Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-07 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session ..-._ Movies .............5 _ ... , A&E 6 .Region 15 Nation':..:: .:17 ''~ ~' Ititeivat~onal .20 ~~ - Sports .,....24 Town Talk :.....31 ?,• Comics ... ..:33 . ' . ~?1 '`°~ Y~ .,j ~~~ Lottery ~~~ - ~. ~~~ ~d rawi ng fir. - - - ~~=~- set for: ~3} . f - .. - .- . - x~ . _~~ ~ May. 20 i~h '- By Allison Anderson nea~• s~rr w~te~ ; The competition for 53 housing units at Vail Commons heats up next ; "" week, when 'applications become ~. .available to the more than 400 people , who have expressed interest in buying there..,. The Town of Vail will use a lottery , to award opportunities to buy units'at the development, slated to be built this `..year.,The drawing is scheduled for _' May 20. :Potential owners can pickup appli- cation packets. beginning Friday, March 22. Applicants have one month to return completed applications, wtuch~will be due Monday, April 22. Lucky lottery winners who qualify to buyunits and decide to move ahead can choose units and finalize contracts ' from May 20-31. Construction of the first residential ' building should begin in early April. Warner Developments Inc. of Avon wilt build the project in.phases, mov- ing from east to west. The fits[ units shouldbereadyforoccupancybySep- [ember and the project should be com- plete early next year. 'The [own is using a modified point system thaz groups applicants accord- ing [o such factors as length of resi- dency-in Eagle County and employ- men[ az local busitesses. Names will be drawn within the tiers'to preserve an element of chance in [he lottery. ' -- _ 'All applicants must work az least 30 haws a week at a business in Ettgle County. Curtent and conssecuuve employment a[ businesses in Vail will be weighted 3-[o- 1 over employment at businesses outside Vail. :Town officials are encottraging applicants to begin assembling appli- cation packets. They will require potential home buyers to prove their .See Inr[ery Page S Serving:Eagle County since 1981 /`l_. t ~^, ~'~ - ~ ,, . , ` •, ` :~ ~ y~ ~ 1 ' i { ' s Lotteo~y in V alt for two years then moved to From Page 1 Avon for five would receive half the employment history by submitting residency points of an applicant who has lived in Vail for seven years. documents such as ibcome tax pay stubs or time W-2 forms returns Homeowners are ineligible to buy , , Vail Commons units unless they sheets. Curtent and consecutive residency l agree to deed restticttheir cturent res- idences as employee housing and sell within Vail will be weighted 2-to- over residency elsewhere in Eagle them. Those who agree to deed County. Applicants can prove their restrict and sell will receive extra residential history with leases or rent points in the lottery standings. Potential buyers must qualify for receipts. Only consecutive years of resi- home loans before they enter the lot- dence will be rewarded with higher rery. They are required to show the priority. If' an applicant lived in Vail town they can actually buy units, for three vears, moved to Denver for should they be selected, as part of the five and moved back to Vail for two, application. only the most recent two years will be Finally, those interested in buying recognirzd. the three-bedroom Aand Btown- ln addition. Eagle County resi- homes must have at least athree-per- ncil dents who lived in Vail then moved son household. Town cou downvalley will not receive extra oints for their time in Vail. For members have said they want every bedroom occupied at the housing p examples a lottery applicant who lived development aimed at locals. -~~'(~RRG~~Y w, r -_ . *~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ Snow showers, Highs near 30. :r See WeQy,,, p~ 2 -t - ,__ ~/ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ June 3, 1983 ~.y Mr. Rod Slifer t Post Office Box 1248 Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Rod: As adjacent property owners to the defunct Intermountain Swim._Club_; we recommend strongly that this property not be rezoned to multi- family high density and should remain as it is currently zoned: primary/secondary residential. As one of Vail's older neighborhoods, ~, Intermountain already suffers from a number of high-density related problems which pre-date West Vail's annexation. Appropriate areas were zoned primary/secondary residential in an effort to alleviate traditionally attendant problems such as lack of adequate parking, poor construction., faulty surveying, etc. acid we feel upzoning to a higher density is a step backwards. A look at some of the conditions the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends indicates that large enough issues exist to warrant closer inspection by the Councils o no on-site parking o lot size which barely meets requirements for P/S zoning o covenants resembling Pitkin Creek's restricting resale timing, maximum price of units, unit size, etc. of employee housing Parking is to be provided off-site, across the Y-shaped intersection of Bellflower and Kinnickinnick. This solution is inappropriate for a number of reasons. First, the intersection is quite dangerous and has been the scene of numerous traffic accidents. The image of 8-12 pedestrians crossing that intersection on a regular basis is frightening. A "pull-off lane" has been suggested for 10-15 minute restricted use for pick-up and drop- off. Enforcing this would be difficult, if not impossible. Perhaps the three spaces required for a duplex could be incorporated into a P/S design. Unit residents who attempt to park in other property owners' lots may expect the usual, negative reaction. Multi-family high density zoning also requires-that 75% of parking be covered. Has this requirement been addressed? June 3, 1983 Page Two The negative impact on the neighborhood of a four-unit building on a-small lot should be considered. Four more fireplaces (which will emit Broke at a height level with neighbors' windows) is at least two fireplaces too many. -The lot qualifies for its current status of P/S by roughly 100 square feet only. Adding two units more with 6-8 more residents can only create a much higher level of noise and ground disturbance. We appreciate the Town's concern with enforcing employee housing restrictive covenants similar to Pitkin Creek's, but do not believe that rezoning from primary/secondary to multi-family high density serves Vail and Intermountain well in this location. In conclusion, although we support employee lrousing in the Vail Valley, we believe that the size and configuration of this lot renders it a poor site for rezoning. Use of a sympathetic issue, such as employee housing, should not enter into a rezoning decision. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and please do not hesitate to contact us at 476-5459 or 949-4922. Sincerely, Je~ e Reid C lL----w /C.~°~ Carson Reid Post Office Box 3055 Vail, Colorado 81658 .~:_ June 3, 1983 We, the property owners and residents of Intermountain, recom;nend that the Internbuntain Staim Club lot remain at its current zoning level of primary/secondary residential. We believe that upzoning to multi-family high density for any use, employee housing or otherwise, is inappropriate due .to the location, size, and configuration of said property. Thank you. ~i zq~3 -~ z z.f~3 i , _.. " ~ `- -:-'~ ` ~` fix!/~l ~~. n ~ , ~3 z9y-~ ~JeI~T ~ok1eN /~~,~-- ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~s3~ ,~ ~w ...~ -, ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ii L:~'i /y.~ ~~ ~'/~, ..1^~,G,_--'~ j~t',i-Ln~4'7,~, !~ i / i i _, ••-/ - r ~ r ~, ~ ,~ ,, ~ - ._ June 3, 1983 We, the property owners and residents of Intermountain, recommend that the Intertmuntain S~,vim Club lot remain at its current zoning level of primary/secondary residential. We believe that upzoning to multi-family high density for any use, employee housing or otherwise, is inappropriate due to the location, size, and configuration of said property. Thank you. ~ 3oS~" .~~zz~t I~'(~~z. ~L~ ~x 3~~ J,~: L ~ ~.~./ 1 ~~~ ~9~a~!%r~'nu~et- 1/a~. ~~;da~; ~v~: i Z~Z~~~ „„ ~. 9 .8+~v,Ft~ou~ ~:.,,, .-, - ti,. MEMORANDUM ~_..:' T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 19, 1983 SUBJECT: Rezoning request from R P/S to HDMF and parking variances to allow four for-sale employee housing units on Lot 1, Block 6, Intermountain. Applicants: Chuck Ogilby and .Tim Garton PART I: REZONING ~`. A. THE. REQUEST Requested is a rezoning of the parcel on which currently sits the Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club's indoor swimming pool building. The building has not been used for any purpose for several years. This parcel was zoned Residential Primary/Secondary upon West Vail annexation. Proposed are four employee housing units ranging from 478 to 1060 square feet of GRFA, and they would be sold at a proposed maximum price of $85 per sq ft. (see the following. chart). °~~ LEVEL . UNIT BEDROOMS APPROX. GRFA APPROX. PRICE y Lower D studio 478 sq ft $40,630 Upper A 2 830 70,550 Upper B 2 881 74,885 Upper C 2 1060 90,100 Total 3249 sq ft $276,165 The restrictions proposed are the same as the Pitkin Creek Park project. That is, the maximum resale price is tied to the increase in the consumer price index, purchasers must be employed residents with a maximum annual income ceiling (currently about $42,000/yr. at Pitkin Creek) and lease holders must be local residents as well with leases no more than monthly costs. Financing would be the going market rate at the time of sale. Since the existing structure crowds the site (it covers over a third of the buildable area), it is not possible to provide on-site parking for the residences. The proposed parking is about 300 feet to the east in a 16 square lot designed for the sole use of the patrons of the swim and tennis club (now defunct). However, for loading and unloading convenience there would be a pull-off lane on the northeast corner of the property, just south of the bridge over Gore Creek. ;; . Intermountain Rezone -2- 5/19/83 This parking situation requires a variance from section 18.20.140 Parking ~.~ and Loading in HDMF which requires 75% of the required parking be within the main building and hidden from public or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. Also needed • is a variance from Section 18.52.060 Parking - off-site and joint facilities-- . ~ to allow an off-site parking agreement for parking which is required to be covered. For $10/month the owners and their guests would receive use of the tennis courts owned by the Intermountain Swim and Tennis condominiums as well as grounds maintenance and snowploywing services. Below are some statistics relevant to the proposal: UNDER EXISTING UNDER DISTRICT HDMF PROPOSED Zone: R P/S HDMF HDMF Gross Lot Size: 12,440 sq ft 12,440 sq ft 12,440 sq ft Buildable Area: NA 9,040 sq ft 9,040 sq ft Number of Units 1 plus 1 empl. apt. 5 4 GRFA: 3110 sq ft 5,424 sq ft 3,249 sq ft '~~' Parkin 4 - 2 covered 8 - 6 covered 8+ off-site, 0 covered 9 Site Coverage: 20% max, 26% ex. 50% max 26% Height: 33' max, 20' ex. 48' max 20' B. VAIL'S EMPLOYEE HOUSING SITUATION Due to the state of the national and regional economy in the past two years, our employee housing situation has changed significantly from the 1970 climate. Four years ago, when Valli-Hi and Pitkin Creek were just beginning to come on line, we were experiencing almost a crisis in the provision of affordable housing for both seasonal and permanent residents. The early-mid seventies saw such a boom in development and an associated state of sky-rocketing prices tht there was very little which could be termed affordable for locals, either in rentals or for sale. This created an environment of dire need which resulted in the public and private sectors cooperating to produce the Valli-Hi rental and Pitkin Creek for-sale projects. The Valli-Hi project is now completed and has been the most part, as providing affordable, well locat~ units have helped meet the very important needs of r~°., in Vail. However, due to the glut of rental units over the past year or so, Valli-Hi has experienced ~`J in that time period (expecially low are the summer serving its purpose, for ~d units for rent. These the more seasonal population and the price of rentals less than full occupancies months). . -~. Intermountain Rezone -3- 5/1,9/83 {h'~"> The Pitkin Creek Project (averaging $90/sq ft price) has been, from the very 4W._,~ beginning, an overwhelming success in meeting the needs of the more permanent residents with steady, moderate-level incomes. With 156 units total, the number of people who signed up for a unit was about 650. Granted, some of these might not have qualified for the mortgages, but there suddenly was a realization in the community of the tremendous demand for employee (affordable) condominium units. Just as the rental units provide the role of housing seasonal employees, the condominiums actually make it possible for entry-level professionals and others holding important growth-oriented .jobs to remain in Vail via "buying into" the community. If the opportunity to do so did not exist, chances are. that many of these people would leave town for destinations where they could continue their careers and have the ability to purchase a home. This would not be beneficial to the individual businesses which lost these employees or to the community as a whole. Currently, we find ourselves in a "renters market," much unlike the 1979 scenario. The causes behind the current situation are varied, but the glut of units for sale and the sheer number of second homes in town (many of which depend on rental income of off-set mortgage payments in today's tight economy) are a major contributor. Currently, there have been a very large number of quite affordable rental units advertised in the local papers. This large number of units for sale has lowered real estate prices valley- wide. However, it is evident with the interest shown in the affordable housing project "The Homestead" (at-cost units in Edwards} that there remains a large - - market (high demand) for condominiums at "affordable" prices. It appears there remain a large number of families and individuals in the local market who still ``"'' (even with prices slightly falling recently) cannot afford the open market unit, but would qualify fora slightly less expensive ,unit. C. SURROUNDING USES AND DENSITIES The surrounding land uses are either residential or vacant parcels. The area contains densities which are generally similar to that proposed. Across Bell- flower Drive to the southeast is a large, vacant parcel zoned Residential Primary/Secondary which is likely to be subdivided into a number of duplex lots when developed. Across the same street to the south are the Westridge Condominiums--4 units on a parcel also about the same as the subject lot. Directly to the west are the Bellflower Condominiums, a development of four units on a parcel also about the same as lot 1, around 12,500 square feet. These residents will definitely be those most affected by the increased activity on lot 1. Patios and decks of these units are actually touching the common property line, and-these units' "front yard" is the area to the south of the existing structure. There is an existing agreement between Ogilby and Garton, owners of the pool building and the Belllflower Condominium Association which calls for retaining this area as open space, certain landscaping requirements, (to be done by Bellflower in exchange for use of the pool) and a fence to be maintained by Ogilby/Garton. It is obvious this area is of great benefit to both parties as open space and, thus, parking should not be located on it. Intermtn -4- 5/19/33 Directly across the creek to the northwest is a single family residence occupied by Chuck Ogilby's family, but the house is surrounded to the north and west ~~~.~~ by the Interlochen Condominium project. Interlochen contains 39 units on 1.77 acres resulting in a density of 22 dwelling units per acre. To the north and east, across Kinnickinnick Road are the Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums. This complex contains 24 units on about 5 acres fora density of 4.8 units/acre with two tennis courts. Thus, the area generally contains similar densities to that proposed in the various condominium developments. The request is to upzone by two units, but at the same time nearly meeting the maximum a]lowable GRFA in the Primary/ Secondary district. The property is fairly well buffered from parcels across the creek and will relate to a greater degree to developments to the west and south. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Over the past several years only a proposed use of employee housing has received up zoning for additional units. This, of course, is done due to the overall community benefit of such a housing provision and only if the proposal is compati- ble with its surroundings. The real questions to answer in these past cases and, in the case in front of use now, is: 1. Is this truly "affordable".housing which will serve its intended purpose? 2. If the answer to question number 1 is yes, then: Is the requested density increase appropriate for the neighborhood? The staff answer to both questions, in this case is yes. A consultation with two knowledgeable real estate agents has resulted in their agreeing that $85 per square foot is a quite reasonable price for these units with respect to square foot prices in the Town of Vail in general. With the exception of the Matterhorn area, all other neighborhoods in Vail are in a $90-100 per square foot range. Moreover, the size of the upper level two bedroom units with their associated prices make them quite viable and desirable living units. with respect to the existing Vail market according to the real estate experts. The staff feels the rezoning will not have adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. The density proposed is quite compatible with those adjacent, and retaining the south lawn as open space will allow for "breathing room" for both the Bell- flower Condominium residents and the owners of the employee units. The parking off-site with provision of the drop-off space should not create negative impacts on the neighborhood (see variance evaluation below). In conclusion, we recommend approval of the proposed rezoning from R P/S to HDMF for employee housing purposes with the following conditions: 1. Unit D be sold at a maximum price of $41,000 and be a minimum of 450 square feet. .~~ ~ Intermtn Rezone -5- 5/19/83 2. Unit B be sold at a maximum price of $76,000 and not be less than 880 `~~~ square feet of GRFA. ~. _.. 3. Unit C be sold at a maximum price of $91,000 and~not be less than 1055 square feet of GRFA. 4. Unit A be sold at a maximum price of $71,000 and not be:less than 830 square feet of GRFA. 5. Financing of not more than 12% on a 30 year mortgage be a part of each condominium sale.. 6. A pull-off lane for vehicles is provided on the north side of the building for use for owners and tenants only. This pull-off/drop-off space shall be generally limited to 10 minutes per vehicle stop, and this shall be generally reflected in the condominium by-laws and/or declarations. 7. The existing footprint of the building on the site shall not be expanded except for appurtenant decks and balconies. 8. .The open space on the south side of the building remain. 9. Use of the tennis courts and maintenance services for the project are provided initially for $10/month for the first year after certificate of occupancy for each condominium, subject to reasonable rate increases in subsequent years. 10. Parking is provided as noted below in the variance section of this memo. 11. The basic stipulations and restrictions concerning leasing, maximum resale prices, purchaser qualifications, etc. that are found currently in the Pitkin Creek Park Condominium covenants are formulated, adopted and enforced for 10 years from the date of the filing of said covenants. PART II: ~' PARKING VARIANCES The proposal requires that parking variances be obtained for allowing all required parking to be uncovered as well as all-owing such uncovered parking under an off- site parking agreement. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Finings, Section 18 62 060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the variance based upon the fo low~n factors• Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance tb other existing or potential uses and. structures in the vicinity, The parking lot proposed to be utilized by the condominium owners and their guests is a lot specifically provided for Club. This lot contains 16 parking ~'""~ other condominium owners' spaces to ~~.~'~ available (club memberships are now parking for the employee project. I.ntermt Rezone -6- 5/19/83 patrons of the intermountain Swim .and Tennis spaces and is physically separated from the the west and north. Thus, the spaces are defunct) and can provide for more than adequate Some residents in adjacent developments have indicated that there exists a parking problem in the neighborhood. We feel that this project will not add to that problem with the drop-off space for convenience purposes and the readily available parking within 300 feet of the units. This is not an excessive distance to walk from.bne's car to the unit when compared with other multi-family projects in Vail with surface parking. As far a uncovered parking goes, there is very little of it in the neighborhood, 'and the surface parking lot proposed for utilization is existing (no asphalt is being added in the area as a result of the proposal). The de ree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The existing building on the lot, combined with the agreement for open space continuation on the south side of the building, create definite physical hardships for covered, on-site parking. The building existing was built specifically without on-site parking provisions in mind, and this is evident upon a site inspection. The parking proposal is not an overly onerous burden on the unit owners and is ~y>, a quite workable solution considering or.-site parking (much. less covered parking) ~,'~ is Weigher prevalent in the neighborhood nor possible to develop on-site due to the existing physical hardships. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No negative impacts upon these factors would occur as explained previously in this memorandum. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings ref-ore granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. Intermtn Rezone -7- 5/19/83 '. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ~.._. That the variance is warranted for one-or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsis- tent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circunstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other proper- ties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the two requested parking variances. We feel these are reasonable variance requests of minor impact which are dictated by the physical hardships existing on the site. Utilization of the building for employee housing and utilizing the parking lot to the east for its parking are beneficial proposals for the Town. Neither the Valli-Hi project nor the Pitkin Creek project provide any covered parking for their residents or tenants, and both of these projects require, in certain cases, similar distances between parking and unit location as the one proposed. While covered parking is encouraged in the West Vail area, when it is generally lacking, we feel in this case that the parking facility is existing, and using it for this purpose will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Thus, no special privilege would result from the granting of these variances. ,~^~, ~~. ~' ORDINANCE No. 20 Series of 1983 AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOT 1, BLOCK 6, VAIL INTERMOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION FROM RESIDENTIA L PRIMARY/SECONDARY (RP/S) TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY (HDMF) WITH CONDITIONS; FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN EMPLOYEE HOUSING CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that there continues to be a need in the community for owner-occupied, local resident affordable housing of a similar nature to the Pitkin Creek Park Condomiums project; and WHEREAS, the specific proposal referred to in this ordinance would provide such needed housing at a below-market. affordable price; and WHEREAS, the rezoning of the property .for use as employee housing would not cause negative impacts upon the neighborhood with relationship to use •and density; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended such rezoning; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL THAT: SECTION 1. The official zoning map of the Town of Vail is hereby amended as follows: Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision: current zone: Residential Primary/Secondary new zone: High Density•Multi-Family SECTION 2. The following are conditions of approval attached to the rezoning: 1. The applicant be allowed to construct not more than 3250 square feet of GRFA and that the sale price average not more than $85 per square foot. ,, 2. ~~ pull-off lane for vehicles shall be provided on the north side of the building for use for owners and tenants only. This pull-off/drop- off space shall be generally limited. to 10 minutes per vehicle stop, and this shall be generally reflected in the condominium by-laws and/or declarations. 3. The existing footprint of the building on the site shall not be expanded except for appurtenant decks and balconies. _2_ 4. The open space on the south side of the building remain. 5. Use of the tennis courts and parking maintenance services for the project shall be provided initially for $i0/month per condominium for the first year after certificate of occupancy for each condominium, subject to reasonable rate increases in subsequent years. 6. Parking is provided as noted below in the variance section of this memo. 7. The basic stipulations and restrictions concerning leasing, maximum resale prices, purchaser qualifications, etc. that are found currently in the Pitkin Creek Park Condominium declarations, are formulated, adopted and enforced for ten years from the date of the filing of said covenants. This declaration must be filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder.. 8. The site plan, floor plan and elevations submitted to the Community Development Department with this application, as designated on such plans, are hereby adopted as conceptual development plans and major changes to these will require an amendment approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The determination of whether a change is major or not will be made by the Department of Community Development. Section 2 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed .this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases by declared invalid. • _:~_ ~r Section 3 The Town Coucil hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of tfre Town of Vail ~~nd the inhabitants thereof. Section 4 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed or reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of 1983, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of , 1983, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 6 1983. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela S. Brandmeyer Town Clerk . _- __ - _ _ -~"'T - - - ~6~~- // !- -- -- ----- re i/G~ h/ _~. ~ i~ /.~t?~.~'.7L-jsl=mod" ~ ~d ~h ~ - ~ -- - - //"~ ~l ~///J y -o ----- - ~O ~C!YGcC~Ti~~1/Ge~___~°d/'/!~GT/y _W~?~~_~s ---- ---.. -- ~/L %-it// L ~~ ~ ,~~ , '~~ town of uail 75 south frontage road • vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476-7000 office of the mayor T0: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL FR0~~1: PAM BRANDMEYER, SECRETARY TO THE LIQUOR AUTHORITY DATE: 05MAY83 RE: ATTENDANCE OF LIQUOR AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERS Since January of 1981, Jack Curtin has attended 23 out of a possible 25 liquor board meetings. Since his appointment to replace Brian O'Reilly in November of 1982, Rob Buterbaugh has attended 4 out of a possible 5 meetings. JACK J. CURTIN ~~~`~X 311 Bridge Street VAIL, COLORADO 81657 May 30 1983 Vail Town Council Mra Rich Caplin vailp coo 81657 Dear Council Members & Mro Caplino I would. like to reapply for the seat I hold on the Town of Vail Liquor Authority iahich soon will be up for appointmentm May 11th through May 29th I will be out of town but would be available any other time to interview with youo Thank you for ,your considpr~t+~n- May 24, 1983 Town of Vail Liquor Licensing Authority 75 South Frontage Road West Office of the Town Clerk Vail, CO 81657 To Whom It May Concern: I, Robert R. Buterbaugh, request .reappointment to my position on the local liquor licensing authority for the Town of Vail. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Robert R. Buterbaugh P,O. Box 748 Vail, CO 41658 ~~SIGNED FORM NO. PXi11R-Z LOT 2565 A ~ AVAILABLE FROM BUSINESS ENVELOPE MANUFACTURERS, INC. • PEARL RIVER,.N.Y.• BRONX, N:Y. • CLINTON, TENN. • ANAHEIM, CALIF. PRINTED IN U.S.A. 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: E_. 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 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. .. t l11? ~ (.v~/7. 4 1 ! ' ~ /rf~ t _ ~a /. . t ~ ~ ~ ~ .. .-- ~ .. ~ , i r' `~ ~ ~ V t 'Cy ~l l r r ~~~ ~ ~~. `i ,' r '. ~. 4 1 ~ ,,,.aaa ,~.. ;i~ ;ti 9 i 1 - , r~+w~r w~.~rr.!w.~r~ey. iay;,,~ ~` [jj ~~yS1 ' ~. pt \ roy:r.ad!' '. .. ~ ~' t ~. ~ .. ~\ ~^I^p'Ee'!R'~f , .~~~~•a'.. 7~~~ ` ~ ~/~~.1 r.~.~.~rr~'~J)yy.~r y.+r y.~.~w~ ..~~~.j ~ ~~ .. _. .. .. i .. t,. I ia+ ~~ j f I i I ~ •.. i _~=~~.... I ~ ~ ` `t y ~ . 1 ,, ~ .. . --... ':.~ r . ~~ :^~:. ;,, . ~ ~ . ~~.. -~, ._~ . .. :, -~- -- r ~ ~I t, I :T. .. r 4, - ~ ~ ' . . ~ ~ 2 . + ~ ~ `_ti. ~ ~ { f ~ ~ -- - : -- ~ ~ ~ ~ . '. NEW G ~r"C'=...2. {.~! D2a.~ N '. _ " r ~ ~ --. ._ , i ~ -- ~ ~~~r . ~ I i - - - _ - ef.~_ ! i I I ~. .. - 11 . ~i t ~; 1, ~ 11 fJt ' ~ ~'`" '.a I ~ ~ '~, NEW 3`.:~ ~' ~~ ~!`~ ~~" ... ~~ .. I F l i / ,. - - ~~ 1 ~~ " ~ - - ;j { uPF.~.',;-a''._._-' GAZED t I ~~ iI - ~ ~ o l ___ , 1; _ aen 1 ~~ ~~#~ ~.-,..-, DTI ~?CI.., .n:. ~? ~, 4+, ,, _.,..,....~,~,,,~,~ _..~ +,.. ,. r' ~ C~'' `~ ~i C 'Deg P r~ ~'~"~~ ~~~~0 3 y June 3, 1983 Mr . Rich Caplan Town of Vail Post Office Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Rich: As adjacent property owners to the defunct Intermountain_Swim_C1u12;. we recommend strongly that this property not be rezoned to multi- family high density and should remain as it is currently zoned: primary/secondary residential. As one of Vail's older neighborhoods, Intermountain already suffers from a number of high-density related problems which pre-date West Vail's annexation. Appropriate areas were zoned primary/secondary residential in an.effort to alleviate traditionally attendant, problems such as lack of adequate parking, poor construction., faulty surveying, etc. and we feel upzoning to a higher density is a step backwards.. A look at some of the conditions the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends indicates that large enough issues exist to warrant closer inspection by the Council: o no on-site parking o lot size which barely meets requirements for P/S zoning o covenants resembling Pitkin Creek's restricting resale timing, maximum price of units, unit size, etc. of employee housing Parking is to be provided off-site, across the Y-shaped intersection of Bellflower and Kinnickinnick. This solution is inappropriate for a number of reasons. First., the intersection is quite dangerous and has been the ~t scene of numerous traffic accidents. The image of 8-12 pedestrians crossing that intersection on a regular basis is frightening. A "pull-off lane" has been suggested for 10-15 minute restricted use for pick-up and drop- off. Enforcing this would be difficult, if not impossible. Perhaps the three spaces required for a duplex could be incorporated into a P/S design. Unit residents who attempt to park in other property owners' lots may expect the usual, negative reaction. Multi-family high density zoning also requires that 75~ of parking be covered. Has this requirement been addressed? ,~~ r June 3, 1983 Page Two The negative impact on the neighborhood of a four-unit building on a small lot should be considered. Four more fireplaces (which will emit srmke at a height level with neighbors' windows).is at least two fireplaces too many. The lot qualifies for its current status of P/S by roughly 100 square feet only. Adding two units more with 6-8 more residents can only create a much higher level of noise and ground disturbance. We appreciate the Town's concern with enforcing employee housing restrictive covenants similar to Pitkin Creek's, but do not believe that rezoning from primary/secondary to multi.-family high density serves Vail and Intermountain well in this location. In conclusion, although we support employee housing in the Vail Valley, we believe _ that the size and configuration of this lot renders it a poor site for rezoning. Use of a sympathetic issue, such as employee housing, should not enter into a rezoning decision. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and please do not hesitate to contact us at 476-5459 or 949-4922. Sincerely, Je'~ e Reid c ~~ Carson Reid Post Office Box 3055 Vail, Colorado 81658 c, l vwH C.:,~.~:.il ~ ~ nn Oh pZ / r June 8, 1983 Town of Vail 75 So. Frontage Road Vail, CO Dear Sir: ~w~.~J r urv~~ ~ urn ~~. We wish to support the request of Van Ewing in reference to the conditional use of a Popcorn Wagon in the Vail Village Inn Plaza. We feel it would fit in nicely and would add to the appeal of the area which has a high pedestrian usage. It would also be of value in generating interest in the shopping plaza. We encourage the Town of Vail to approve his request. Thank you, ~~~ ~~~~~ Eric Fetsch Ann Fetsch EF/AF/dw Village Inn Plozo 17 Eosr Meadow Drive Voil, Colorado 81657 (303)476-2202