building impact from the low scale Vail
Village Inn and Amoco service station currently existing in this area. The
applicant's architect, we feel, has proposed a positive solution as the building
steps down at the four -way stop.
The staff considers that an argument can be made for the 139,200 square feet
of GRFA. If the property were zoned Public Accommodation, this amount of GRFA
could be approved. We would not recommend any additional until the criteria
has been established. There is no guarantee that this development would meet
the criteria.
Overall the redevelopment of this property can be a positive improvement to Vail.
The Vail Village Inn has been a part of Vail for many years and needs to go
through redevelopment. We feel that the redevelopment approach proposed has many
positive aspects.
•