The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987-01-06 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1987 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes of December 2 and 16, 1986 Meetings 2. Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1986, first reading, an ordinance zoning a certain parcel of property located in the north half of the northeast quarter, Section 12, Township 5 south, range 81 west of the 6th principal meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado; previously designated as State of Colorado highway right-of-way; designating parking district for this property, setting forth details relating thereto; and amending the official zoning map in relation to the subject property. 3. Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance imposing zoning districts on parcels of property in the recently reannexed West Vail area including but not limited to Vail Heights, Vail das Schone Filings No. 1 and No. 2 and Vail Ridge subdivisions as well as certain unplatted parcels. 4. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance zoning certain parcels of property legally described as a resubdivision of Tract D, a resubdivision of Vail das Schone, Filing No. 1, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, heretofore annexed to the Town of Vail, designating said zoning districts for the annexed property; setting forth details relating thereto; and amending the official zoning map in relation to the annexed property. 5. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance rezoning certain parcels of property described as Parcel B and Parcel C, a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado; designating said zoning districts for the subject property; setting forth details relating thereto; and amending the official zoning map in relation to the subject property. 6. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1987, a resolution initiating a special and local improvement project in the Vail das Schone, Vail Ridge, Buffehr Creek and Vail Heights area; directing the Town Manager to hold administrative hearings and other procedures for the implementation thereof; ratifying and approving work previously done by the administration on said special and local improvement project; and setting forth details in relation thereto. 7. Resolution No. 2, Series of 1987, a resolution extending approval of Special Development District No. 6 (Vail Village Inn) for a period of eighteen months. 8. Ambrosia Restaurant Sign Variance Request CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 9. Town Manager's Report 10. Adjournment r'. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1987 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Approval of Minutes of December 2 and 16, 1986 Meetings 7:35 2. Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1986, first reading, concerning Rick Pylman amendment of the Zoning Map for a Parking District Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1986, on first reading. Background Rationale: In April 1984 the Applicant received the deed to a 0.12 acre tract of land previously owned by the State Highway Dept. and designated as a right-of-way. The Applicant desires to construct a parking lot on this property, so the staff has requested the Applicant to file a request for the appropriate zoning. This item was tabled at the November 18 Evening Meeting to be taken under advisement for 20 days, and tabled at the December 2 and 16 meetings for additional time to consider the issue. An offer to purchase the property has been made by the Town in the amount of $18,000. As of the time this agenda was dictated, we had riot received a final response, but expect to have one before the meeting. Staff Recommendation: Buy the land at the price offered, if possible, or approve Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1986, on first reading. 7:45 3. Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1987, first reading, pertaining Peter Patten to zoning for Vail das Schone, Vail Heights, and Vail Ridge area of West Vail Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1987, on first reading. Background Rationale: Zoning proposed is identical to the zoning in place prior to the deannexation of this area with two exceptions: 1) Parcel A of Tract D (adjacent to the Texaco Station), and 2) the Ulbrich parcel. These parcels are to be zoned under separate action. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1987, on first reading 7:55 4. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1987, first reading, to zone Rick Pylman Parcel A west of the Texaco Station Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1987, on first reading. Background Rationale: The Wend Group Partnership has received approval from the PEC for minor subdivision and zoning of Tract D as commercial. Town Council approval is required for the zoning request. Tract D is located just west of the West Vail Texaco Station. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1987, on first reading. 8:05 5. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1987, first reading, a request to Rick Pylman rezone two lots in Vail Village First Filing to create one primary/secondary lot and two single family lots Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1987, on first reading. Background Rationale: The applicant has applied for and received conditional approval for subdivision and zoning of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing to create three lots, one primary and two single family. The zoning request requires final approval by the Town Council. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1987, on first reading. 8:15 6. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1987, concerning the formation Larry Eskwith of the Vail das Schone, Vail Ridge, Buffehr Creek and Vail Heights Street Improvement District Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution No. 1, Series of 1987. Background Rationale: This item will be discussed in the afternoon session. The resolution would start the formulation process of the Street Improvement District for the Vail das Schone, Vail Ridge, Buffehr Creek and Vail Heights areas of West Vail. If plans go according to schedule, construction on the street improvement project could begin in May of 1987. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 1, Series of 1987. 8:25 7. Resolution No. 2, Series of 1987, extending approval for the Tom Braun Vail Village Inn SDD No. 6 Action Requested of Council: Extend, amend or revoke the Special Development District No. 6 by Resolution No. 2, Series of 1987. Background Rationale: Vail Village Inn Phase 4 of SDD#6 received approval from the Council in January of 1985. To maintain this approval, development must have been initiated within 18 months of final approval. Since construction has not begun, the applicant has requested that the approval be extended for 18 months. The plans submitted are identical to those approved by the Council in 1985. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2, Series of 1987, extending this approval for an eighteen month period. 8:40 8. Ambrosia Restaurant Sign Variance Request Susan Scanlan Action Requested of Council: Determine if the sign variance request should be approved or denied. Background Rationale: The Applicant, Mr. Gottfried Staufer, is requesting approval for an awning with signage which has been erected over the entrance to his establishment in addition to his original sign located south of his entry door which was previously approved by the Design Review Board. The Design Review Board made a motion for approval of the sign variance. The motion was made by Grant Riva and seconded by Roy Sante. The vote was 2-2 with Kathy Warren and Roy Sante voting against the motion. In this situation, a tie vote represents a denial for the request. Staff Recommendation: Deny the sign variance request. -2- CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 9. Town Manager's Report 10. Adjournment -3- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 2, 1986 7:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 2, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Johnston, Mayor Kent Rose, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Affeldt Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Gordon Pierce John Slevin MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Hermann Staufer TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1986, second reading, requesting to amend the Municipal Code (Arterial Business District) to add convenience food stores as a conditional use, and to restrict that use to 8,000 square feet or 33 percent of the gross building area, whichever may be more restrictive. Mayor Johnston read the title in full. Tom Braun gave brief background information, stated there were no changes made at first reading and that staff recommended approval. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the ordinance, and Gordon Pierce seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The next item was Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1986, first reading, concerning amendment of the zoning map for a parking district. The full title was read by Mayor Johnston. He stated the Council had taken the ordinance under advisement for twenty days, and they would like to request more time to review the material. Jay Peterson agreed to two weeks from this date at the next Evening Meeting. Gordon Pierce made a motion to table the issue until the next Evening Meeting, and Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The third item was Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1986, first reading, regarding the Texas Townhome street vacation, conveyance and easement. Mayor Johnston read the title in full. Larry Eskwith explained the ordinance and quit claim deed. He also explained the grant of easement for a portion of Tract F-2 would have to be approved by separate motion. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal made a motion to approve the ordinance and quit claim deed. Kent Rose seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. There was also no discussion by Council or the public on the grant of easement. Kent Rose made a motion to approve it, and John Slevin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The next item for discussion was Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1986, first reading, to apply previous Town of Vail zoning to reannexed land known as Matterhorn. The title was read in full by Mayor Johnston. Kristan Pritz explained that staff was proposing the exact same zoning as was previously to the deannexed areas in question. There was no discussion by the public or Council. Gordon Pierce made a motion to approve the ordinance, which Kent Rose seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The fifth item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1986, first reading, amending the Municipal Code Section "Property without a Zone Designation". Mayor Johnston read the full title of the ordinance. Kristan Pritz asked that the item be tabled until the next Evening Meeting. Kent Rose made a motion to table the ordinance, and John Slevin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed ' unanimously 6-0. The next item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1986, first reading, a supplemental appropriation to the Town budget. Mayor Johnston read the title in full. Steve Barwick explained the reasoning for the appropriation. Ken Wilson had questions on why did the appropriation come out of the real estate transfer tax funds, to which Mayor Johnston, Steve Barwick and Ron Phillips responded. At this time, a motion to approve the ordinance was made by Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal, and Kent Rose seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The seventh item was Resolution No. 30, designating Empire Savings as a depository for Town of Vail funds. Charlie Wick explained this was the same resolution in context as the one approved earlier for making the Avon National Bank a depository. And, as Avon National Bank, Empire Savings requires a corporate resolution to do this. There was no discussion by the public or Council. Kent Rose made a motion to approve the resolution, which John Slevin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The next item for discussion was Resolution No. 31, agreeing to undertake maintenance of the roads dedicated to the public at the Gold Peak Ski Base and Recreation District. Larry Eskwith stated there was a typographical error in the title which would be corrected. He then gave background information on the resolution and the reasoning for the resolution. He said he did not know the date of the agreement between Vail Associates and the Town, but would fill it in the next day. There was no discussion by the public or Council. A motion to approve the resolution was made by Gordon Pierce and seconded by Kent Rose. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. It was noted that the next item on the agenda was an error. Items 8 and 9 were one and the same. There was no Citizen Participation. The Town Manager's Report was next. Ron Phillips noted the bus ridership in November was up 10% overall and that the parking structures showed a dramatic increase in that both structures were filled Friday and Saturday over Thanksgiving weekend. He stated the real estate transfer tax for November was $87,000 and the budget figure was $60,000. Also, the transfer tax year-to-date through November was $369,000 over budget projections. Mayor Johnston stated there had been an Executive Session on land acquisition negotiations that afternoon at Work Session, and it had not been completed. He requested the Council to continue it at this time. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paul R. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -2- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 16, 1986 7:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 16, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Johnston, Mayor Kent Rose, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Affeldt John Slevin Hermann Staufer MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Gordon Pierce TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was a ten year employment anniversary award to John Gulick, Assistant Fire Chief. Ron Phillips briefly gave John's background and the presented the ten year Vail belt buckle to John. Dick Duran, Fire Chief, stated it was a privilege to work with John and he felt John was a real ambassador for the Town of Vail. Mayor Johnston commended John on his longevity. The next item was the approval of the November 4 and 18, 1986 minutes. Hermann Staufer made a motion to approve both sets of minutes, and Kent Rose seconded. A vote was taken on the November 4 minutes, and the motion passed 4-0, with Eric Affeldt abstaining due to his absence at that meeting. A vote was then taken to approve the November 18 minutes, which passed 4-0, with Hermann Staufer abstaining due to his absence at that meeting. At this time, Mayor Johnston noted there had been a Colorado Association of Ski Towns meeting last week, and he felt it was appropriate to discuss the results. He stated there would be a Winter Legislative Tour held the end of January in Durango, and a new idea, a Summer Legislative Tour., was being contemplated. Steamboat Springs had committed $10,000 to sponsor the Summer Legislative Tour, which they felt would enhance the summer program. Other topics discussed were the major expansion at Winter Park, marketing competition with Utah, the tunnel construction through Berthoud Pass, Aspen's change of attitude, and the second opening of Breckenridge's golf course next summer. He stated that Colorado is changing to take an aggressive marketing position for tourism. The third item was discussion of the proposed purchase of the Singletree Golf Course. Mayor Johnston reviewed what had been discussed during the Work Session that afternoon with the Avon Town Council. Roger Tilkemeier stated he believed a golf course was important to the area, but the Town should not own it; all who would benefit from it should own it. Michael Cacioppo asked several questions which Council and Ron Phillips responded. Bruce Gillie, on behalf of David Kanally and as President of the VRA Lodging Committee, gave reasons why he and his associates wanted the golf course. Steve Goodling of the Marriot's Mark Resort gave some facts to support his reasons to buy the golf course. Bob Fritch, owner of the Sitzmark Lodge, gave his thoughts on the purchase; he wanted the Town to research building a new golf course, not buy part of Singletree, and asked some questions which Council answered. Jim Morter, a resident of Vail and property owner at Singletree, stated that as a resident of Vail he wanted the golf course, but as a property owner at Singletree he had concerns which he explained. Doug Bitteto, a Berry Creek property owner, had questions for the Council on why they are considering this purchase; he thinks the hotel owners should help pay because they will benefit so much. Don Hagen gave his thoughts on why he was against the purchase to be paid for from real estate transfer tax funds. Richard Crosby thought the purchase was not prudent at this time and gave his ideas. Craig Denton, a property owner at Berry Creek, gave his reasons for no purchase. Ken Wilson, President of the Vail Board of Realtors, stated the majority of Realtors believed it was a good idea, but had problems with the use of the real estate transfer tax fund money to pay for it. Marka Moser stated she was concerned that open space was not all purchased yet, and the Town should really look at open space here in Vail. Ken Shapiro, a Vail resident and Singletree property owner, thought the real estate transfer tax money was inappropriate for funding the purchase and felt the lodge and hotel owners should help pay by being taxed. Eric Affeldt took a straw vote to see who was in favor of the purchase (a small group in the room) and who was not in favor (over half of the public in the room). David Kanally, representing the Vail guest and out of town property owners, asked that the Council think of how it would affect their experience. Steve Miller, a member of the Avon Town Council, stated both towns needed to continue a strict level of communication and keep the lines of communication open for the well being of both municipalities and the Vail and Avon guests. Bill Wilto, a resident of Vail and a property owner at Singletree, thought the extra 30 acres would give an opportunity for the Town of Vail. Diana Donovan explained her concerns over the purchase. Jim Sheehan, a resident of Vail and Singletree property owner, explained he thought everyone should step back and look again, there had been some good thoughts and questions brought up, and then gave his ideas on tee times and number of rounds. Al Weiss, a property owner in West Vail, stated his concerns and ideas on the golf course. Kevin Payne, a property owner at Berry Creek and President of the Western Vail Valley Resort Association, expressed his concerns over the purchase and that the Avon Town Council was still open to discussion and wanted to be included in the deal. Ken Sortland, a member of the Board of Directors of the Avon Metropolitan District, raised questions for the Council and stated his concerns. Jo Brown had questions on guests renting condominiums and not in lodges, to which Mayor Johnston responded. Jack Rush, who lives in Eagle-Vail and manages the Manor Vail Lodge, also responded to Ms. Brown's and Mr. Weiss's questions. Michael Cacioppo had questions for the Council and reviewed statements made and then again stated his concerns. Roger Tilkemeier asked what the community would have to give up to get the golf course, to which Mayor Johnston stated he could not give an answer. Diana Donovan asked the Council for a straw vote on their feelings about the purchase. Mayor Johnston stated if he felt it would be helping the community he would vote for it, so for now he would vote yes. Hermann Staufer stated he would not be able to vote on it tonight, there were too many questions left, but he wanted to expand the shoulder seasons; if buying this golf course would help, he probably would vote for it. Kent Rose stated he had heard so many yes's on the street than in the meeting tonight that he would be in favor of purchasing the golf course, but would not rush into it before the end of the year. John Slevin stated he was in favor of it now, that they may have to wait, but he was not concerned. Eric Affeldt stated he had received more negative than positive responses, and stated his concerns. Mayor Johnston stated he had received a memo from Gordon Pierce favoring the purchase. Kent Rose stated he had received a memo from Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal favoring the purchase, but she was concerned over using real estate transfer tax funds for the purchase. The next item, Colorado River Water Conservation District report on Denver Water Board was tabled until a later date. The fifth item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1986, second reading, regarding the Texas Townhome street vacation, conveyance and easement. Mayor Johnston read the title in full. Larry Eskwith explained the ordinance and stated no changes had been requested or made at first reading. 'There was no discussion by Council or the public. Hermann Staufer made a motion to approve the ordinance and quit claim deed. John Slevin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0. The next item was Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1986, second reading, to apply previous Town of Vail zoning to reannexed land known as Matterhorn. The title was read in full by Mayor Johnston. Kristan Pritz explained that staff was proposing the exact same zoning as was previously to the deannexed areas in question, and that no changes had been made at first reading. There was no discussion by the public or Council. Kent Rose made a motion to approve the ordinance, which Hermann Staufer seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0. The seventh item for discussion was Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1986, second reading, a supplemental appropriation to the Town budget. Mayor Johnston read the title in full. Steve Barwick explained the reasoning for the appropriation and commented that the ordinance had been changed to include real estate transfer tax funds for $3,500,000 for the Singletree purchase and also that $35,000 had been added for the Dobson Ice Arena fund, to cover plans for a five day Christmas ice show. Diana Donovan expressed questions on the ordinance, which Council discussed with Steve. Don Hagen and Michael Cacioppo again stated their concerns, to which Larry Eskwith, Ron Phillips and Mayor Johnston replied. Ken Wilson asked question on the amount from the real estate transfer tax fund, to which Ron Phillips responded. After some discussion by Council, Larry Eskwith stated they could make a second reading at a Special Meeting and table the item for the evening. Ken Wilson -2- requested the Council do that. Fred Hibberd requested the Council to take more time on the purchase. Diana Donovan stated her concerns again. At this time, a motion to table the ordinance until a Special Meeting on December 23, 1986 was made by Kent Rose, and Hermann Staufer seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0. The next item was Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1986, first reading, concerning amendment of the zoning map for a parking district. The full title was read by Mayor Johnston. George Rosenberg, representing Breakaway West Condominiums, requested the ordinance be tabled until a later date, and Jay Peterson, representing Bill Fleischer, agreed. The ninth item on the agenda was Vail Associates' appeal of the Planning Commission decision denying extended use of the modular buildings at Golden Peak. Peter Patten gave background information on the buildings and staff's recommendation for denial. Joe Macy of Vail Associates introduced Nancy Nottingham, Manager of the children's programs for VA. She explained the programs they have, which were discussed by Council, Joe Macy, Larry Lichliter, Nancy Nottingham and Larry Eskwith. Jack Rush, General Manager of the Manor Vail Lodge, stated his misgivings on the buildings. Joe Macy agreed with the statements made, but there had been no complaints from anyone that he was aware of, and the reasons why they needed to request the extension again. Jack Rush responded to these statements. After some discussion by Nancy Nottingham and Larry Lichliter, Kent Rose stated the Council and Vail Associates needed to have meetings to work on priorities. He then made a motion to approve the request with the stipulations that 1) the facility be two modular buildings in a similar configuration as now, 2) the ten conditions of staff as shown in memorandum to the Planning Commission dated November 24, 1986, and 3) the permit be granted for two years with an annual review. Mayor Johnston commented the programs were good and needed, but that two more years would be the end of approval. He stated that at the first year review or before, Vail Associates must present to Council a permanent solution. Hermann Staufer seconded the motion, but amended the third stipulation to be granted for only one year. Kent Rose then amended the motion. Michael Cacioppo asked questions of Council, to which Mayor Johnston responded. Peter Patten asked for clarification that at the annual review next summer, Vail Associates will have to bring a permanent solution to the Council. Eric Affeldt stated it was a suggestion only. Jack Rush and Michael Cacioppo made remarks, to which Joe Macy responded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1, with Eric Affeldt opposing. The next item, the Ambrosia Restaurant sign variance request, was tabled until a later date. There was no Citizen Participation. The Town Manager's Report was next. Ron Phillips stated the Nutcracker Suite was going to be shown at the Ice Arena. Monday, December 29, there would be a benefit show with an orchestra and wine tasting for $25 per person. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paul R. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -3- ORDINANCE 32 Series of 1986 AN ORDINANCE ZONING A CERTAIN PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO; PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AS STATE OF COLORADO HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY; DESIGNATING PARKING DISTRICT FOR THIS PROPERTY, SETTING FORTH DETAILS RELATING THERETO; AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WHEREAS, the property to be zoned hereby has recently been transferred from State Highway right-of-way to private ownership within the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has considered the appropriate zoning for the property and has recommended that the Town Council zone the parcel Parking District as set forth in Chapter 18.34 of the Vail Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the public interest to zone said property as soon as possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Town Council hereby receives the report of recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending the zoning of the subject property. Section 2. The subject property, located in the north half of the northeast quarter, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, State of Colorado, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto, containing 0.12 acres, more or less, is hereby zoned as Parking District (P), in accordance with Chapter 18.34 of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 3. As provided in the ordinances of the Town of Vail, the Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to modify and amend the official map to include the zoning specified in Section 2 (2) above. Section 4. 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 be declared invalid. Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, 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 and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF 1986, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1986. Paul R. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1986. Paul R. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk z TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: Application of zoning districts on the recently annexed portions of West Vail north of Interstate 70 Applicant Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND Colorado State Statutes require that zoning be placed on recently annexed properties within 90 days of the effective date of the annexation ordinance. Attached please find a zoning map with an outline of the area north of Interstate 70 which was annexed into the Town of Vail effective October 29, 1986. This application represents the Town's request to re-apply the previous zone districts onto the re-annexed area. We feel that with two exceptions, the previous zone districts are appropriate and should simply be re-applied to the individual parcels as depicted on the attached zoning map. The two exceptions are as follows: 1. A new parcel now being requested to be created immediately west of the West Vail Texaco located on Tract D, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1. At the December 22nd meeting, an application for a minor subdivision and rezoning of this parcel will be heard. The approvals for this individual parcel looked at specifically in regard to that application shall supersede the treatment of that parcel within this application. Basically, we would like to exempt that portion of Tract D from consideration under this application from the Town. 2. Lot 21, Section 14. This is an unplatted parcel owned by Mr. Albrecht located west of the developed area of West Vail north of I-70. There is an agreement between the Town of Vail and Mr. Albrecht which allows the Town 180 days to apply zoning on this parcel, (rather than the usual 90 days). The Albrecht parcel was recommended in the Land Use Plan to have Hillside Residential land use. The staff is now in the process of creating the Hillside Residential district and we would expect the property owner to apply for that zone district once it is finalized. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed zone districts for the recently annexed portions of West Vail as per the attached map with the above exceptions as noted. Ile- i,i';'' ,iii ~,,,,,,,iiiiiiri• ~iiiii,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,<,' B.l . B.L.M. s"s"sss"ss"s;........... B.L.M. AS SCHONE_ 00 p o o G 0 0 00 o NO 2 000 qo i.• d ooo oI o0 00 o w . pp J¢° I'IUV~ ~qMS o0 p 00 ,000 op0 000 DO p ~1 O~, 000 0000 / O O 00 00 )O ~ °v •b0 O v ~ flt ~O O O O O O 00 000 00 ep Oppp a O Sb (10 00~ . 000 00 OQO OJ3p 000 ° 00 ° 'dp pU „I ..i ~ ~ 0600 a°o o°o n' Ar ' OQO Op0 000 000 ° f~00 i ° ° - qp U o 0 0 4.} p` _ 000 000 00°° °I 00 00 0.%a, 0000 000 00 00 co Op @ °p~° 0 O A b® O 0 O ~O 0 0O q o ° CORTIONA o 000 0 90 00 1 b0 h oo ao o ° .Ilo o G o0 'O 00 ST MORIOO K4y 000 00 00 00 0 0 °0 0 oVc EAGLE COUNTY 90 o o0 pppp o p o4io r @ van ° ~ cwl ~ ~ g a0 a0 ~O orio b ° eo 00 00 9`O ' ob p ° o o EMON~xo 00000 0 0°0 0°0000 ooQ- CNAONIXI oo o°c aoo ` 0o pp 1 c o 0 0 0 ° o 00 0 00 ° B6 C~ 000 0°000000 ~ o a o 00 0 00 000 p1 aoo) ° 1 mo pp n 0000000000000°°°0° 0 000 0°° J yOO i d~ o obq 0 0a bo ° o o o bb) ° °O°ooooo°o ?°O° c o o~ O pp °O tRaL O I U (~O °a O p° P1E OC 00 O o000o000000 O° AONI% 'v'•,, 1• i .~ti ° 0. 0 0 0 p d °00000000000 CNAMCNI%"tti y`.6 • :1 1`. O JO 9AV 5 0 cc p o0 00 0o AcoO oo tom _ d' qo o o eo 0' - - tARP«TED' o 0 000 oso o u 0o tDO po o, po ,000000; 7gpL c 60 ~°o ooc oAo 0 00 0o °mip o° 1 0 0oo000 c ING NO 3 --•s,' ,T'- 0 0 oBo 0o bo oo,Ie pp a 00 00 ~,r-• LoT l o rap o p °o taf! i x.. Y lad I+ °O oob 'o0 D 0o qo 0 oAO o °°RO p >K', « ,.a ::r ; ? r ' xY: 4R 1 0 0 °HPMON~%~ O O t cYO )0e0 000 COLLINS-WIRTH ~UilyLd71 ) omoo ap oo,O° oL01^ °d°° i;; >Z-mPT SUBDIVISION t; I INTERSTATE 70 ELLIOTT RANCH oooooge.r" L C;o '7glNA4HQMES':..:'•':; ooooooo r~l LE COUNTY ';~A.ONDANNN.~UMS~c:•: Q 1000 TRACT A 0 EAGLE COUNTY o o ° 000 0O MEADOW CREEK 000000000 000 00 0 `a -~c'~~.~.•. 0 6 SUBDIVISION 0000 go0o0oo 00 00 000 Tx ~..•eooo o - 000 TRACT A f 000000 000°0°0°0 Hl.' N[5' i;:. o 0°o0°00 (Y0 o 000 p p @ c 0 00 0000 :L 000 000000 E op 0o0 ~1'!Y -o d•• .i..- ~.r• , h.. 00 00000000 0000 1.1 'x]0°00000, 00?] Gl RE CREEK OR .,'',l °PieA' - 0 000000°0 00000^ 1ff~ 2C:... :an. .:4d{•.;ei:•:2t.. 1.• 000000oc;:r:•'' if "do Jb o u0 00000000 00000 i'~--~~-.~ Rd: e.;.; ° o° a.]o 000000 0000 ND • ~ }s•}:•:.• 10 0 ~ v ~ 9 - 0000 000 ~ \ ERyO : •JP: U O 00 T _ _ °QOQ4 000 000f Ni 00 O O Q •UNy-.gTT~D- O o° ~.-~.~~~^_-~~v.~i`:=~..,~~-'~"Q ;:~H•:•'•s:~' oo`d''° '~--+yJ .•1. .:a;:• •a•.•.- r';,;:.: •h•• :~8:~'~'4` ...feAC:Y L~ :,7:': 190 p ) (T O' ff~i~ _ _ ~O ,•:M1'• A'E 4P. 000 Q 0'e~ o. ®o b 0000 \ _ 0 0 000000 V v, L HIGHLAND oo 000000 0°000000 '`".,S' :v;?v: • • ea loo 00000000°0000000 MEADOWS ..R, ,c 0 Ooooo000o000000000 O •,:y F. -X Q. 4'''.' ZG'', ] 00000000000o00oooooE ,leg _ FILING NO. 2 . • 00000000000000.0000•~~ - i„ 0000000000000000000 iRAa--t - °p ••''~e'•'•'•.•" ° °°°°°°°°°11° p B.L.M. _ ]00000°000°00000000 B.L.M. Cr ,000° 0000000000000E ~i.' Za 300000000000oo000. I :.a~. Iooo00-10000oo1oc - A 0000000000001 90 '0000°00000°00„ - ]t,10000000000E _ WHITE RIVER NATIONAL . 10,00000000000, 0000000U0000 ,Ooooooooo0 k ~SCALE.I .p1n FOREST. 000000000° 01000000E.. „.fir..• 200' 0' q0' 2op bpp' 00000000 1000000t` x P i:1 tJ0000E xpp}}"~ 000 ~yT' ""'4~~-_ • i O! yy}_ri g I . 1 +ar .S~V., IA ~nS rr•rn<<n mr IOATE REVISION W EAG! l VAI-lf.Y ENGINE^!";;i !i SURVFI ING INC._-_ I J , nA6_9R .r r a e a a, 1 -c 1 1 s TOWN OF VAIL ZONING LEGEND X70001 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT r I:::: =1 TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TWO FAMILY PRIMARY/ SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DISTRICT LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT ~~7TI X MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT PUBLIC ACCOMODATION DISTRICT r7:. -j SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT LLLW PUBLIC USE DISTRICT COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT COMMERCIAL CORE 2 DISTRICT r~= COMMERCIAL CORE 3 DISTRICT COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER DISTRICT k' j AGRICULTURAL & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT GREENBELT & NATURAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT G HEAVY SERVICE DISTRICT 1" " 1 PARKING ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SKI BASE RECREATION ORDINANCE NO. 3 Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING DISTRICTS ON PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE RECENTLY RE-ANNEXED WEST VAIL AREA INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO VAIL HEIGHTS, VAIL DAS SCHONE FILINGS NO. 1 AND NO. 2 AND VAIL RIDGE SUBDIVISIONS AS WELL AS CERTAIN UNPLATTED PARCELS WHEREAS, The Town of Vail, Colorado recently re-annexed a portion of the West Vail area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on October 29, 1986 as depicted in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the Vail Municipal code sets forth procedures for the imposition of zoning districts and recently annexed areas; and WHEREAS, Section 31-12-115 (S) CRS, 1973, as amended, requires the Town to bring newly annexed areas under a zoning ordinance within 90 days after the effective date of annexation; and -WHEREAS, whereas, the Town of Vail and John Ulbrich have entered into an agreement extending the time period within which zoning must be applied to 180 days (agreement dated June 16, 1986); and WHEREAS, there is an application from the property owner of a portion of Tract D, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1 for a minor subdivision and rezoning which shall remove said parcel from the jurisdiction of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has considered the zoning to be imposed on the re-annexed area at a public hearing and has made a recommendation to the Town Council to adopt zoning as proposed in this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it is in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare to so zone said property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Procedures Fulfilled The procedures for the determination of the zoning districts to be imposed on the recently re-annexed West Vail area as set forth in Chapter 18.68 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled. Section 2. A part of Tract D, Vail das Schone Filing #1 as generally shown on the attached Exhibit A shall be exempt from this ordinance. Section 3. Lot 21, Section 14, an unplatted parcel known as the Albrecht property as shown on the attached Exhibit A shall also be exempt from the jurisdiction of this ordinance. Section 4. As provided in Section 18.080.030 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to properly modify and amend the official zoning map to indicate the zoning specified herein. Section 5. 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 be declared invalid. Section 6. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 7. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, 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 and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF 1987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of , 1987 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1987. Paul R. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 7, 1987 SUBJECT: Request for zoning of Commercial Core III on Parcel A, a part of Tract D, Block B, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1 (commonly known as the Hud Wirth property and located immediately adjacent to and west of the West Vail Texaco station) Applicant: The Wend Group Partnership The applicant, the Wend Group Partnership, filed concurrent requests to subdivide and zone Parcel A, Tract D, Block B, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1. The existing Tract B is a 4.88 acre parcel and is zoned Primary/Secondary. The applicant wishes to subdivide out a 1.247 acre parcel and zone this Commercial Core III. The minor subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission and the zoning request was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The zone request is now before the Town Council for their review. Although the request from the Town Council is for zoning only, the Community Development Department has enclosed both the zoning and minor subdivision memorandums that were submitted to the Planning Commission on December 22nd. These have been included for your review. The staff recommendation is for approval. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of both requests. d TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision in order to subdivide a 1.247 acre parcel from Tract D, commonly known as the Hud Wirth property adjacent to the West Vail Texaco service station. APPLICANT: Wend Group Partnership I. THE REQUEST The applicant, the Wend Group Partnership, is requesting to subdivide 1.247 acres from Tract D, Block B, Vail das Schone Filing #1. Tract D as it currently exists contains a total of 4.88 acres and is zoned Primary/Secondary. Through the Land Use Plan, this parcel was shown as having two different potential uses. The upper bench of the property was designated through the Land Use Plan as a Medium Density residential category. The lower parcel along the Frontage Road was identified as Community Commercial designation. The proposed minor subdivision reflects the areas as designated on the Land Use Plan. The requested subdivision, described as Parcel A, is the parcel designated on the Land Use Plan for potential commercial uses. This parcel is east of and adjacent to and approximately the same size as the West Vail Texaco service station. Section 17.16.110 of the subdivision regulations states the following PEC review criteria: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendation made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town of Vail policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions, and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Legally, subdivision regulation is limited to a review of the technical and specific elements of the subdivision code itself. This includes a review of access, minimum lot size, minimum frontage, road grades, physical buildability of the land itself (slope, geological hazards, vegetation, etc.). The applicant is concurrently requesting that this parcel be zoned Commercial Core III. Although this zoning will be addressed in a separate memo, the proposed Parcel A of this subdivision does meet the legal and technical requirements for the subdivision and for the site standards specified in the Commercial Core III zone district. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of this subdivision request. The application does meet the technical requirements as specified through the Town of Vail subdivision regulations and also is a step toward implementation of a use that is designated within the Land Use Plan. D TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for zoning of a 1.247 acre parcel previously designated as Primary/Secondary residential to Commercial Core III. APPLICANT: The Wend Group partnership I. THE REQUEST This application is being submitted concurrently with a minor subdivision request on Tract D, Block B, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1. The minor subdivision request, if approved, will create a property that is now known as Parcel A, a 1.247 acre just west of the existing West Vail Texaco service station. The entire tract D, a total of 4.88 acres, is currently zoned Primary/Secondary. The recently completed and adopted Land Use Plan designates the area shown as Parcel A on the subdivision plat as having a potential for commercial development. The two gas stations adjacent to this property are currently zoned Heavy Service District and the property along the Frontage Road from the 7-11 store to Safeway is zoned Commercial Core III. The applicant feels that this parcel is a logical extension of that commercial use. It is our understanding that the applicant's desire is to develop a fast food restaurant on this parcel. A restaurant would be a permitted use within the Commercial Core III zone district. The process for developing a restaurant on this parcel should the Commercial Core III zoning be granted would involve submittal to and approval from the Design Review Board, a staff review to insure compliance with zoning regulations, and the issuance of a building permit by the Community Development Department. II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Suitability of Existing Zoning The existing zoning on the entire Tract D parcel is currently Primary/Secondary. This parcel is located between commercial property to the south and low to medium density residential properties to the north. The recently completed Town of Vail Land Use Plan identifies two distinct separate uses for this parcel. The area shown as Parcel A on the proposed minor subdivision is designated through the Land Use Plan for Community Commercial zoning. The area shown as Parcel B on the subdivision which is the upper bench closer to the residential neighborhood and separated somewhat by grade from the existing commercial zoning is designated as Medium Density Residential area. We feel that this property would be difficult to properly develop at its present zoning. We feel that the designation of these parcels within the Land Use Plan is correct. B. Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship within land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The proposed subdivision and zoning present a convenient workable relationship between land uses and are consistent with municipal objectives. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan, it presents a piece of commercial property adjacent to the gas station which is zoned Heavy Use and is in line with the rest of the Commercial Core III property which buffers I-70 from the residential uses located to the north. C. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community? Throughout the Land Use process there was much discussion from residents of the community given to the need for local, community commercial uses. The designation of this area as Community Commercial in the Land Use Plan reflects that desire of the citizens in the community. We view this application as an implementation of that Land Use Plan and in that light feel that it does provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for the proposal to zone this parcel Commercial Core III is for approval. We feel that implementation of this request reflects municipal objectives as well as desires of the citizens of the community as evidenced through their input to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. This application represents implementation of a portion of that Land Use Plan and has full support of the Community Development Department. JJJ / ' JJJJJ),// / J <)O nt6 C,O {6•, rI7( 18 JJJJJ/////J//////// n()t nCl /JJJJJ n(1. CI(ii C)r{ ouo U`c)o )CJ~000)(.Oc, t14)Unc )U <i U'v _ )Q C>QC) onn Oo Or) ,r( n Olin r ,rll 'I( 000 n ,o OC ,nn0 9.. /rr///' t )oon )ouU oo() t C O ) [ U ) Fi' 'r JO )i)o 00C) )(~t)O )Or' OU )nU ,(r (2+)(` C). C~17 Oe,. )t, C~<:1)~) ~r ut~, Ono >000000 )6O( uo0o n tac )t)< B<+ onr ,)O, n ,c oA r Wu r ur 000 )oo 000( 060 000 c~0 0< tun r, n ,r. ~`~_)n ('n ii~, a§(14, f}~ )z~ )O~U U~)O ,000 000 `pNE n ) )00 n )(>1 ) Qc ~,n P~ (Sn .,n C)1 i)( n( fl l0 000000000000 )n0 C70 > O t~ fl .t' r5r(, rt) (3O, r..• GPI ( (i t CIB,O , 00 Oor" - n )~,1 C) fin ) (>(rr r1 (t 'U 0(4 r t c ) ~Qgc n RD O CORTINA )o O})t (7`j)UU ern( 2~r O ti )no r i)(• ,r r)irr n' .t. -iV ODUr_, )9o c 0 )c t)< U6)u )o (1 p r Zit o3)u ur, t , , G~ EAGLE COUNTY u~ -04()o c (1~u0~t7( ou )o<) ~o ,n ,n. 0 Or r y u t~g~ ~~r~6. < r zp (~0 )o(,n(;on~~c~t~i<~~~;rr n0 O'trooo( c of c1 t)rahn o ~(5n Q , - gQ 'u' nor R P4 1m~t c~4(11 oo('u( t•nn OU O OO I o0 F )r n t)t)w0 ogu c,c, K2~ ( ,E5r )a^, 23 ('c .nno01 UOC1 O Ont.UOOc o00 > u (A8)U Jn O )r~( r _ OC c)n (,t t9n )C ~~nc 'n( .t)OOn o onnnnO' (~~)O qQ t o CYlbO Ci Y)Or u ) u )C uTc~ t~ 7~~C uo ( '{A(. )n0000nnC>n0 GHAMONI% RD. • oo C5C>t d170 )n0 r` TRp\t_ nU[ C{ o (U , )U< C .Utz Ut rC ')u O oU( )on'" r C7 )(Jo Oo nt' )0 OC ~ct n0 )16)t 'I J ) S n '•000OOc.. OpV05 apQn( U ) C'.U )~iC o )6<t ) r ,Ur) )Or •CO- L p<, [I[ tt')oUOn TRACT- ACTC '0c OAO )rTO vUC r)o imn C r r o0 < Un ){~O r?f, a, CSC ~dt) `(Y, -Ot)Oonn, TT~CT- -A-- Onnr tkn r n O ''t9k ,HC) )O !n n n< dAc)')0 g nnnOnn(, _13 ~(t )Z)n->Oo( uA0 )~70 ntt )oc• nn 17)00 dBc oo ) C cc r t v ( ( ) t[~o ( 1)(r )(A(. 0 L 0~'n uu(, )0c,no( 00 ,(10 )o og~n )nt Ro ac O( ion nrAnC ( ,c2u Uuo n ) n(: ONYX a r,,o' SV fJ )O q r+0 , n0c o0 )O ) >7(n CNP~` Cg)('C ROSq o C~ O r n n ) 7o Op niJUOCIf OO r7ftU( )n~) I OB,n o(?`)j oo or) I on ) ELLIOTT RANC_HI U)1 0 ;1)OOO0 0000000( n >(3or) Q0 )u Oo h r EAGLE COUNTY o000O00 0t>0 rior cA o0u MEADOW CREEK, >~0009On0t) TRACT A nuOo0o00 r)O ~ou'~our) SUBDIVISION OOOOOO, °Ot, 0() 1)c01 ppt)O tor, - T U _ .l lEhiD,Q r ~ 18 . or PRASE' UNPLATTED" TRACT 8 10 CUP/ I,PINE J_ f ^ f ONT, _ "SEZ .HI ) r B 1$) tS (t <1,r)1, l%-~f f~ j 4M N f 9 )o c 6( (~~~../J - ^ l ~ JE Yom: ~J Lll I- 14"' ( JP Or LANE .r..,fE~.,?~ f J W 8 O RkSPUR )p ( c)O)c((BO OOOOt V - -'.i`` F- (A of jc ( ur7F> LYtgo )6) ( )O ,17U )o(IO0 000000 C) (J DU )OU O ' )opoo OOC>( oOUO000U OOOOO 0OC TAav'i C )Ul tiO~} 00( OODUpO )ooooOOUOp00000ooooo u0 )q(`Y)o0 )Od )o i oc)ooo0000 10oo0ooor ls~ )(,"Onoc o0 )r o0 o00ooooo0000000 )(7oUpp00000000nO r)nUUUno00000U)t,r R M ORDINANCE NO. 1 Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE ZONING CERTAIN PARCELS OF PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A RESUBDIVISION OF TRACT D, A RESUBDIVISION OF VAIL DAS SCHONE, FILING NO. 1, TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE TOWN OF VAIL, DESIGNATING SAID ZONING DISTRICTS FOR THE ANNEXED PROPERTY; SETTING FORTH DETAILS RELATING THERETO; AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP IN RELATION TO THE ANNEXED PROPERTY. WHEREAS, the property to be zoned hereby has been recently annexed to the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has considered the appropriate zoning for the recently annexed property and has unanimously recommended that the Town Council zone the parcel Commercial Core III; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the public interest to zone said annexed property as soon as possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Town Council finds that the procedures for the provision of zoning districts for property recently annexed to the Town of Vail have been fulfilled, and the Town Council hereby received the report of recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending the zoning of the annexed property. Section 2. Pursuant to Section 18.68.070 of the Vail Municipal Code, a parcel of property described as a resubdivision of Tract D, a resubdivision of Vail das Schone Filing No. 1, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado is rezoned as Commercial Core III (CCIII). Section 3. As provided in the ordinances of the Town of Vail, the zoning administrator is hereby directed to modify and amend the official zoning map to include the zoning specified in Section Two (2) above. Section 4. 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 be declared invalid. I I Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, 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 and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ, AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF 1987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of , 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1987. Paul R. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1987. Paul R. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk TO: Town Council FROM: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: January 7, 1987 SUBJECT: Request to rezone newly created parcels B and C, a part of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, to Single Family Residential Applicant: Michael Tennenbaum The applicant is requesting to resubdivide Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing in order to create three lots, one to be zoned Primary/Secondary and two to be zoned Single Family Residential. The subdivision request has been conditionally approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Final approval for the zone change request is required from Town Council. Currently both Lot 14 and Lot 17 are zoned Primary/Secondary and each contains a single family residential dwelling. This subdivision decreases the size of the existing Lot 17 while maintaining the technical requirements and minimum standards required for a Primary/Secondary lot. This lot is described as Parcel A. Lot 14 is subdivided into Parcels B and C, each to be zoned Single Family Residential. Both of these parcels meet the site requirements for Single Family Residential lots. The Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously recommended approval of the minor subdivision conditional upon the four conditions listed under Staff Recommendation in the enclosed PEC memo dated December 22, 1986. The Community Development Department recommends approval with the 4 conditions listed in the above stated memorandum with one additional condition. Prior to execution of the final plat, a representative of the Community Development Department will inspect the residence located on Lot 14, to ensure that it is indeed a single family residence as defined through the Town of Vail municipal code. qh f TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision in order to resubdivide Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Included in this action is a request to rezone the newly created parcels B and C to Single Family Residential. Applicant: Michael Tennebaum I. THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting to resubdivide Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing in order to create 3 lots, one to be zoned Primary/Secondary and two to be zoned Single Family. Currently, both lot 14 and lot 17 are zoned Primary/Secondary and each contains a single family residential dwelling. This subdivision decreases the size of the existing lot 17 while still maintaining the technical requirements and minimum standards required for a Primary/Secondary lot. This lot is described on the subdivision plat as Parcel A. Lot 14, then, with the increase in square footage taken from Lot 17, is subdivided into Parcels B and C, each to be zoned Single Family. Both of these parcels meet the site requirement standards for Single Family Residential lots. For a Primary/Secondary lot, the minimum site area must be 15,000 square feet of buildable area and each site must have a minimum frontage of 30 feet and be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries. A Single Family Residential lot must have a minimum site area of 12,500 square feet of buildable area. Each site must have a minimum frontage of 30 feet and shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries. II. ISSUES RELATED TO THE REQUEST While the staff understands and supports the basic concept of this request, there are several issues that need clarification. The allowable GRFA on the combined site of lots 14 and 17 as currently zoned is 7,518 square feet. Due to the nature of our GRFA ordinance and the way it functions upon a graduated scale, the creation of one Primary/Secondary lot and two Single Family lots would result in an increased amount of GRFA available. Part of the reason the staff supports this concept would be that it does not effectively change the density of the site. Four units would be allowed. Four units are being requested. We would request that the GRFA be restricted by condition and also on the plat to a maximum of 7,518 square feet to be divided among the three parcels so that at least the minimum standards of GRFA related to site area are met. The second issue of the request would be the parking for the proposed Parcel C. Currently there is a single family unit located on Lot 14. The parking for this unit is located west of the existing unit. This r ' parking area is located on what is proposed to be Parcel B. The C applicant, in discussions has stated that a garage and parking area will be built on Parcel C to accommodate that unit. Our concern is that in the meantime we are creating a parcel with an existing unit with no legal parking, as the existing parking is located on the proposed Parcel B. We would request a formal easement be granted from Parcel B to Parcel C reassuring that there is a legal existing parking area for the existing unit on Parcel C. The third issue involved in this proposal regards the requirement that the minimum lot sizes be of buildable area. The staff has calculated the slope on this site and has found some slopes exceeding 40%. As the subdivision is currently drawn, Parcel C does not meet the 12,500 square foot requirement of buildable area. The total site, however, does contain enough buildable area to create these three lots and with some minor reworking of the property line between Parcel B and Parcel C as is currently shown, both of these parcels could meet the minimum requirements. The fourth issue is that of the current zoning request. This subdivision will only work if Single Family zoning is approved for Parcel B and C, other':;ise we will be creating non-conforming Primary/Secondary lots. These two actions are dependent upon each other, and we would request that if the Planning Commission were to deny either one of the applications, that both are denied. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports the concept of this application and recommends approval. The density currently allowable on the site would be 4 units and the applicant is requesting no more than that. Our recommendation for approval, however, is based on the following conditions: 1. The total GRFA approved for the three parcels not exceed 7,518 square feet and that the GRFA as distributed must meet the minimum requirements for each parcel. 2. A legal instrument be created to allow the parking for Parcel C to remain on Parcel B until such time as adequate parking is available on Parcel C. 3. That the applicant demonstrate that all three lots meet the minimum site requirements of buildable area. 4. That approval of this subdivision is conditional upon final zoning approval being granted by the Town Council. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: A request of zoning of two parcels now known as Parcel B and Parcel C, a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. The current zoning of these parcels is Primary/Secondary. The request is for Single Family Residential Applicant: Micheal Tannebaum I. THE REQUEST The applicant has submitted a concurrent application for resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Purpose of the subdivision is to decrease the size of Lot 17, increase the size of Lot 14, and then create two single family parcels out of the existing lot 14. The minor subdivision request is being addressed under a separate memorandum. The minor subdivision will insure that the proper lot area requirements for Single Family zone district is being met on Parcels B and C and that the requirements necessary for a Primary/Secondary lot are maintained on Parcel A. Currently, both the proposed Parcel A and Parcel C contain single family dwelling units. The final development scenario of this property would then entail a Primary/Secondary structure on Parcel A, a single family unit on Parcel B and the existing single family unit on Parcel C. II. EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST 1. Suitability of Existinq Zoning The Community Development staff feels that the existing zoning in this area of the community is appropriate and does meet the development objectives of the Town of Vail. The request, however, for Single Family zoning on this parcel does not change the densities that are currently approved. It merely changes the configuration in which this property may be built upon. Therefore, we feel that both the existing and proposed zoning are suitable. 2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The proposed subdivision and zoning do not effectively change the concept of the development in this area of the community. Although we will see more separate structures, the effective density and square footage of development on this property does not change, and we feel, therefore, there is no negative impact upon the relationship of this use with the adjacent land uses. 3. Does the rezoninq provide for the qrowth of an orderly, viable community? The Community Development Department feels that as the subdivision request meets the minimum requirements for the proposed zone district and does not increase density, that the proposal does provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community and creates no negative impact or undesirable precedent for the community. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for the proposed zoning is for approval, conditional upon the fact that the related minor subdivision request for lots 14 and 17 is approved and that all parcels meet the minimum site requirements for their proposed zone districts. 7yI 111 !~s Ali it 1,)!).1 !'f)'1. , //////i//////. -Il ~ll i~v ~IUUf)t)U I~U Uf)i~));1 •~/r////r/r ///////////////f// -SCALE I••200' ,7w'; D/,/,// •...rr//r,////„//. UOU UU 200 0'' 0 )r 0 00/1 f 0 GGG GGG VAIL POTATO PATCH _GU,J '6) SECOND FILING C C ~ 000°//////// -0: PATCH TOWN OF VAIL BOUNDARY JL.IJ.Q.: "U U U~Cb// _ rr ..:`;.../7•,////'ii/,//i/1/,'//,///////i////ii/,r////////. 111z1 /11 /11 3-c 0 OGC,.1G /i// OnGC ///////1 / / INTERSTATE 70 A RESUK)WISION. OF LOT I (g BLOCK I VAIL LIONSHEAD 2nd FILING / SUN VAIL • - CONDOS; • o • • • • • • • +9. i'h; 'ar. P" • •PAFOING• • • / i i • a q {,,r,^ Y*' S S" ST*)CTWE • • TRACT C . I'- b ~t~ st ~ ,I~ . • . • . • . • . j . • . • ~ ~ ' A1l%% ARE5DaDJVISlQN__QEP9.@_i N~S±Ht;A03''~ K • ® • • • • • ' i0 SHE LOT D, VAIL VILLAGE 2nd I ?*f'`R t7;rrS / f~ k"' ~ ;F~ ~ TRHF EAST LIONSHEAD CI CLE '~/+::@ } t tom.) (a ti t~ f7 / / / i TF7AC7 D ILLAGE 1" . ( 'A,SS3~py~ •3i )kifq',~` / l AT?EP1 / , l/ , 1 J J J / r , J WEST / - f CJf WEST \C~ l rt ter c /~;r. M y..l, Y ,/777////l/l//////l/ /Br WADOW Dq r •.,~.~:Jw~'.,:, ~AjhrAy'3TrN~ f ~W tvChlf.y / //,///////Jl//////l/) /r ..7.'.' ••`l1 ('~y~/~~ Fi °~.4 v(~ ~f }43t.' rts G+. .lrY~, t / J / r l l l / / l J r , J J J l l / J / J , 1 / / / / l / , Y l~ • • • i•' V 1 -1 .1 ~ ^~i... • /'\/`.Y~;a ~a'~ t L MJ ~'~'b .:P lJ/l,/J,/ % ,llJ l ~p' l/////l/////// /J/ r /l, / > p aKU. / / /~~/~p / / / / • • ,/~.(7~ / / / , • ' f? EAST • - , AQT/AIr • U-~~ C'p`•, l9 O,dO" OGO /Y/•a14-/ Ca~•1-y4- 'lY/ll/ / OU VA IL r~~ 00^U00O • • -h , -O`G / • • • ~ /YMU..r k.d~? c: O O O O U o O O C"" . • /1//////,// G ® , • O O` G C 0 O G (D O 0O GG O 0 O O O O b 0 0 CO C0 O 0 O C O OU :)GID` U O L (~°O O O O 0 n O //,/x~ACI )a, 000 COGO 000 C OU 0° O°O 0 O C O 0"Ou 0 O. µ P O°O U0 > O 000 0 00 GGO CEO O~O 'O C O C 0 6 Og YJ ° O''r0 C O J O 0 0 0 O O 0 O CEO 0f• G G~O d ~O` O CSC 019 5 O OnO,. 0 00 000Q /i. 0000000 UC OOO00C0 O 0 - O 10 / 0- GO°OO00 00 O OpG~G• / 'p .o~ G o 0 0 000000 o c°o 'o o~0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 Fo oQ 0 ZY00 U OOU00°d~0 ~O O ^OO° O OO 0°0 O O 0'u C U O O O O O O ° Rp G O O OO G C U 00 000 0 U O GO 0 p WIL G G U GO O U 0 0 O G O G O O J O q G O~O GgG gG CjG G G pu Q C O O O O C O O GO "'"0 F O U'r CSO - / i O O O OO OO OO O O O UOO OO U`U ORE / 0 U O c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °~7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° 00° ~°cg4o J O O O C O U O O O O O U~ / b O 0 O p G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~O Q O b0 ,-p 0 c) .C O O O 0 U O, C O O O 0O O O O `O O Op o O O O QQ.O ~O ~O O~ l///J, 000 0 U° 00°0 a("LvO O Q.O Olb°0 v O ry~Q .U00 CY~°0 Op 6-0 (9 0 O. ~O L7 o O- O a A- O C OHO O 0 ~C ~G C ~G C U O. 0 0 0 0° O° °O° //11j1 O°OC'C, 0°O C .G° O° SII 0___o J O O O O C_ U L O O O O G O O ~ C O G O 0 O O G 0 G, O . OG O C O O O O /T61AGT A/ b g0 C' 0 0 C1z n 00 G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~J ss 0 0 . O O O a~a _ GU 'O°O O~U G°O O° 0° O OC O IDO 0100 0o00 O"'b b00 (900 000 "000 OQo00 Ova v00 0° - )UV ECV °U O M0. 0b „O 0„0„0 O _.O O O O n O,.OC O°n n rn0n n n n n (~_O_ n n n c`o( o.)c~ o o o°0 0 ° o G o 0 0 0 MORCUS- SUBDIVIS~ VAIL LIONS_HEAD • - - Ist. FILING , Ist. ADD - - - - WHITE RIV R NATIONAL FOREST---- ~dAPS Y:18 F>,, D DY EAGLE VALLEY EN(i1N':t'3ING 9 SURVEYING INC. VAIL, COU)RADO 476-4873 this day of A.D., 1986. Land Title Guarantee Company P.O. Box 357 Vail, Colorado 81658 By: (Signature) (Print name and title) R = 625.00' 6= 14° 15 L = 155.44' CH = N 83°57' 30 "E 155.04' ,E 5o FOREST ROAD ( 50') N.760 48.03 e J d S 88 ° 55 " E 202.84' o v 0 194.00' 8.84 I ABANDONED LOT LINE c0 a M UTILITY EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED WT L~J~ N 4~~ ~ Samm y m Paso 5• !0' I 1 L v T i i RJPOSC. I I !F" t S89°41'00 W V 113.28' N o PARCEL A L c l,-p+:3 I PARCEL D Lv -Ir ;4 Z I UTILITY EASEMENT 0.3474 AC. v 10.3399 AC. S n~GLC' R=612.05 S 79033,E 194.00, o n=041-,4'45' PARCEL C cn I L= 48.92' 0.3040 AC. I CH=S77-15'38"E P R 0 \ 48.90' M K E pCE 21608 22.08' I 1 o C R=612.05 ACCESS ~ 8= 14°38'13" ? EASEMENT 10' L =156.35' ROq 10. CH =S67-39'09"E 3 o, 155.93' = c R6= 6912.105' R p= 19001' 612.05' PLAT L = 205. 27' L = 203.14 CH=N70°02.5'W CH = N 70°02.5 W 204.31 202.21' ~_J CALCULATED CLOSURE ORDINANCE NO. 2 Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN PARCELS OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS PARCEL B AND PARCEL C, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 14 AND 17, BLOCK 7, VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING, TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO; DESIGNATING SAID ZONING DISTRICTS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY; SETTING FORTH DETAILS RELATING THERETO; AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHEREAS, the property to be rezoned hereby lies within the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has considered the appropriate zoning for the subject property and unanimously recommended to the Town Council rezone Parcels B and C Single Family Residential; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the public interest to zone said property Single Family Residential. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Town Council finds that the procedures for the provision of rezoning property have been fulfilled, and that the Town Council hereby receives the report of the recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending the rezoning of the subject property. Section 2. Pursuant to Section 18.66.100 of the Vail Municipal Code, parcels of property described as Parcel B and Parcel C, a resubdivison of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, are rezoned to Single Family Residential (SFR). Section 3. As provided in the ordinances of the Town of Vail, the zoning administrator is hereby directed to modify and amend the official zoning map to include the zoning specified in Section Two (2) above. Section 4. 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 be declared invalid. 9 - Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, 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 and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated ry;; herein INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF 1987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of , 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1987. Paul R. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1987. Paul R. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: !TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: Request to extend an approval of SDD#6 (Vail Village Inn) for a period of 18 months. APPLICANT: Joe Staufer SDD zoning requests are approved with certain time limitations as prescribed in the zoning code. If construction is not commenced within 18 months of final approval of an SDD, the approval may be revoked or amended by the Town Council. Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn received their final approval from the Town Council on March 5, 1985. The applicant has requested review by the Planning Commission in order to formally extend this approval for another 18 month period. Review by the PEC is advisory and final decisions concerning this request will be made by the Town Council. BACKGROUND ON PREVIOUS APPROVAL The redevelopment of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn involves the demolition of an existing structure that presently accommodates the Vail Village Inn hotel, the Village Inn Pancake House, and the Food and Deli. The approved structure has 175 accommodation units, approximately 16,000 square feet of retail space, and 324 underground parking spaces. The proposal also involved off-site improvements by providing space for the Colorado Ski Museum in a portion of the new structure on East Meadow Drive. The developer also agreed to fund the demolition of the existing ski museum building and landscaping of the site. These and other specifics concerning this development plan are outlined in the attached ordinance. The plans of the proposed project will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting for the benefit of those commissioners who were not on the board during the original review process in 1985. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports this request and would recommend that the Planning Commission pass along a recommendation to extend this approval for a period of 18 months. The applicant has presented the identical plan that was previously approved. As a part of the Vail Village master planning process, the staff has recommended that this site be developed in general compliance with the previously approved SDD. There was a lengthy and extensive review process involved in this project prior to its original approval in 1985. The staff has seen no change in this area that would suggest a need for amending or revoking this approval. q a TO: Planning and Environmental Commission i FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 7, 1985 SUBJECT: A request to amend the approved development plan for Special Development r,District No. 6 (Vail Village Inn), in the following areas: a revised development plan to include changes in the site plan and heights of buildings,`an increase in'allowable GRFA on the site, the elimination of the required distance between buildings as well as on site parking for charter buses, to approve a conditional use permit for meeting room facilities, and futhermore, to request amendments to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Applicant: Anthony Genth 1• INTRODUCTION TO THIS PROPOSAL The staff has been working with the applicant on this proposal since late September. The Planning and Environmental Commission has been briefed on this application twice at work sessions during this process. Up until now, an emphasis has been placed on comparing this proposal to the submittal made in the fall of 1983. At this point the focus of review is on how this project relates to the original development plan for SDD#6, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and other zoning code considerations. It is the purpose of this memo to determine how this project relates to these three factors. They are essentially the standards with which we have to evaluate the merits of this proposal. This memo is outlined around these three factors (the SDD, the Guide Plan, zoning and other considerations). The applicant has requested amendments to specific sections of the original SDD. Each of these requests will be addressed individually. This project also impacts a number of sub-areas of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The relationship to these sub-areas will then be evaluated. Finally, there are a number of zoning and related issues that will be addressed. II. BACKGROUND ON SDD#6 AND THIS PROPOSAL SDD#6 was established in March of 1976. It is intended to provide for a compre- hensive development and use of an area that is compatible with the general character of Vail. Three phases of the SDD have been completed to date. The area has been developed as a residential and commercial activity center. The proposal before you is in keeping with the nature of existing development on the site. The proposed Phase IV would consist of 175 lodge rooms, a 5,600 square foot meeting room facility, approximately 16,000 square feet of commercial space (this figure includes restaurants), and extensive underground parking. Con- struction is to be completed in one phase and would require demolition of SDD6 1/7/85 -2- the existing Vail Village Inn (the Pancake house, Food and Deli, etc). The main mass of Phase IV would extend along the Frontage Road from Phase IV to the Amoco site. It then extends diagonally around the Amoco Station to the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. The layout and design of this proposal will be addressed in more detail later in this memo. III. REQUESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The following are the amendments requested to the original development plan of SDD#6: Section 18.050.040 Development Plan. This amendment merely recognizes the exhibits submitted by Gordon R. Pierce as elements of the development plans for SDD#6. Section 18.050.110 Distance Between Buildinqs. This section of SDD#6 requires a 50 foot separation between buildings adjacent to SDD#6. The proposed amendment would omit this section entirely. Section 18.050.120 Height. The approved development plan outlines heights for specific areas within the SDD. The intent of these height limitations was to maintain a view corridor from the 4-way stop to the mountain and to ensure a pedestrian scale along East Meadow Drive. The proposed amendment would eliminate the specific height limits in these areas and instead allow a maxi- mum "average height of the project not to exceed 45 feet." The staff would prefer C this section to read: "as per the approved development plan." Section 18.050.180 Parkinq. This amendment would eliminate the requirement that parking for charter buses be provided on site. 18.50.060 Conditional Uses. Conditional uses in this SDD are the same as those found in the P.A. zone district. The applicant has proposed a 5,600 square foot meeting room within Phase IV. This will require approval of a conditional use permit by the PEC. Section 18.50.130 Density. Residential development of SDD#6 is restricted to 100,000 square feet of GRFA. Also, the GRFA devoted to accommodation units shall exceed the GRFA devoted to dwelling units. Additionally, if all GRFA is devoted to to accommodation units, the number of a.u.'s shall not exceed 300. The applicant has requested that the "total GRFA of all buildings con- structed not exceed 120,600 square feet." This is the amount of GRFA that would be allowed on the site under Public Accommodation zoning. The following table summarizes the existing and proposed densities for SDD#6. SDD6 1/7/85 -3- EXISTING DEVELOPMENT * Commercial Phase I 16,128 Phase II 6,473 Phase III 1x,600 Deli 1,800 ) This space would be Swiss Hot Dog 150 ) removed to allow for Pancake House 3,010 ) Stein Garden 800 construction of Phase IV. ) bar Total 38,961 square feet existing commercial *Note that commercial square footage is not restricted under SDD#6. Residential D.U.'s A.U.'s GRFA Phase I 0 0 0 Phase II 4 0 3,315 Phase III 29 0 44,830 *Vail Village Inn 0 52 16,585 Totals 33 52 64,332 * The Vail Village Inn will be removed for construction of Phase IV. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Commercial Phase I, II, and III 33,201 (existing) Phase IV 16,250 (proposed) Total 49,451 Under this proposal, there will be a net gain of 10,490 square feet of commercial space. SDD6 1/7/85 -4- Residential D.U.'s A.U.'s GRFA Phase I 0 0 0 Phase II 4 0 3,315 Phase III 29 0 44,830 (Proposed) Phase IV 0 175 72,450 33 175 120,595 square feet As has been stated, the existing SDD limits GRFA to 100,000 square feet. Under this limitation, only 51,855 square feet of GRFA could be developed on this SDD. GRFA being requested is 20,595 square feet over what is presently allowable. The number of units are within the number permitted by SDD #6. IV. REQUESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN There are five sub-area concepts that are affected by this proposal. They are: .Sub-area concept #11 - Bus shelter The applicant has proposed a bus shelter that will be integrated into the portion of Phase IV that fronts onto East Meadow Drive Sub-area concept #10 Plaza linkage across East Meadow Drive uniting commercial area. Feature area paving, planters, kiosks, benches, etc. Further study needed, integral to infill developement in #9. The developer has proposed an entryway to the Village Inn Plaza at approximately this location. This should provide an inviting pedestrian linkage off of East Meadow Drive. The developer has agreed to participate in funding a "plaza linkage" across Meadow Drive from VVI to a future commercial expansion at the Kiandra Lodge site. The following three sub-areas are, by the nature of this development, inter- related. They are: Sub-area #7 Landscaped open space, approved element of Vail Village Inn special development district. Pedestrian path connection to Frontage Road and Town Hall. SDD6 1/7/85 -5- Sub-area #3 Traffic circle turn-around to limit penetration of lost traffic. Convey a "dead-end" road closure appearance from the Frontage Road and at the same time create a major landscape focal point for west end of East Meadow Drive as linkage to Lionshead. Traffic south of circle reduced by clear sign directives. Location of circle dependent on long-range plans for Ski Museum (see #5). Sub-area #5 Ski Museum site improvements. Outdoor display area framed by tree planting. Raised paving surface with planters on front (circle) side for low-maintenance entry. Pedestrian walk continues around to west. Long-term expansion potential limited. Further study needed to determine site suitability. These three sub-areas are inter-related by the development proposed for the southwest corner of this site. The original SDD#6 included a recommended land use, landscape, and building mass plan. This plan called out for a a large portion of this corner to be a landscaped zone. The Urban Design Guide Plan adopted this design consideration in its long range plan for the area. The applicant has proposed locating a building on a substantial portion of this corner. The staff has consistently raised this point as a significant issue of concern because of the lost landscaped area (Concept 7) and the long range impact on the viability of completing the traffic circle turnaround (concept #3). In response to this concern, the applicant has proposed providing a landscaped area on the site of the ski museum. This would serve as a replacement for the landscaped zone that is not provided on site. The developer is working with the museum directors and has proposed providing them space in Phase IV. The staff sees many positive aspects from this proposal. Foremost among these is that the building along East Meadow Drive will screen the loading and parking area of Phase IV. Secondly, it will allow for the removal of the ski museum building. This is seen as an advantageous move because of the building's poor physical condition and its close proximity to the street. The other related sub-area concept is the turnaround circle. A preliminary study has been done concerning this proposal. If Phase IV were to be constructed as proposed, and the museum building removed, it would still be possible to install the turnaround circle. However, in meetings with Town of Vail department heads and adjacent property owners, it was gnerally agreed that the circle idea may not be functional. Regardless of this, the overall impact of this_proposal will not be a negative one on this s_ub-area concept. The ski museum representatives are very enthusiastic about this proposal and details of the move are currently being worked on. The other related sub-area concept is the turnaround circle. A preliminary study has been done concerning this proposal. If Phase IV were to be constructed as proposed and the museum building removed, it would still be possible to install the turnaround circle. However, in meetings with Town of Vail department heads and adjacent property owners, it was generally agreed that the circle idea may not be functional. Alternatives to the circle concept have been dis- cussed and will receive further study in a long-term effort to improve the intersection. Regardless of this, the overall impact of this proposal will not be a negative one on this sub-area concept. Trnn{ •lesj ~i^ :fV ~~y',~, ,=r"N °rl•..tL..a~ :a^-l •y `':ra t L' .ice, 1" '.r .e ~ .7'i''. (Yr,, t t. ! .7 3~R ~~~•7,teT Ali •y '.t'='~aaPr•t'.`t~~ 3S :Yrtii=~y~~ s N•q ~dik r~ M t,rr' 1`1,! ;i:: . ~•,^>°°;~yi..}..~[[q t`t~ttt'~~~; `4. trtrc,:s,~t ',r_y,,.t{)i', r r- ,•i 4-`_r, i, iti-,r:r_:*y.~,~i•F,.'., r.} K~~vY'"• •f~ 7t t4•" f ,~i- ~,~.~7~'~. 't. r a->~ ;v. r ~.,,..;2, yY ter; ;j , , .:<7": ± -i+a ~ •y. ~.s r ,+~r ~ d ~ 1.c;_~~ ~I,,"-° -LS4 ~~,Sr S. ,S i .arS,!, tr-rC`Z<• .s~i~%: a~..~t:.:~t~'•~r-" ~ ,+~?-as~c^4• ~"st ~9 f,;;,.r'S•i _ * '~f`? _t ~•"~a r, ~ • „r~'•,, ~ •c,.. iC .s'~~ 1- • ti.1 •!y`i rr ~..."I' t.•. k•i~l_s.:: T,r.r F 1 'at~ at..-,;q", i, -.'3~y f`•._,L,.-,: -p >.-c-{{'.t.>' ti't '•'~.<r.l• w ~,ra ar yam,. sc. ~1R~• - 1 `'r`t ! •,i'""'i.:~. ~-r •yv. yiJ ,.~"S.'~.1..:" d 1 -L' i'k- J }}t iiiii '2`..H•• f .{I 1,',r , . 4 ' - ~tF t ~ ~ v<; ' •-v +.7.`-e ..'rF':^S ::'y2' '!a ` :.f,::t: P ( l L~< ,fit v-, af"ly. , y. T~ +xr •PYy~' = >v '•i; ZSY ..S -~:1;:. f' ;r. p.f.-x:71 'tx~...a ~r?;'-' .-:i - ~ t a/a'z r ? ~ -tai-.)y >.'nr.,!4: ~ ~„r.-r1•'~,<.,< y~ i- r !i'._,~%t"'.,:lC I?}-i~r. M1~a •s .r_ t.4",~.. yiS ~ -t l ~•,.r ~ t,? t1••,' Y?~., 'i.. Y, 'cam` 4S` Y F~{' ,'.4 _ ~•'r f `y~Zt lcF- ~ t,,- ~y~ `Ai!-a~y.~ :7 5~~ii ~~'';:~.~~'I J=w.: •.:..•:,i v~/~r. si.~ i" ~s':~.a~ s~ -~•r ,yt~"~.~J~ car- _+i: r`~ `-!s . •=t tip,-.. ~ti rr ' o`_; i- L'~a'~~y: {•?f `,Z>. -•-7N1 s s.. . ~r-i: -~i•`4 ; ;?-.'=_•i-{..=-`4`3{x- i .-i i;t < f~fr T-~ • ~'^q' + xi ~ ~2°' 1 x~n`- 1.1 ,ta t rifr~ ~.id'-~ ~ ` Jr , ~ e_•a~+ `~•j° F '2;•.y't•'~ t¢. ~~t•.~~~ ~ Jr''~~,^4~14."••~.'`iirta,.2i~. L •~,~~'•1~'j :r .->~S~ ,!<<'~;yp,~„~~',~,,,r'•.7.~. j.er"?~'s v>y t•t~if~?'r&;_ `'S ,ai `~a?r Zy'f'°'',t .'try i,'r F. ~xa, r,Y ~~,f.'~'~~t .l~,T'• it <~a~_'Y' rv 11i1:''='''Mti ~•':"ref' >?yt. e~ ~ >,x• •R 4s +t 'SF t.3•: r• ~ J-:~i')~°:' ~'cf ~~~'1••i-,•`~ ~ ati s# ' t` •a+Y_ F "'.'t" `S-cr h i ' t'rG }a., ~ry~ , c^ `f ` t..r i V• ti 44 p~ ~ ` r t ~.KYx~>r ?r_ 'w f ? p~1 r ie~y.iC~-4' i'•;`~ ; - ' i.'1` - {i-f _ ~t y~, ' a't~~ f if~; L 'i7k'1- -4 1: 't , t. -r+- ~ ~~`~t_~ ~Y~: .,0.'Y~~~~~ _ ~ tF e. .Y_'~ c.:,; <-.t... ,'v~ __,t -e~. ;,,fit, ahr, `7 "s`-y„ ~ ~r' ~.r~ y {C .,rf ors p. ~•ti 4 ;C~Si t i` r ~.t Jam. .j:•J' ti '•i-:s r i 'dr - 3 ~I ' j s r.-,w _ t r, `l "'E`.' ~ ~ ,}F: c f T S` g .-~ti~.'~ i+s _ ~:ri _ ~.t~S,. .r:, ~ -s s~ ici• r, ,~?/•.i; 11 ~,,r~.~ r ~ ~yr{,.c". P'• .`:.~~y~ '~?i ``!s. '><'`+y 'a~-i.+: ,'.'-,rat' t~*' Y w~- !5): ftq..{.'.:2!r."^!~ t.r:°. .{CS':~: •ti c.r r~x'+~p,'i 7"_t fi: '•':lJ' r-'t''. ` ...v~;!~ ~'t*: ~ ~ s;,~~~ ~r71:; ~...,G~t: i " ,a '-i,~sr. • ~ -r,~~ r>~.~~. :a~'ot=`?'~-~3~` ~~i.~+~.y~''~ 1.~`_ .d, "Tc`• 'ns~~_f.15~t's' ~:`.,r ~'4° ,r`;~sFt "~+-~.Z,~~i`.r,~~i.~~ . j~X~;r;~t ,.iyr. ti f. uS:~~a='~n. z; • +,.e.~` ~ t '`",y ,Y y'f c ,jd-• a`Y -':~.~~j ~•,v'~,~'d.~~+~ 't'P+s` ti`l'' .S'. ~t ~1y ~ T \4; rr ^I ~,J. c f: t ~ 1 r f ~ _ t. '-0}2 h;.a :t ii . r` ,.~1_' _ -,3`'i.~' f it°` 3 n,- •c.•l_ '1• L 1 .''1- ~F{'1. _-f. a ~ € - „ ~ y t ,,S y, y ~ y,? 3 5 ~ Z z ~ i ~,~.b l~ K i ~ ? !r,~~.a~?!h _ ~~~a ~•r tl `a y,~-~. ~ d ,,.a •4,}T~r J ~''l>~''T )t 5 rt ,1 .C ~`+•tc ~ »;r- , c"rt3i'~ ~ ~ i~Y-~`-++ ; w4 -`~i• ra•~.,.', r,__ ?'i.,;~ "t;,j4~?' -_~~.y~, ~"',~.'w r•;R'4i v''}~.. r. ~.~kC.r~.t.c1 Y .".y.`.~,',. r w~:~' _ ` _ _ t.~y ~,7,.. apt a, f ,r.~ '~-tiV ;x-v,~ Y f .,w ~ ,r ha .~:5-.rt'+.. Rf Z ~ , °sa~ - =S" . S',.x•.,^ , ~ a -~..,tt t r y~~+ • L~ jjot ~ 2 = •,+'"v~'~_X rG}t- Y~ a'~~ rs.: • -S i^ ~%n"•,,a S17~:.ti*+''~•r y1 ls~-vs'~` aL,.a:~, f _ ,7t~ ~i FAY " t .:'~1, ys. ,y r~'S,. is • w ;j.:,`;.. c~+~i~ - .1.3x,., z. Sat' i.t {.'-a^y fy~+y'' r 7~.~.'~ Y-•• ?°,4.r 3•-,4 ~ ~<.y .r 7 I t.=. ' e s +tl < r~~-t~M''~ +`F.~- r 1~,~~ ;,^4`. `i''"'~S.~e -fir:. i. ~ '~~.^C 7 'y).'- "~~~''!7!~> ...g • ! •eC- aY .a~"'~r~: 3"- ; ,r{ a yK'~~~~! '.~,,,•-'Aye-r."' ti< ~ ~`u~'-~'~}..: . f _ ~ ~ 4 r J:' _ ~^a,~?'_~'a ~'~s7• ti~ a t~.~,t-+`±,;•rY,t~.i~;~' - , ` . ''+~'9 ~ r ~r ~ % ..~s.:; . Jn~ • y`r s - C`~ •:,5+, 4Y+~'~~~ii,'i~'•r~._ ~ . . 1 J'1tL,,~~a~ _ S , • F _ ~Ci,~`j!"f~~ {r 4' : .~„f t " ~ t * ' , i : ~F: ~-tT. .t ~t~ _ ~i'Fr.. t::: .:z'_x::a:;~i:: r L e~~'~~ - .Mr• ~ s{ f _''y' ':F: i:it~:~ :Eti 3:::.::::::'. :1::, _.'i~... "7r1 l~,.t•~~.. gar .b, f~,~f t ..f~-, 1:•;~, - _ i~'a::. 'w`+;::_:`:y~`lclww.'?:;j; i'. - ,_i3si"5~- .r i). J ` r "i„ :;':..::..Y ,S'.! "':iil.w:. `...r ~:::~,5.:: is ~:4 wl-...h 1f •t::::' .(~1_."~..:5....w-•::..,, :5..3.5.. ~.7~'R:•• '~:ti <i Yo s` e <.t. ~ i'~~ ' J;~~t - •.,;~if? j 3' - :t:"~::~J :e:.J::j~'~~^.a:,'7YS-.•,• :a:~~ .~iti .`•a~! ;i. • Asir `:s.af - .~,7f j^'y%:._- ,.t:''~" i.!35:C:¢:>.. J'--- ;t, 7~"'.~+;?~ t'3r: t~~`-'~ •r Y'f'Y yet `y. e~ '~w: - "•r• -.~i": :s ~-,~_',".,a.~~ ai.l ~t-{• :••a'.. ,*~•_3~, Ott ~ii ii:=: tit r,'` r :S 0` f'.!1 :i _ :t, 't-I...~S?N•••wj _y? n :c '~`a'f" ~i~ ~ ` ,7~`~i~~ - .;'t. ',fit.' -.:i. .;j/x Oi<'..~-3'•-.•c 'i•'-,~-.':':•'?= :y i`faY~..~•~t' ~1 f •e.i ih6~"A'~Si v ~ '~y~ `l ,r... ~r. ::ir":r.^a~!::::~.::' y•.':i~:.. ~`S•~\:''. - - .r -•c. t 'L~l. > a• if.:.~<''z-'IS3'" ~ =.Y=; ,j.~, ~7~' ':i ~~r:: r: .t.: '.:P~y':.~~•:f'-=t~!y •?5.~~: y,~ „ry. ~t~. ~tiJ tt` 7-'-~~ 7i ~ •1~ ..~'-':::'::::5 :ra~ s7• ~.1 "al,~'- -~y ~.<.d~. `+Y'$„y~" ~ •~~!~~;~~~V.'t:*Ir`l~ 'E.. ~ c-. ~fl.T rti",P... ,t. .cS -„'S ~ rF. j ~ a t .fa.^ ",J71Rt7 , 1,,.:.I:i~~::it::jc;.:;:~i~}~r~::i~:i::;;~~:-,: _ r,. !ri13.-. ~~k ~~,((`~ik;~ S. 'tt 'C.~ i~~ r' -~fF~ f•'. ~::-tt'.:::5.':: 1 e.• ~ ~ • rr.~~. ..t ~1r'Z ri'7• ..~~ee~~~" ,C• •{vr•s 'it::Y:: ^..:::::.:•<e:'~':t.:• v~+ :t~..ta,',- a.~ ~ = •:i.,,: i•-e:f^ irf jC r. ;`,r•,. t~ :~'S-t t ) f~ f 5'S~'~'c, t ~(j' i-r lS.. ~r:/:`:1..,... 7..5: )::S'_ ~f 1 "nA~.~ i~~ } li Cr~,~ c~.:t. '~:1:?::. ':S"^ ` ~Ii.,..i.r ,~r11~s~I: ?~r~•"~ J it~t~ `t ~~r.d• •.,•t,'' ..i i.. ".'t{. 2t S k.~f:~f:1'~: }:.-::t':1: :1....:':L::. ~-:'•~'Kd`. :.^~r, ~.1 ,r. r •'fi- ~ ,,.t'1 }+'Yx~" y.' _is)~..ii1:"' ':iu`l:yr _ ~ t ,;i /`tr~it• .`l { tf s'L~~f, +y ~1.: ~"Z'- •.r~ '~,Te ~1 ~'~'IS' :(,::5'~Y'r-. yl•j~~'~»E'•.•~~~,~,~i„~. ..y0:..~ ~ t .it.~•sl, ~~~~..^~i~iJl'~'i?~yGF~'r•i'-1+k~~` ,R~ '1r~q l,~ r}- ~ i~'~r ;~~:a ~~~iJi:,yL!• .',iii .~"~;fi, ~X~~~Y~~';-~ i:i` ~y"r. tt'1 .S'LR': t- }i~..,7 L~ a•~•ty"~ 7 i r,. iT rig t` '?`MtJ t Z,.fr t~?' .`-~}'r:.i. };t, ;~•'S i.'~ c~:~~.:.~.~ ~ .r ~'S~'+F• r~''~•,•i~,}3^"~v^`',:• .~c-,i. :y.. { ,).~'a.~''"%a : ,.i. r•.~ ~f .,?.r-r `f. j. a-, .1•.. 'c• St i ..'cJ',k.?.. s..,S, f{s:. ,i~. 1..1 1~' ix , 4, t„t ~``C wi'r ; o•.'`~..':.•`~ ti-. ;t Y3.:'y_.rf i ' Nr.t K .~~.G•ti,,. •I*.srt'~'}r. 'ta K;E~/"Y 'ZSt• 'S+t'R T• ; h; l': fJ.i• .r'f•rt,`1~Y:,•....t'•)~f' f `,;~,.tj+Y fY.~•~jI.P~I~"i. r..[ j'7~; `?t~ 1•• ,t Y N *1. t'::~''... ,,•T, t w' ~yt,t.,~` - : ~f. .1_,~ ,r,~y••'' •`t= ?:-~Yt7 '*'!}~l~gij .'~•'x~~~` •9v Ir, s1v.~ r 1~: pC'; ~.•:~L•f !'v. :ir<. .f ~ ~•`~^7.' s ~ a` _ • }:ft ~ v i 5}~ y'v.;t / i"• ~ •t:: _`/.~•t..•. t4 :.a 'yC. r 'S •.i-~,"«, i f rig{ t'. l"~K ,r,t r-c~' t}l ~r , i,•, ,u. ,:;1~.~,. 11 . < v+-s=. ~,.t::. _ fit' ~t;;T ~a?;n• ~ V -i: =r ~ , ••yl; 1 -~y3'~'' tj Yr a'4~ '.4;{ f: f'. .•C r,r 7 ) t \ ~ t : q•'. p1:' :fl ~'ee I.k ' BPS. ~----r-e~~"<_ t.'~ ,s. -S ,a•: rt~. ft' SDD6 1/7/84 -6- V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The zoning considerations that are not addressed through the adopted develop- ment plan for SDD6 include the following: Setbacks There are no required setbacks in SDD6. It is specifically stated in the development plan that portions of commercial space may abut the southerly property line. Otherwise, setbacks shall be such as to provide adequate space for plantings and acceptable relationships to adjacent properties. Parking and Loading Required on-site parking for SDD6 is to be calculated with respect to all phases of development. The following table outlines the required parking for SDD6. Summary of Parking Requirements Phase I commercial 53 spaces Phase II commercial 21 residential 8 Phase III commercial 34 residential 47 Required parking for Phases I, II, and III = 164 Proposed Phase IV lodge rooms 145 commercial 36 restaurant/lounge 44 *meeting room 24 249 164 (existing demand) 413 - 41 '(10 reduction for multi-use) 372 Total parking for entire SDD = 372 Spaces existing in Phase III = 109 263 Parking provided in Phase IV = 252 11 spaces deficit Composition of Phase IV spaces: compact 41 regular 174 valet 37 *This figure includes a 50% reduction for meeting room facilities due to the mixed use nature of the meeting room (part of the hotel operation). SDD6 1/7/84 -7- As indicated by this table, SDD6 will have a deficit of 11 spaces upon completion of Phase IV. It is the feeling of the staff that these 11 spaces could be accom- modated in the VVI facility using valet parking services. Staff is of the opinion that this project can meet its parking requirement as established in the zoning code. We feel the parking proposal is a strong one and no parking problems will be created by the proposal. The applicant has proposed three loading bays for Phase IV. One of these will be for trash removal. As proposed, this project would be required to have five loading bays as per the parking standards in the zoning code.' The staff feels the loading facilities proposed will be adequate to serve this development. One issue of concern with respect to the loading and delivery to this site is the ability of 18-wheel vehicles to maneuver on the property and not cause conges- tion on Vail Road. The applicant has submitted drawings demonstrating how an 18-wheel vehicle can service this development without backing off of Vail Road. While the turns for the vehicles will be tight, it appears as though this maneuver can be accomplished on the surface parking area. This should solve what was a major concern with potential blockage of traffic on Vail Road. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The EIR submitted for your review is the second revision to this document. Initially submitted in December, the staff returned to the applicant a long list of questions and concerns related to this report. A second draft of this document was completed and submitted to the staff last week. While time constraints have not allowed for a thorough review of this revision, the staff feels a reasonable job has been done in addressing our previous concerns. If this proposal is to be recom- mended for approval by the Planning Commission, staff recommendation is that this document be included as an element of the approved development plan. Included in this EIR is a traffic study done by Centennial Engineering. This report recommends left turn lanes and other modifications should be made to Vail Road in order to accommodate increased traffic load. The applicant and staff concur with this recommendation and would encourage the Planning Commission to include this document as an element of any approved development plan. VII. STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUESTED AMENDMENTS There have been a number of amendments requested to both the original development plan of SDD6 and to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The staff generally views these requests favorably. However, a number of these requests are very significant and merit further comment. Amendments to the Urban Design Guide Plan The staff has continually felt strongly that a landscape zone be provided as called out for in the original SDD and in the Urban Design Guide Plan. It is felt that the applicant's proposal to relocate the Ski Museum and provide this SDD6 1/7/85 -8- landscaped space adjacent to this site is a good one. Allowing development out to the southwest corner of this site provides a natural beginning point to the Village. There are also design considerations that make this an improved solution. The proposed vehicle turn-around circle could be impacted by the design of Phase IV. With the museum building removed, this circle could be accommodated in a somewhat altered form. However, preliminary study indicates that there is not a great deal of support for this concept. The relocation of the Museum, demolition of the building, and landscaping of the Museum site is a very positive aspect of this development proposal. The staff is in support of these requested amend- ments to the Urban Design Guide Plan with the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation of this memo. Conditional Use for Meeting Room Facilities The staff supports the request for meeting room facilities in this project. See accompanying memo for staff response to this conditional use request. Distance Between Buildings The applicant has requested omitting the required 50 foot separation between buildings on sites adjacent to this SDD. The staff finds it difficult to justify this requirement. In reviewing the recommended land use plan for this SDD, access points to the building's underground parking facilities were initially designated to be located on either side of the gas station site. This created a natural separation of 50 feet between the gas station and development on the SDD. It should be emphasized that this plan was very conceptual, and not to be considered a firm document. For example, the plan made no provisions for loading facilities. The plans before you today offer a much improved circulation program than one that could be provided using access points outlined in the original SDD. Assuming that these proposed access points are not a wise solution, there is little reason to enforce a 50 foot separation between development on this SDD and adjacent structures. Heights As previously stated, the intent of the recommended height limitations on this SDD was to ensure a view corridor from the 4-way stop to the mountain and a pedestrian scale along West Meadow Drive. The result of this objective is that higher densities were proposed for the area along South Frontage Road (i.e. Phase III). While there are some deviations from the recommended building massing in the approved SDD, the proposal before you today is generally in keeping with the intent of the height limitations. The staff considers the key factors to be the pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive and the view corridor from the 4-way stop to the mountains. The scale of the buildings along Meadow Drive is in compliance with the recommended heights in the SDD and compatible with development in Phases I and II. While the angle of the view corridor has been shifted slightly, the height of the buildings in this area are in compliance with the maximum heights outlined in the SDD development plan. SDD6 1/7/85 -9- The most significant deviation from the recommended heights in the original SDD are along the frontage road and a portion of the building off of Vail Road. The SDD allows for a maximum height of 158 feet for the buildings along the frontage road. As proposed, the original elevation for Phase IV would be 165 feet. While greater than the height allowed for in the original develop- ment plan, this height is equal to the existing elevation of Phase III. The SDD also requires this portion of the building to step down as it approaches the Amoco site. While the staff is comfortable with the transition between this wing of the building and the Amoco station, the building does exceed the height outlined in the SDD as it approaches the station. A similar situation exists with the portion of the building adjacent to Vail Road and the south property line of the Amoco site. In this area the building exceeds the height by 8 feet and has a less gradual "step down" toward Vail Road. Here again the staff is comfortable with this transition from the building down to Vail Road. Density As has been stated, this request is for 20,595 square feet of GRFA over what is allowed under the existing SDD. This is the amount of GRFA that would have been allowed under this site's previous Public Accommodation zoning. It is the staff's position to support this requested GRFA if it can be demon- strated that the site can adequately handle it. In weighing this issue, the following factors must be considered: 1) The applicant has not asked for an increase in numbers of rooms allowed under existing zoning. 2) The amount of GRFA requested does not exceed what would be allowed under PA zoning. 3) There appears to be some merit to the property owner's argument that the 100,000 square foot figure was selected somewhat arbitrarily in 1976. 4) The architect has demonstrated how this building with 100,000 square feet could be constructed with virtually no less of impact of bulk and mass. 5) Market studies indicate an increased demand for larger, luxury type of hotel accommodations. 6) This type of upgrading is indicative of the redevelop- ment that is desired for Vail Village and called for in the Community Action Plan. The staff feels the applicant has adequately demonstrated that this site can handle the development proposed. Consequently, we support this request for additional GRFA on this site. VIII. IMPACTS OF THIS PROPOSAL ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES As you may recall, when this proposed redevelopment was reviewed in 1983 it included the Amoco station site. The Amoco site is not included in this proosal, and the proposed development has some direct impacts on the station. The most significant of these are the circulation and access problems that will be created by the construction of Phase IV. The applicant has proposed the construction of a wall along its westerly most property line adjacent to the gas station site. This will eliminate circulation around the station that is presently accommodated by encroaching onto the Vail Village Inn property. In addition, this proposed development will eliminate access to the Amoco SDD6 1/7/85 -10- station that has historically taken place over VVI property. The remaining access point off of the frontage road will be a steep grade (as it always has been) that will be difficult to use in the winter months. While the impacts on the Amoco station are unfortunate, it appears as though the Amoco station has little option but to endure these consequences and seriously consider some alterations to their own site. IX. TOWN"OF VAIL INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW The Public Works, Police, and Fire Departments have all been involved in the review of this application. The Police Department has given their support to the project as presented. Public Works and the Fire Departments have approved these plans with the condition that more detailed information be submitted at the Design Review Board review and at the time a building permit be issued. Further information needed includes items such as locations of fire hydrants, details on curbs and sidewalks, and more specific drainage plans. These items are ordinarily addressed at DRB and building permit stages. X. ISSUES ON THE DESIGN OF PHASE IV The issue of design becomes a factor in a project that goes through as extensive review as this application has. Of issue of concern here is that the role of the Design Review Board is not being assumed by the staff, PEC and Council. While the site plan and basic design of Phase IV should not change between now and DRB review, the staff would encourage the DRB to look closely at various aspects of this design. Of particular concern is the "hardness" of the plaza area. While acknowledging that this is a DRB issue, the staff feels strongly that a softer treatment be given to this area. The PEC is encouraged to give their opinions on this and any other design issue to be passed along to the DRB. XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development strongly recommends approval of this development proposal. We find the proposal to be a very positive one for the community as well as the site. This type of quality redevelopment in our lodging is needed in Vail if we are to remain the best. The project has been through extensive reviews by many different groups of interested parties and virtually all problems have been solved, as this memo indicates. The development of this project will enhance Vail's entry and overall image. Our recommendation for approval is conditional on the following: 1. That the developers and/or owners of Phase IV participate in and do not remonstrate against an improvement district for improvements to the intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive if and when one is formed. 2. That the developers and/or owners of Phase IV participate in and do not remonstate against establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phase IV to a future commercial expansion at the Kiandra Lodge site if an when it is developed. SDD6 1/7/95 -11- 3. The developer receive approval from the State Highway Department for reconfiguration of the pull-off area from the frontage road to the entrance l to the hotel. 4. The board of directors of the Colorado Ski Museum and the developers come to agreement on terms for the relocation of the museum in Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. 5. The developer fund the demolition and landscaping of the museum site through one of two options: a) deposit to the Town a check for $15,000 to be used by the Town to complete the work, or b) the developer submit a landscape plan to the Town for approval to be completed as an element of the overall plan for Phase IV. The staff would like to note that the developer has agreed to each of these conditions as presented in this memo. n Ross Davis, Jr. Attorney at Law Ross Davis, Jr. Suite 307 Cyrus G. Allen III Vail National Bank Bldg. Jacqueline A. Flater P.O. Box 190 Vail, Colorado 81658 December 17, 1984 Telephone: (303) 476-2414 Mr. Peter Patton Director of Planning Town of Vail 65 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Vail Village Inn Redevelopment Dear Peter: This letter will serve to confirm my representation of Mr. Conrad Sterkal, owner of the Amaco service station site adjacent to the Vail Village Inn. This letter will also serve to confirm Mr. Sterkal's concerns with the proposed development plans, particularly as they directly concern and impact his property. The plan of the site appears to have the building built to a C three story level at a point within several feet of the lot line adjacent to his property. As the existing station building comes to within a few feet of his property line, this situation would not provide access around this portion of the property and does not provide adequate separation of the hotel area from the hazardous materials and chemicals stored in the station. In the event that there was a fire or similar problem, emergency vehicles would be unable to operate effectively in the immediate vicinity. Of more concern to my client is the intended construction of a retaining wall to the street along the lot line. This would cut off the historical usage of that area as a mutual access to the below grade entrance to the Vail Village Inn as well as to the station from the East. An attempt to cut of the access through this area would severally inhibit our usage of the eastern entrance to the property,'in violation of the historical cross easement that has existed between the owners of the property. This usage has been open and notorious since the construction of the existing buildings in 1962 and has been used continously by both owners during that entire period of time. The curtailment of the usage as seems to be planned would greatly increase the steepness of the entrance ramp to the . station from the east and in certain weather conditions result in the loss of that access to the station. Additionally, the great hight of the intended building would result in a severe ice buildup problem along the Frontage Road adjacent to the Vail Village Inn, the existing station F.- and four way stop. I agree with your recommendation that a meeting be set up between Mr. Sterkal, representatives of the developer, and you and myself at some time in the near future. Please contact my office some time after the first of the year to set up a mutually agreeable time and place for such a meeting. Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this matter, if you have any questions or require additional information, feel free to contact my office. . zo, S RD/dd cc: Conrad Sterkal ORDINANCE NO. 1 (Series of 1985) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 28, SERIES OF 1976 TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; AMENDING THE PURPOSE SECTION OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6; ADOPTING AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6; ELIMINATING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6; CHANGING THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND ALLOWABLE USES FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6; INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND MODIFYING THE BUILDING BULK STANDARDS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6; PROVIDING DIFFERENT PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL of the Town of Vail as follows• iiM '6= ative Intent. Section 1. =Legisl A. In 1976, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1976, establishing Special Development District No. 6 to insure the unified and coordinated development of a critical site as a whole and in a manner suitable for the area in which it was situated. B. Special Development District No. 6 provided in Section 14 that the Town Council reserved the right to abrona+e or modiFv eo°cial Development District No. 6 for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance in conformity with the Zoning Code of the Town of Vail. C. Application has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend certain sections of Special Development District No. 6 which relate to Phase and which make certain changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to Phase IV. D.,- The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has reviewed the changes submitted by the applicant and has unanimously recommended that Special Development District No. 6 be so amended. E. The Town Council considers that the amendments provide an even more unified and more aesthetically pleasing development of a critical site within the Town and that such amendments are of benefit to the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail. Section 2. Section 18.50.020 Purpose is hereby amended to read as follows: A Special Development District is established to assure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the town, provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town. Ordinarily, a Special Development District will be created only when the development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council, Planning Commission and Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning. Section 18.50.040 Development Plan Contents is hereby amended to read as follows: The proposed development plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following data as supplemented by exhibits provided by consultants Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976 for Phases I, II and III, and as supplemented by the exhibits of the development plan and the enviromental 0-1 1~ impact:report..as.prepared by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect, and as given final approval-'through-passage of'second reading of this ordinance by the Town Council on February 19, 1985 for Phase IV. Section 3. Section 18.50.040 E is hereby amended to read as follows: E. For Phases I, II, and III, a volumetric model amended by consul`-nts Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976 of the site and proposed development documented by photographs at a scale of 1 inch equals 16 feet or larger, portraying the scale and relationship of those phases of the development to the site and illustrating the form and mass of structures in said phases of the development. For Phase IV, a volumetric module by G^rid- Pierce, Architect of the site and the proposed development at a scale of 1 inch equals 20 feet, portraying the scale and relationship of the development on Phase IV to the site and illustrating the form of mass of structures in said phase. Section 4. Section 18.50.050 Permitted in SDD6 is hereby repealed and re-ena- ted with amendments to read as follows: 18.50.050 Permitted Uses. The Permitted Uses in Phases I, II, III and IV of Special Development District 6 shall be in accordance with the approved development plans on file in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Section 5. Section 18.50.060 Conditional Uses in SDD6 is hereby repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as follows: 18.50.060 Conditional Uses Conditional uses for Phases I, II, III and IV of SDD6 shall be as found in Section 18.22.030 of the Vail Zoning Code and as below: A. A popcorn outside vending wagon that conforms in appearance with those existing in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II. Except, no office uses, except those clearly accessory to a principal ease will be allowed on the Plaza Level of Phase IV. Section 6. Section 18.50.110 Distance Between Buildings is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.50.100 Distance Between Buildings For Phases I, II, and III the minimum distance between buildings on adjacent sites shall be as indicated in the development plan but in no case shall b-- less that 50 feet. For Phase IV, the minimum distance between buildings an adjacent sites shall be as indicated in the development plan as submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect. Section 7. Section 18.50.120 Height is hereby amended to read as follows: A. For Phases I, II, and III the allowable heights shall be as found on the development plan, specifically the site plan and height plan dated 3/12/76. B. For Phase IV, the maximum building height shall be as set forth in the approved development plan by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect. Section 8. Section 18.50.130 Density is hereby amended to read as follows: The Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) of all districts in the Special Development District shall not exceed 120,600 square feet. There shall be a minimum of 175 accommodation unites and 72,400 square feet of GRFA devoted to accommodation units in Phase IV of Special Development District 6. Section 9. Section 18.50.130 Building Bulk is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.50.130 Building Bulk Building bulk, maximum wall lenghts, maximum dimensions for building elements, requirements for wall offsets and vertical stepping of roof lines for Phases I, II and III shall be indicated on the development plan submitted by consultants ;;oyston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1975. For Phase IV, building bulk, maximum wall lenghts, maximum dimensions for building elements, reauireme..t; for wall offsets and vertical stepping of roof lines shall be as indicated as per the approved development plans submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect. -4- ; Section 10. Section 18.50.180 Parking and Loading is hereby repealed and re- enacted with amendments to read as follows: 18.50.180 Parking and Loading There shall be no less than 12 surface parking spaces, 324 underground parking spaces, and 37 underground valet parking spaces as are existing and as provided on the development plan submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect. Section 11. Conditions of approval for the development plan of Phase IV of SDD6 as submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, shall be as follows: i.;_.Uhat the developers and/or owners of Phase IV participate in and do not kR4 remonstrate against an improvement district for improvements to the inter- section of Vail Road and Meadow Drive if and when one is formed. 2. That the developers and/or owners of Phase IV participate in and do not remonstrate against establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phase IV to a future commercial expansion at the Kiandra Lodge site if and when it is developed. 3. The developer receive approval from the State Highway Department :;r° configuration of the pull-off area from the frontage road to the entrance to the hotel. 4. The board of directors of the Colorado Ski Museum and the developers come to agreement on terms for the relocation of the museum in Phase IV of -,-:e Vail Village Inn prior to the issuance of a building permit. In the event that the Ski Museum would vacate its space in Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn, the Town of Vail shall be given exclusive rights to assume the Ski. Museum's lease of this space. It shall be understood that in the event the Town of Vail does assume the use of this space, all uses in the space shall be public purpose in nature. 5. The developer fund the demolition and landscaping of the museum site through one of two options: a) derv _ ; E, To"11 . -,000 to b- _ by the Town to complete the work, or b) the developer submit a landscape plan to the Town for approval to be completed as an element of the overall plan for Phase IV. 6. No grading permit, building permit or demolition permit relating to Phase IV of SDD 6 shall be issued until such time that reasonable evidence is provided the Town of Vail staff that construction financing for the improvements to be constructed as a part of Phase IV has been obtained. Section 12. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phase 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 t_ fact that ,any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 13. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 14. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any righ-c 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 re- pealed and reenaccea. The repeal of any provision heresy shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless ex- pressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 5th day of February, 1985, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 19th day of February, 1985, at 7:30 p. m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 51:. F~DDiuary, 1985. Ken R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem -i ` ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town ClEft INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL This 19th day of Febraury, 1985. X/ Paul R. Johr , Mayor j T STi Pamela A. Brandmeyer, To n Clerk Y A K TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 7, 1986 SUBJECT: Ambrosia Sign Variance Request Applicant: Mr. Gottfried Staufer, Vail Village Inn Plaza The applicant is requesting approval for an awning with signage which has been erected over the entrance to the Ambrosia in addition to his original sign located south of his entry door which was previously approved by the Design Review Board. The request requires variances from the Town of Vail sign code as far as number of signs and square footage. The Ambrosia Restaurant is allowed 3 square feet of signage. Presently, the business has 5 square feet of signage on a previously approved sign, plus the 4.4 square feet of signage on the awning. On October 1, 1986, the Design Review Board made a motion for approval of the sign variance request. The motion was made by Grant Riva and seconded by Roy Sante. The vote was 2-2 with Kathy Warren and Roy Sante voting against the motion. A tie vote represents a recommendation for denial of the sign variance. Members who voted for approval of the sign variance believe that Ambrosia's recessed entry creates a physical hardship, as it is very difficult to see the doorway from pedestrian ways. Members voting against the motion to approve the sign request felt that there is no a physical hardship. Secondly, they recommended that the applicant use the signage available through the menu box and window sign provisions of the sign code. It was also suggested that the applicant investigate the possibility of changing to a store front commercial door instead of the residential appearing door which is currently in place. ~ v . w TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 1, 1986 SUBJECT: Sign variance request for Ambrosia Restaurant APPLICANT: Ambrosia Restaurant/Gottfried Staufer I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting variances from the following sections of the Town of Vail sign code: Wall Siqns - Individual business within a multi-tenant building A. 16.20.190 (D). Number. One sign per vehicular street or major pedestrian way which the business abuts as determined by the administrator, with a maximum of two signs, subject to review by the Design Review Board. B. 16.20.190 (H)(3). Special provisions shall be as follows: In the case where a business or organization located above or below street level fronts directly onto an exterior balcony, deck, walkway, or stairway which is utilized as the business' own entrance and for unrestricted public access and use, the allowable sign area for any sign to be located at that building level shall be based upon the portion of the business frontage which abuts directly upon the balcony, deck, walkway, or stairway, with a maximum size allowed not to exceed five square feet. A sign of a maximum area of three square feet shall be allowed for businesses having insufficient frontage. The applicant is requesting approval for the awning which has been erected over the entrance to his establishment in addition to his original sign located south of his entry door which was previously approved by the Design Review Board. II. BACKGROUND Number (16.20.1900) Under the sign code, the Ambrosia Restaurant is allowed one business identification sign as the business itself does not abut any pedestrian way or street, as it is located on the second floor. The Ambrosia does currently have one sign which was approved by the Design Review Board at an earlier date. The proposed awning would exceed the number of signs allowable and therefore requires a variance to the allowed number of signs for an individual business within a multi-tenant building. v ~ Size (16.20.19OH3) Under the special provisions section of the code for an individual business in a multi-tenant building, a business located above street level is allowed'a maximum of three square feet if they have insuf- ficient frontage. Since the Ambrosia is located entirely on the second floor with only its entrance at street level, they have no frontage and are allowed three square feet for a business identification sign. As the Ambrosia already has one approved sign of five square feet, there is no additional square footage available, and the awning sign would require a variance to this section of the code as it contains 4.4 square feet. III. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES Before the Design Review Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the board must find that: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land. buildings, tooograohy, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of-way which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. Staff Response: It is true that the visibility of the entrance to Ambrosia is somewhat restricted due to its location in the mall area and recessed entryway. One sign is currently located at the stairway which leads to the landing in front of the Ambrosia entry. Many of the shops on the second tier of the Vail Village Inn also have locations which are not as visible as locations that front directly on East Meadow Drive. Staff does not feel that the location of the entry creates a special circumstance which would warrant the additional signage. B. That special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. Staff Response: Staff does not feel there are any special circumstances involved in the evaluation of this variance. C. That the grantinq of the variance will be in aeneral harmony with the purposes of this title and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood. or to the public welfare in general. w Staff Response: While it is felt that the awning in question is very tastefully done and does not call undue attention to itself, it is felt that it is not necessary to adequately identify the business in question. D. That the variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use.. Staff Response: It is felt that the proposed awning departs from the provisions of the sign code, particularly in the area of total allowable square footage. The proposed awning would result in total signage at least twice the allowable square footage for a business identification sign. IV. Such other factors and criteria as the Design Review Board deems applicable to the proposed variance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff does not believe that adoubling of allowable square footage for business identification signs is warranted. There are provisions in the code for window signs that allow 1.5 square feet for the name of the business, and also the menu box may have 0.5 square feet to identify the business. The staff feels that both of these provisions could be incorporated to adequately identify the recessed entrance to Ambrosia, as the menu box is located immediately adjacent to the main entryway. The staff does not feel that the request is a reasonable solution to the problem of adequate business identification. n ti ,9.`~q'.yrt.RnYlr+ i ~ ~v~, ~ ,3' 4ri~~~ 4~, ~ ; , •1 Restaurant i t" r r~