HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-06-16 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1987
7:30 p.m.
REVISED AGENDA
1. Ten Year Employment Anniversary Award for Charlie Turnbull
2. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1987, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter
15.02 of the Vail Municipal Code; adopting by reference the Uniform Electric
Code, 1987 edition; and setting forth details in relation thereto.
3. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1987, second reading, an ordinance annexing an area
commonly known as East Intermountain to the Town of Vail, and setting forth
details in regard thereto
4. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance amending Special
Development District 5, as established by Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1976, by
amending the site plan
5. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter
10.12 Parking on Private Property of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of
Section 10.12.055 Court Cost Upon Dismissal, and setting forth details in
regard thereto.
6. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance approving a
Special Development District (known as SDD No. 16, Elk Meadows) and the
development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code
and setting forth details in regard thereto.
7. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance making
supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail Capital Projects Fund, and
the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund of the 1987 budget and financial plan for the
Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations
as set forth herein.
8. Auditors' 1986 Financial Report
9. Resolution No. 20, Series of 1987, a resolution extending approval of Special
Development District No. 14 (Doubletree Hotel) for a period of twelve months.
10. Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Decision on a Request for a
Density Variance to Enclose Ten Decks at Treetops Building No. 2
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
11. Town Manager's Report
12. Adjournment
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1987
7:30 p.m.
REVISED EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 1. Ten Year Employment Anniversary Award for Charlie Turnbull
7:35 2. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1987, second reading, adopting
Ernst Glatzle the 1987 Edition of the Uniform Electric Code by reference
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 12,
Series of 1987, on second reading.
Background Rationale: The Town presently has the 1985
edition of the Uniform Electric Code in effect. The 1987
edition has been published and the Building Department
recommends adoption of this more current edition.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. 12, Series of
1987, on second reading.
7:40 3. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1987, second reading, annexing
Larry Eskwith East Intermountain to the Town of Vail
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 15,
Series of 1987, on second reading.
Background Rationale: The ordinance is the legal instrument
approving and enacting the annexation of the East
Intermountain area.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of
1987, on second reading.
7:50 4. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1987, first reading, amending
Rick Pylman SDD #5, Vail Run Resort
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 16,
Series of 1987, on first reading.
Background Rationale: Vail Run Resort has documented a
severe parking shortage. They are requesting to convert an
existing tennis court to parking. This action would create
a net of 21 new parking spaces.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of
1987, on first reading.
~ 8:30 5. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1987, first reading, amending
Larry Eskwith the Parking on Private Property Chapter of the Municipal
Code
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 18,
Series of 1987, on first reading.
Background Rationale: Adoption of this section will make
individuals who report private parking violations more
serious about appearing to prosecute violators once Police
write ticket.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 18, Series of
1987, on first reading.
~
8:40 6. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1987, first reading,
Kristan Pritz establishing a Special Development District for The Ualley
Phase III (Elk Meadows)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 19,
Series of 1987, on first reading.
Background Rationale: At the June 8 Planning Commission
meeting, Lamar Capital Corporation requested a major
subdivision and rezoning of The Valley, Phase III from
Residential Cluster to Special Development District with
underlying zoning of Residential Cluster. The PEC approved
both the major subdivision and the Special Development
District zone with a 3-1 vote.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 19, Series of
1987, on first reading.
8:50 7. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1987, first reading, making a
Steve Barwick Supplemental Appropriation to the Town of Vail Budget
Action Requested of Council: Review the list of requested
supplemental budget items and the related funding sources.
Make changes as desired, then approve/deny Ordinance No. 20,
Series of 1987, on first reading.
Background Rationale: A supplemental appropriation is
needed to provide formal approval for expenditures related
to items which could not have been reasonably foreseen or
anticipated by the Town Council at the time it adopted the
1987 budget.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of
1987, on first reading.
9:00 8. Auditors' 1986 Financial Report
Jerry McMahan
Charlie Wick Action Requested of Council: Discussion of the 1986
Financial Report.
Background Rationale: Report on the external audit of the _
Town's finances which is mandated by Town Charter.
9:10 9. Resolution No. 20, Series of 1987, extending the SDD 14
Tom Braun Approval (Doubletree Hotel)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution No.
20, Series of 1987.
Background Rationale: The SDD zoning for the Doubletree
Hotel will expire in September of 1987. The applicant has
requested this approval be extended for a period of 18
months.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the
extension as requested. The shortfall of parking (as
outlined in the enclosed memorandums) is the primary reason
for the staff's position on this request. The Planning
Commission recommended to approve the request, but only for
a one year period.
9:20 10. Appeal of PEC Decision on a Request for a Density Variance
Peter Patten to Enclose Ten Decks at Treetops Building No. 2
Action Requested of Council: Uphold/overturn the PEC
decision.
Background Rationale: At the June 2 Work Session, the
Council decided to call up the PEC decision on this matter.
The PEC voted 6-0 to approve the application because 1)
there is a minimal amount of increased GRFA, 2) substantial
landscaping will be done in excess of that required with the
-2-
fact that this is a major emphasis of the proposal and does
not include maintenance,and upgrading which would normally
be re_quired, and 3) balconies remain for each unit and are
usable.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial - there is no
physical hardship warranting increased GRFA.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
11. Town Manager's Report
12. Adjournment
-3-
~V
e
C TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 1, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to enclose 10
decks and redesign entries to the Treetops II
Condominium Building
Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association
I. THE PROPOSAL
The Treetops Condominium Association is requesting an
exterior alteration and density variance* for the
following construction at the Treetops II Building (east
condominium building):
1. Enclosure of:
5 existing decks @ 39 sq ft per deck = 195 sq ft
2. Enclosure of -
5 existing decks @ 46 sq ft per deck = 230 sq ft
~ 3. Enclose pedestrian bridge, = 80 sq ft
4. Redesigning the existing lobby and
creating a new lobby entry, = 280 sq ft
The association is also proposing to do an entire upgrade
of the existing project which would include:
1. An added protective entrance at the east entry.
2. An increase of landscaping along the bike path (south
side of the project).
3. An increase of landscaping at the west building
entrance.
4. Additions of wood siding to the east building and
remodeling of the east building balcony railings to
provide a visual consistency of materials, detail,
and color between the two residential buildings.
5. An upgrade of exterior lighting.
* A density variance is required for the 10 deck
enclosures, as the project is already over the
allowable GRFA. Please see the memo concerning the
~ density variance for a more detailed analysis of this
request.
. 1.
( II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE II
ZONE DISTRICT
Section 18.26.010 Purpose The Commercial Core II zone district is intended to
provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges,
and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified
development. Commercial Core II district in accordance
with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan.and Design
Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air,
open space and other amenities appropriate to the
permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the
desirable qualities of the district by establishing
appropriate site development standards.
This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the
Commercial Core II zone district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD
There are no sub-area concepts that relate to this
proposal.
~ IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR
LIONSHEAD
A. Height and Massin : This consideration em hasizes
the creation of a well defined round floor
pedestrian area to overcome the canyon effect of
tall buildings. It states that "buildin ex ansions
shall generally be limited to one story and two
stories or as can be demonstrated to have a positive
visual and functional effect."
Staff's opinion is that the improved entry ways,
landscaping, lighting and new sidewalks will further
define pedestrian areas. The height and massing of
the entry is only one story which complies with this
consideration.
B. Roofs: -Flat, shed, vaulted or dome roofs are
acceptable for buildin ex ansions It is im ortant
to integrate expansions with existin buildin s so
as to avoid a atch work, "tacked on" quality for
Lionshead. -
~
, . y , . . ( The applicant has proposed an entry addition and deck
additions that are compatible with the existing
condominium building. The proposed entry addition to
building No. 1 has a form and pitch matching that of
' the slaped roofs on both condominium buildings.
C. Facades - Walls/Structure: Concrete, concrete block,
glass, metal, stucco and wood are the rimary
materials to be encouraqed in Lionshead.
This proposal complies with these materials. The
entries will be stucco. Horizontal wood siding will
be added to Building #2 to match Building #l. Trim
colors and stain colors will match for both
buildings.
D. Facades/Transparency: This consideration addresses
primarily ground floor commercial facades and
encourages the use of windows for storefronts.
Even though this proposal is a residential expansion,
it should be noted that the new construction will -
have an adequate amount of transparency throughout
the expansion. The new entry has many windows and
shallow bay windows are proposed at the ten locations
~ of the balconies for Treetops II.
E. Decks and Patios: Functional decks or atios,
primarily for dinin , are stronq street life elements
in Lionshead and are hi hly encoura ed, on either the
ground or second floor level.
This consideration refers primarily to commercial
decks. As the applicant has stated, "Narrow
existing balconies on Building #2 are proposed to be
enclosed by bay windows. These existing balconies
are not functional in terms of providing seating for
dining, sunning or any other outdoor activity."
Remaining deck and balcony railings on Building #2
are to be replaced with railings matching Building
#l.
F. Accent Elements: Judicious use of colorful accent
elements, consistent with existin character of
Lionshead are encoura ed.
The applicant has stated that, "To assure that there
is no loss of relief to the south facade at Building
i
,
~ #2 due to balcony enclosures, awnings are proposed to
be integral with the bay window assembly. Awnings
will be canvas, with a color and pattern acceptable
to Design Review Board. Additional landscaping at
the west entry and along the bicycle path will
include annual flowers and shrubs. New lighting is
also proposed for the entire project. Staff's
opinion is that the accent element guideline refers
mostly to commercial areas. However, the lighting
and landscape improvements will only improve the
appearance of this project. Our opinion is that the
awnings are not necessary to maintain relief to the
south facade. However, this is a Design Review Board
issue.
G. Landscape Elements
The proposal adds additional landscaping in the area
of the west entry and on the south side of the
proj ect .
Staff believes that these improvements are in
compliance with this consideration which encourages
the use of plant material to accent buildings.
~ V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration
request. It is our opinion that the proposal complies
with all of the Design Considertions for Lionshead. The
project creates significant improvements to the Treetops
project.
~ F1ay 4, 1987
briner-scott Ms. Kri stan Pri tz
architects Communi ty Devel opment Department
Tovm of Vail
143 e. meadow dr. 75 S. Frontage Rd'
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-3038 Va i 1, Co. 81657
As you requested attached is a synopsis of how the proposed Treetops
Condominium additions and upgrade relates to the Urban Design Guide
Plan for Vail Lionshead.
The location of the project is east of that area described in the Urban
Design Plan; there being, I guess, a rather tenuous connection at the
"East i'~1a11 Entry" due to Treetops Plaza building. The improvements
we speak of in our proposal are of course behind (south of) that
commercial building and actually "out of the way" of that part of
Lionshead for which the Urban Design Guide Lines were most intended.
Never the less:
I. re: Subarea Concepts
A. East Ma11 Entry
~ There are no concepts directly related however:
1. Proposed increase of landscape and formalizing of
pedestrian entrance will provide improved building
foreground as viewed from East P-1a11 Entry.
2. Proposed enclosed and covered entrys and bridge
will provide increased pedestrian protection and
security.
3. Proposed landscaping along bike path separates private
areas from public way; gives stronger sense of entry
into Lionshead sector.
II. re: Design Considerations
A. Height and P9assing
71 A one story enclosed entry lobby is proposed to extend
approximately 12' from the south face of Building No. l.
A2 A proposed portico entrance, one story, would parallel
the drive and connect with the existing entry/stair
of guilding No. 2.
Both entrys would be further defined by sidetvalks, exterior
lighting and planting.
B. Roofs
Bl The proposed entry addition to Building PJo. 1 has a
g2 form and pitch matching that of the sloped roofs on
~ B3 both condominium builc+ings,
~
P4s Kri sti n Pri tz
. May 4, 1987
Page Two
~ B. Roofs
The proposed portico roof at the entry to Building No. 2 is
flat to permit as much light as possible into the court behind
(to the south). 64 The proposed entry addition roof will overhang approximately
B5 5' the entry doors to provide protection from snow. Snow
B6 will slide on to the proposed landscaped terrace. The
portico roof is flat to limit the amount of snow sliding
on to the adjacent driveway. An approximate 1' - 6" roof
overhang is being proposed for Building No. 2.
B7 The roof materials will be a single ply membrane (gray)
not requiring rock ballast.
C. Facades - Walls/Structure
C1 The proposed entry structures will have walls stuccoed.
Horizontal wood siding will be added to Building No. 2
to match Building No. 1.
C2 Wall planes on both buildings will be painted white to
match one another.
Wood siding on Building No. 2 will be stained to match
existing wood color on Building No. 1. -
C3 Trim colors will match Building No. 1.
C4 Facade colors will be limited to three.
~ D. Facades - Transparency
D1 The nroposed entry to Building No. 1 will be glazed on
D2 two of three sides from entry level floor to ceiling.
D3 The proportion of glazing to solid wall of the proposed
entry is 75%: west wall-solid = 168 sq.ft.
south wall-solid = 132 sq.ft.
east wall-solid = 96 sq.ft.
D4 Windows at entry will be grouped together. Proposed
windows in entry stair of Building No. 2 are to be
located in the west viall above the fourth floor
landing.These will be '.'pierced" openings approx-
imately 30" square in order to fit within the existing
masonary unit module.
D5 Window units at the entry will be large,broken by a
horizontal million at 7' +(door head height).
D6 Shallow "Bay" windows are proposed at 10 locations of
narrow blaconies on Building No. 2. These will protrude
only 1' - 0" with a"reveal" at head and sill to set these
windows off of adjacent wall surface (please see page 3
of accompanying sketches of accent features.) These
windows will be divided into units with proportions
comparable to those elsewhere on building.
~
Ms Kristin Pritz
h1ay 4, 1987
~ Page Three
D. Facades - Transparency
07 Window trim will match trim on Building No. 1. .
D8 Entry doors will have a full lite of glass.
D9 Both proposed building entrances will appear recessed
due to the depth of roof or portico overhang above.
D10 The proposed addition to Building No. 1 allows for a
secure and controlled entrance. There is at present
no control of access to open condominium corridors.
E. Decks and Patios
El Narrow existing balconies on Building No. 2 are proposed
to be enclosed by "Bay" windows. These existing balconies
are not functional in terms of providing seating for
dining, sunnincg or any other outdoor activity.
E2 The decks to be enclosed are visible from the public
way below (bicycle path). Some of the decks have
been utilized for general storage. Others have not
been maintained. The proposal to enclose these decks
will improve the overall appearance ofi the building. (E3) Remaining deck and balcony railings on Building No. 2
are to be replaced with railings matching Building No. 1.
~ F. Accent Elements
F1 To assure that there is no loss_`of relief to the south
facade at Building No. 2 due to balcony enclosures, awnings
are proposed to be integral with the bay window assembly
(see sketch, page three).
Awnings will be canvas,color and pattern acceptable to DRB.
Additional landscaping at entry and along bicycle path will
include annual flowers.
Exterior lighting will be handled in consistant manner on
both Buildings No. 1 and No. 2.
Exterior lighting is to be incorporated into ceiling of
proposed portico entrance to Building No. 2.
Ambient lighting from fixture within the proposed entrance
to Building No. 1 will highlight this space. (See pages 1
and 5).
Graphics are being studied (See page 1 and 2).
~
' 5~41.1'°~~NSM p1
~
EA67 M,4,%Ll...
i
~
l~
,
~ &A~ f,.
~ ;
~
~
;
~
~ ~.'7~?~r ~•Af r y ~~6/~'S ? ~j~}/~'~p~ ~ ~ 1 _ _
•1 ; \r`~~• , ~ ~'Oi.IV~ ~_.`~'~~_t
kr ~'~a
d r f
_ - ~
,
t
~ ~~~r=%fiv t ~ ~ ~
I ~
i
~ 7~~1I; rrs1,~~
7
;
~ - ~ .
%P~'atl~ of pri?c~e c~ p wb! Ic
! ~ y,t-.~, ~r~..-..' ' . . ._.--•1-., ...!'?¢1 ' _ _ ~ ~ - • " ('~-'r _ . . .
~"'f. '"•Ji1<<_ r'..` 'X~ ~ ~hl.~f'Q .__P`1/v-`~~. `
~ ~
. . . , . -t'p,
FNP
R5 Co 1\15l D)E-..ATIQ\1
r-~
~ - - - Zj - 4•' ~,.~%t~ -~Y~,~....,. ~1~,~G
a
Q
' ' l°"~ ?~cs { a~bl ~„i•~
L&P
~ e w j -~?~.~,,.~~.n ~ ~Le.,
wGt~ -
rt7'
tVaQ, U,O AA' ko-ke "vb,
_ t• 04
~
.
d
t ! ' • '
~A)~
t • `~~/f~ ' -~r4v+
~?''J~.F'v' p ~ 14~,, . . . . . dtir uc,j~,V~ Ie.
f ~l r?'1 ~ ~ _
4~~R~ G5
~
y ~
D-1
~ ~ 3 ~ ~
~
1r
;
;f
.
~ ~1 '
f
-
. , -
r
~ 1 1
~ R
~ l v
~
Oovv
I ~Il ~ Rd
...~.rti'
• , ~ i:
- 1 ~.1,.,:t v.,o~!A.P
,
DW~
IZZ75
. .r )
- . .
r ~'.1 . ~ .
~ N~. •
: t. -
~
~ -
~ ~ ~ . .
, t .
• f '
- ~
' , . ~
, . ~ ~ • -
~eA rA I
P,
~ ~ . . ~
.
t
r
~
I
- ~
•k-
~
''J~',s+.
• r:
- ~ .
ty"c~ ~
,
,
~ ~ .~s,c? vti~.~..~ L
i V\6 -Fi rjZ P~,..,,~.
°Y -F y',~-~ ~v+-a- Zx 4
Y~%` ti~ wo av'~ -fa•s+Aw,+~n'~ a,,,,a! ,
~ Wr11~ k-'Lt &,.lt, ?^~"to" jAeu')
lN% exAVV6 cte -1111-r
Cr.~?~~G~r
, , ?
- - ~ - ~ - - - ~ - - _
Y
1
o}
,
~ ~ -~'l~tntii~?~ G~ . GL~.~
~ ~ .
Ck
7J
~
. . .
*uerrri
71V"L/
,V~.4
1Jzv~,, it4C
vAa, v6. • . .
dy ~iP~~,~,m~,~ ~~~t•c,~r,~ ~ r~ ~cr~.e,~ un~~, ~i~,~-~r,~
U~ .
L~. ~ ~ ~a •
~ - •
~ I ~t Y~ v ~~y~~~ •
,
, ?y `
~vw t,~.-~..~..~.,•5
z-
f
F
r
, o-r P4%' "^1
. > tutWCAA)oA, UV
of c,~. 1+4P
~~..t, . - .
rz
. .'s
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
~
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 1, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a density variance to enclose 10 decks at
the Treetops Condominium Building #2
APPLICANT: Treetops Condominium Association
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED _
The Treetops Condominium Association is requesting a density
variance to enclose 10 existing outdoor decks on the south
side of the building. The Treetops Building #2 is the east
building behind the Treetops commercial building. Five of
these decks are 39 square feet each and five are 46 square
feet each, which creates a total additional GRFA request of
425 square feet. The existing GRFA on the site is 36,369
square feet. The allowable GRFA in Commercial Core II for
this project is 30,952 square feet. The project is presently
over the allowable GRFA by 5,417 square feet. If this
request is approved, the project would be 5,842 square feet
over the allowable.
~
II. BACKGROUND ON THE REQUEST
In August of 1983, the Treetops Condominium Association
requested a rezoning of their property from High Density
Multi-Family (.60) to Commercial Core II (.80) zoning. This
request was made in order to construct the commercial
expansion to the north of the two residential buildings.
Under High Density Multi-Family zoning, the project was
allowed 23,214 square feet of GRFA. Due to the rezoning, the
project is now allowed 30,952 square feet. The rezoning
increased the allowable GRFA by 7,738 square feet.
In January of 1984, the Condominium Association requested an
exterior alteration in order to add the retail expansion
above the existing parking structure.
In July of 1986, a request was made to enclose 10 decks for
an additional GRFA of 665 square feet. Staff recommended
denial of the request. The Planning Commission moved to deny
the request, as it was felt that it would be a grant of
special privilege to approve the additions. The vote was 6-0
in favor of the motion. The Treetops Condominium Association
appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Town
Council. The Town Council upheld the Planning Commission's
~ decision to deny the request.
,
III. ZONING STATISTICS
Zone District: Commercial Core II
Site Area: + 38,690 square feet*
GRFA: (.80)
Allowable: 30,952 sf
Existing: 36,369 sf
Amt. over
allowable: 5,417 sf
Proposed: 5 decks @ 39 sf = 195
5 decks @ 46 sf = 230
Total Proposed: 425 sf
Amt over after additions: 5842 sf
Total GRFA after additions: 36,794 sf
Units: Allowed: 22 d.u. -
Existing: 26 d.u.
Proposed: 0
~
Common Area: (20% of Allowable GRFA)
Allowed: 6,190
Existing: 4,390
Proposed: _
bridge 80
lobby 260
Existing
& Proposed 4,730
Remaining 1,460
Site Coverage: (70%)
Allowed: 27,083 sq
Existing: 21,670 sf
Proposed; 300 sf
Exist & Addit. 21,970 sf
Remaining 5,113 sf
Setbacks
Required 10 ft all sides. No impact with proposal
\
~ Landscaping: (20% of site area required)
Required: 7,738 sf
Existing: 12,000 sf approx.
Height: Allowed: 48' sloping, 45' flat
Existing and proposed: same
Parking: The units that have deck expansions have existing
GRFA totals that range from 1315 sf to 1326 sf.
The deck expansions of 39 sf or 46 sf do not
increase the square footage above 2,000 sf which is
the breaking point for additional parking.
Total site area was calculated by Bud Stikes, The
Engineering Group, Inc. Property lines do not close, so
square footage is + 38,690 square feet.
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
~ Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existinq
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The additions are compatible with the existing uses in the
area. The general upgrade of the entire project will have a
positive impact on uses in the vicinity.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified re ulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without rant of s ecial rivile e.
Staff's opinion is that this request would be a grant of
special privilege due to the fact that there is no physical
hardship which would warrant the variance.
It is the applicant's responsibility to prove physical
hardship and the fact that the granting of the variance will
C- not be a special privilege in order to get approval for the
density variance.
C Due to the fact that it is difficult to
make the arguments of
physical hardship and lack of special privilege when
reviewing a density request, Ordinance #4 of 1985 was adopted
to allow for small GRFA additions without the need for
variance approval. Unfortunately, this ordinarice does not
provide a means for allowing additions to units in multi-
family buildings. Units of this type were omitted, as the
Town Council and Planning Commission were concerned about the
potential to increase the bulk and mass of multi-family
buildings to a point where there would be negative impacts
due to the additions. Legal issues also contributed to the
inability of this ordinance to accommodate multi-family
additions. In respect to this request, Ordinance #4 does not
provide any relief from having to review multi-family
additions with the density variance criteria.
The-effect of the requested variance on li ht and air,
distribution of o ulation, trans ortation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
There are no significant impacts on any of the above factors.
V. RELATED POLICY IN VAIL'S COMMUNTY ACTION PLAN
~ Community Desi n
2. Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site
improvements should be encouraged.
5. Maintenance and upkeep should be a priority of property
owners and of the Town.
This proposal for the deck enclosures and the other general
improvements to the project supports the Community Action
Plan policies.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the pro osed variance
VI. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
followin findin s before rantin a variance
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties classified in the same district.
. ti •
( That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
~ The proposal involves both a density variance and exterior
alteration request. The exterior alteration criteria are
used to review the design issues related to the request.
Even though the proposal compares favorably given the
alteration criteria, the staff must recommend denial of the
overall request, as we cannot support the density variance.
The original concern of the Council and Commission concerning
multi-family additions was that the building's bulk and mass
may be increased to a point where negative impacts would
occur from the expansions. In this situation, the
expansion and overall improvements to the property are
considered to be positive. However, staff must abide by the
variance criteria, and therefore must recommend denial of the
request.
Basically, the staff has the same position that was outlined
in the July 14, 1986 memo when 10 deck enclosures were also
being considered for this project. It is true that there are
no significant impacts resulting from this proposal.
However, the staff does feel that it would be a grant of
special privilege to approve the request. It must also be
noted that the property is over the allowable GRFA and number
of units for development under Commercial Core II zoning.
C_.
• ' ' -
III A. VARIANCE REQUEST
In accordance with that provision of Ordinance No. 4 allowing for an
~ increase of 250 square feet to single and duplex dwelling units as an
inducement for the upgrading of existing structures, the Treetops Condominium
seeks a variance to allow a total addition of 425 square feet to the
existing GRFA total of 35,971 square feet - an increase of 1.1%
The proposed additional GRFA comprises of 4 balcony enclosures and
1 deck enclosure at 39 square feet and 4 balcony enclosures and 1
deck enclosure at 46 square feet each.
The balconies to be enclosed are 3.5 feet wide. They provide little
to no room for outdoor furniture, i.e. no outdoor activity, but have
been utilized as storage areas visible from the vicinity of the bike path.
The area is being added to the living rooms, not the bedrooms thus the bed base
and/or density will not be increased.
The request and subsequent approval of this variance is necessary for
the Association's approval of the.entire up-grading package which
includes:
1. Added protected entrances to both buildings.
2. An increase of landscaping along the bike path.
3. An increase of landscaping at the west building entrance.
This feature faces East Lionshead Circle and will provide
a more attractive public foreground to the buil'ding.
4. Additions of wood siding to the east building and remodeling
~ of the east building balcony railings to provide a visual
consistency of materials, detail and color between the
two residential buildings.
5. An upgrade of exterior lighting.
A-1
The requested variance does not effect other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
A-2
The literal interpretation of the ordinance:
a. Makes impractical the use of existing balcony space for its intended use as an outdoor sitting area
b. Promotes continuing difficulty of policing and maintaining
the given balconies due to their propensity to be utilized
as general storage areas
c. Precludes unit owners from taking advantage of inducement
offered other (single and duplex) unit owners to upgrade
their properties
d. Disallows at this time a structured, unified and visually
consistent approach to balcony enclosures that otherwise
might not occur if and when Ordinance tlo. 4 was to be
amended to include multi-family projects
e. Precludes any of those advantages to unit owners through
additional GRFA that have accrued to unit owners in other
~ projects who have clandestinely enclosed their balconies
. ~ "
. , .
VISUAL IMPACT OF REQUEST
~ 500 sq.ft. Requested
allowable 425 sq.ft.
Duplex addition Treetops addition to
5000 sq.ft.. ' to GRFA 35971 sq.ft.
10 % actual GRFA
of total of total
Comparison indicates that the allowed visible impact of a duplex may be 9 times
greater than that requested by Treetops.
COMPARISOPd OF IfIPACT ON ALLOWABLE GRFA US ACTUAL GRFA
Requested Requested
Allowable a425 dditQont Actual 425 sq.ft.
GRFA: GRFA addition
31240 1 .3/ 35971
The requested 425 sq.ft. has almost equal significance NJhen compared to the
Allowable GRFA and Actual GRFA. The difference is .2% or 60 square feet.
~ The applicant believes that the variance request is a reasonable trade off
against the several upgrading improvements that will add benefit as 4iell to
the Lionshead appearance.
A-3
The request variance does not effect distribution of population, transportation,
traffic facilities, utilities and public safety.
~
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1987
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Ten Year Employment Anniversary Award for Charlie Turnbull
2. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1987, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter
15.02 of the Vail Municipal Code; adopting by reference the Uniform Electric
Code, 1987 edition; and setting forth details in relation thereto.
3. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1987, second reading, an ordinance annexing an area
commonly known as East Intermountain to the Town of Uail, and setting forth
details in regard thereto
4. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance amending Special
Development District 5, as established by Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1976, by
amending the site plan
5. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter
10.12 Parking on Private Property of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of
Section 10.12.055 Court Cost Upon Dismissal, and setting forth details in
regard thereto.
6. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance approving a
Special Development District (known as SDD No. 16, Elk Meadows) and the
development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code
and setting forth details in regard thereto.
7. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance making
supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail Capital Projects Fund, and
the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund of the 1987 budget and financial plan for the
Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations
as set forth herein.
8. Auditors' 1986 Financial Report
9. Resolution No. 20, Series of 1987, a resolution extending approval of Special
Development District No. 14 (Doubletree Hotel) for a period of twelve months.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
10. Town Manager's Report
11. Adjournment
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1987
7:30 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 1. Ten Year Employment Anniversary Award for Charlie Turnbull
7:35 2. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1987, second reading, adopting
Ernst Glatzle the 1987 Edition of the Uniform Electric Code by reference
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 12,
Series of 1987, on second reading.
Background Rationale: The Town presently has the 1985
edition of the Uniform Electric Code in effect. The 1987
edition has been published and the Building Department
recommends adoption of this more eurrent edition.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. 12, Series of
1987, on second reading.
7:40 3. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1987, second reading, annexing
Larry Eskwith East Intermountain to the Town of Vail
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 15,
Series of 1987, on second reading.
Background Rationale: The ordinance is the legal instrument
approving and enacting the annexation of the East
Intermountain area.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of
1987, on second reading.
7:50 4. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1987, first reading, amending
Rick Pylman SDD #5, Vail Run Resort
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 16,
Series of 1987, on first reading.
Background Rationale: Vail Run Resort has documented a
severe parking shortage. They are requesting to convert an
existing tennis court to parking. This action would create
a net of 21 new parking spaces.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of
1987, on first reading.
8:30 . 5. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1987, first reading, amending
Larry Eskwith the Parking on Private Property Chapter of the Municipal
Code
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 18,
Series of 1987, on first reading.
Background Rationale: Adoption of this section will make
individuals who report private parking violations more
serious about appearing to prosecute violators once Police
write ticket.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 18, Series of
1987, on first reading.
8:40 6. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1987, first reading,
Kristan Pritz establishing a Special Development District for The Valley
Phase III (Elk Meadows)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 19,
Series of 1987, on first reading.
Background Rationale: At the June 8 Planning Commission
meeting, Lamar Capital Corporation requested a major
subdivision and rezoning of The Valley, Phase III from
Residential Cluster to Special Development District with
underlying zoning of Residential Cluster. The PEC approved
both the major subdivision and the Special Development
District zone with a 3-1 vote.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 19, Series of
1987, on first reading.
8:50 7. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1987, first reading, making a
Steve Barlow Supplemental Appropriation to the Town 'of Vail Budget _
Action Requested of Council: Review the list of requested
supplemental budget items and the related funding sources.
Make changes as desired, then approve/deny Ordinance No. 20,
Series of 1987, on first reading.
Background Rationale: A supplemental appropriation is
needed to provide formal approval for expenditures related
to items which could not have been reasonably foreseen or
anticipated by the Town Council at the time it adopted the
1987 budget.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of
1987, on first reading.
9:00 8. Auditors' 1986 Financial Report
Jerry McMahan
Action Requested of Council: Discussion of the 1986
Financial Report.
Background Rationale: Report on the external audit of the
Town's finances which is mandated by Town Charter.
9:10 9. Resolution No. 20, Series of 1987, extending the SDD 14
Tom Braun Approval (Doubletree Hotel)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution No.
20, Series of 1987.
Background Rationale: The SDD zoning for the Doubletree
Hotel will expire in September of 1987. The applicant has
requested this approval be extended for a period of 18
months.
~ Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the
extension as requested. The shortfall of parking (as
outlined in the enclosed memorandums) is the primary reason
for the staff's position on this request. The Planning
Commission recommended to approve the request, but only for
a one year period.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
10. Town Manager's Report
11. Adjournment
-2-
ORDINANCE N0. 12
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15.02 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL
CODE; ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM ELECTRIC CODE, 1987
EDITION; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has adopted the 1985 edition of the Uniform Electric
Code; and
WHEREAS, the 1987 edition of the Uniform Electrical Code has recently been
published; and
WHEREAS, the Town in an effort to keep its construction codes as current as
possible believes that it would benefit the health, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the Town of Vail to adopt the 1987 edition of the Uniform Electrical
Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail,
Colorado, that:
Section 1.
Section 15.02.010 Preamble of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby
repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows:
15.02.010 Preamble
WHEREAS, the Charter of the Town of Vail and the statutes of the State of
Colorado provide that standard codes may be adopted by reference with amendments;
and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has adopted by reference the 1985 editions of
the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the
Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Codes for Uniform
Building Code Standards and the Uniform Fire Code Standards and the 1984 edition of
the National Electric Code; and
It is the opinion of the Town Council that the public health, safety and
welfare would be served by the adoption of the 1987 edition of the National
Electrical Code.
Section 2.
Section 15.02.020 Adoption by Reference, subparagraph G, is hereby repealed
and reenacted to read as follows:
15.02.020 Adoption by Reference
G. The National Electrical Code, 1987 edition and all appendix chapters
thereto, is hereby adopted by reference. The National Electrical Code, 1987
edition, is published by the National Fire Protection Association, Batterymareh
Park, Quincy, Massachusetts 02269.
Section 3.
Section 15.02.070
Section 15.02.070 Amendments to the National Electrical Code of the Municipal
Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended to read as follows:
The following amendment is made to the National Electrical Code, 1987
edition: All electrical wiring in groups A, B, E, I and H occupancies, as defined
in the Uniform Building Code, shall be encased in conduits, raceways, or in
approved armor. All wiring in group R shall be encased in metal conduits, raceways
or in approved armor to the circuit breaker box for each unit. No aluminum wire or
copper-clad aluminum wire smaller than size 8 will be permitted within the Town.
Section 4.
Section 15.02.070 Amendments to the National Electrical Code of the Municipal
Code of the Town of Vail is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read
as follows:
15.02.070 Amendments to the National Electrical Code
The following amendments are hereby made to the National Electrical Code,
1987 edition:
A. All electrical wiring in groups A, B, E, I and H occupancies as
defined in the Uniform Building Code, shall be encased in conduits, raceways, or in
approved armor. All wiring in group R shall be encased in metal conduits, raceways
or in approved armor to the circuit breaker box for each unit. No aluminum wire or
copper-clad aluminum wire smaller than size 8 will be permitted within the Town.
B. 1) Persons engaged in the installation of remote control, low
energy power and Signal Circuits as defined in Articles 725 and 760 of the 1987
National Electrical Code, need not be licensed themselves pursuant to Title 12,
Article 23, Colorado Revised Statutes, nor work under the supervision of such
licensed electricians; however, all such persons shall register with the State
Electrical Board. Proof of registration shall be produced by the registrant to the
Town of Vail Building Official.
2) All such installations of Remote Control, Low Energy Power and
Signal Systems are subject to the permit and inspection requirements of Section 12-
23-116 C.R.S. Accordingly, all installations of Remote Control, Low Energy Power
and Signal Systems must be performed in accordance with the minimum standards set
forth in the National Electrical Code.
-2-
~
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 provision of the Vail
Municipal Code as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has
accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date
hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced
under or by virtue of the provision repeal or repealed and reenacted. The repeal
of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING THIS 19th day of May ,
1987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 19th day of
May , 1987, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 19th day of May , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
-3-
A.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1987•
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
-4-
1,~ ,r+
ORDINANCE N0. 15
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING AN AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS
EAST INTERMOUNTAIN TO THE TOWN OF VAIL, AND
SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
~ WHEREAS, at least ten (10) percent of the qualified electors who are resident
in and landowners of the area proposed to be annexed, which area is situated in a
county of less than twenty-five thousand (25,000) inhabitants filed the petition for
an annexation election with the Town Clerk of the Town of Vail, Colorado which was
referred to the Town Council of the Town of Vail on February 17, 1987, in accordance
with Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S., as amended; and -
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail received said petition from the
Town Clerk on February 17, 1987 and by Resolution No. 6, Series of 1987, adopted at
its regular meeting on February 17, 1987 found the same to be in substantial
compliance with Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S., as amended and further found that the
Town Council of the Town of Vail had the necessary jurisdiction to commence
proceedings for an annexation election regarding said area; and
WHEREAS, as directed by Resolution No. 6, Series of 1987, and in accordance
with Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., as amended, the Town Clerk of the Town of Vail,
Colorado gave notice of a public hearing to be held on the petition for an
annexation election to determi:ne if the petition complied with Sections 31-12-104
and 31-12-105, C.R.S., as amended, to establish whether or not said area was -
eligible for annexation under the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amended; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 1987, the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado held
a public hearing in accordance with Section 31-12-109, C.R.S., as amended, to
determine if the area proposed to be annexed met the applicable requirements of
Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., as amended, and is considered eligible for
annexation; and
WHEREAS, after the completion of said hearing and on the basis of competent
evidence presented in said hearing the Town Council determined that the applicable
provisions of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amended, had been met and
that an annexation election was required under Section 31-12-107(2), C.R.S., as
amended; and
WHEREAS, the Town pursuant to Resolution No. 11, Series of 1987, and Section
31-12-112(3), C.R.S., as amended, petitioned the District Court in and for Eagle
County to hold an annexation election in accordance with the applicable provisions
of Section 31-12-112, C.R.S., as amended; and
,
< .t
WHEREAS, the Court entered an order for an annexation election directing that
the election be held on May 19, 1987, and appointing three (3) Election
Commissioners to call and hold the election; and
WHEREAS, the annexation plat which was approved by Resolution No. 11, Series of
1987, is incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, an election was duly called by the Election Commissioners to be held
on the 19th day of May, 1987 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. at a
polling place situated at the Salzman residence in the East Intermountain area
proposed to be annexed described in Exhibit A hereof; the notice of the election was
published in the Vail Trail, a newspaper having a general circulation in the area
. proposed to be annexed once a week for four (4) weeks and was posted at the polling
place said first publication and posting occurring more than four (4) weeks
preceding the election; and
WHEREAS, in the annexation election held on the 19th day of May, 1987, eighty-
five (85) proper ballots were cast by those qualified to vote in said election of
which there were eighty (80) votes for annexation and five (5) against annexation,
as indicated in the certificate of election results which is incorporated by
reference herein and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of May, 1987, the District Court entered an order
authorizing the Town to annex without special terms or conditions the area proposed
to be annexed as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
` NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail,
Colorado, as follows:
Section 1. Annexation of the Area Commonly Known as East Intermountain to the
Town.
In accordance with the order of the District Court entered in Civil Action No.
87 CV 137 on the 26th day of May, 1987, the Town of Vail, Colorado hereby annexes
without special terms or conditions the area commonly known as East Intermountain,
County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described in Exhibit A hereof.
Section 2. Annexation Costs.
All costs and expenses connected with the annexation election shall be paid by
the Town of Vail, Colorado.
Section 3. Filing Copies of the Annexation Plat and Annexing Ordinance.
A. A copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation
ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Vail.
-2-
• B. The iown Clerk shall file for recording two (2) certified copies of this
annexation ordinance and a map of the area annexed containing a legal description of
such area with the County Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado.
C. The County Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County shall be directed to file
one (1) certified copy of the annexation ordinance and map with the Division of
Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs.
Section 4.
Within ninety (90) days after the effective date hereof, the Town of Vail,
Colorado shall impose zoning on the annexed area in accordance with Chapter 18.68 of
the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado.
Section 5.
This annexation shall take effect in accordance with the Charter of the Town of
Vail and the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING THIS 2nd day of June ,
1987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 2nd day of
June , 1987, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal
Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 2nd day of June , 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
-3-
i
, • e
i
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ' A TRACT OF LANB- aEING A PORT ON OF' WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 14 AND A
. PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAS7 ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 15. T0WNSHIP 5 SOUTH,
RANGE 81 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL ME:RIDIAN, EAGIE COUIJTY, COLORADO. AND
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: -
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14, WHENCE THE WEST ONE-QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14 BEARS S81 09'00"V1 1380,06 FEET DISTANT; SAIO
'POINT BEING ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE NIGHkAY
. N0. 70; THENCE ALOtiG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-NAY LINE FOR THE
FOLLONING THREE (3) COURSES: 1.) N87 09'00'E A DISTANCE OF 111.28 FEET; •
2.) N21 37'06"W A DISTANCE OF 73.65 FEET;
3.) N69 34'00"E A DISTANCE OF 111.80 FEET;
THENCE N34 58'26"W A DISTANCE OF 347.34 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF •
GOVERNMENT LOT 21, SECTION 14, SAID POINT BEING ON THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID INTERSTATE NIGHWAY N0. 70; THENCE ALONG SAIO
NORTNWESTERIY RIGHT-OF-NAY LINE FOR THE FOLLONING FIYE (5) COURSES:
1.) N67 03'24"E A DISTANCE OF 259.95 FEET;
2.) '285.23 FEET ALOtIG THE ARC OF A.CURYE TO THE LEFT tIAYING A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 09 17'08", A RADIUS OF 1760.00 FEET AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS N59 23'18"E 284.92 FEET DISTANT;
_ 3.) N21 36'24"E A DISTANCE OF 392.37 FEET;
4.) N45 48'18"E A DISTANCE OF 422.13 FEET; S.) N38 44'00'E A DISTANCE OF 414.59 FEET;•
-THENCE S19 26'41"E A DISTANCE OF 512.00 FEET TO THE IN7ERSEC7ION OF THE
SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE UF SAID INTERSTATE NIGHWAY N0. 70 AND THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAIU SECTIOta 14; THENCE
SO1 26'30"E ALONG SAIO EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 1075.47 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHUEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 14; THENCE
. SOl 28'45"E ALOtIG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST 0l1E-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14 A DISTANCE OF 1366,74 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 9, YAIL INTERMOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SUBDIYISION, A
SUBDIYISION RECORDED AT RECEPTION N0. 121087 IN THE RECORDS OF THE EAGLE -
COUNTY CLERK AND RECOROER; THENCE S81 36'55"W A DISTANCE OF 2708.69 FEET
TO THE SOUTNWEST CORNEk OF SAID BLOCK 9; THENCE N47 04'38"W A DISTANCE OF
54.47 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCKS 5 ANO 6. YAIL INTERMOUNTAIN
SUBDIYISION, A SUBDIYISION RECORDED AT RECEPTION N0. 114403 IN THE OFFICE
OF THE EAGLE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORUER; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID BLOCKS 5 AND 6 FOR THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES:
•1.) N20 21'00"W A DISTANCE OF 152.35 FEET;
2.) N06 35'09"W A DIS7ANCE OF 102.01 FEET;
3.) N21 23'41"W A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET;
4.) N59 40'35"W A DISTAHCE OF 123.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
LOT 1 OF SAID BLOCK 5; . .
THEtICE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 1 FOR THE
FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
l.) N61 18'30"E A DISTANCE OF 171.34 FEET;
. 2.) N38 00'00"N A DISTANCE OF 163.39 FEET TO THE SOUTNEASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID INTERSTATE HIGHWAY N0. 70; THENCE ALONG '
SAID SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING SIX (6)
COUKSES:
1.) 350.19 FEET ALOtIG THE ARC OF A CURYE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6 00'00"' A RADIUS OF 3344.00 FEET AND A CHORD
WHICN BEARS N55 10'38"E 350.03 FEET DIS7ANT;
2.) N58 11'06"E A DISTANCE OF 559.86 FEET; 3•) N59 10'09"E A DIS7ANCE OF 290.30 FEET; '
4•) 194.36 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURYE TO THE RIGHT HAYING A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04 09'18", A RADIUS OF 2680.00 FEET AND A CHORD
WHICH BEARS N63 3744"E 194.31 FEET DISTANT;
5.) N67 25'09"E A DISTANCE OF 197.10 FEET;
6•) N87 09'OOE A DISTANCE OF 109.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ORDINANCE N0. 16
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 5,
AS ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE N0. 6, SERIES OF 1976, BY
AMENDING THE SITE PLAN
WHEREAS, the applicant, Vail Run Resort Community, is requesting to convert an
existing exterior tennis court to a parking area, creating a total of 21 additional
parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, Vail Run Resort Community has determined that there is a need for
this additional parking and further determined that this additional parking will be
a benefit to the existing development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has reviewed the proposed
amendment to Special Development District No. 5 and has determined it to be
reasonable and appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered it to be reasonable, appropriate and
beneficial to the Town and to its citizens and habitants and visitors to amend said
Special Development District No. 5.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO,
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Section 3.6 (2) of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1976, is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Section 3.6(2).
The existing site consisting of the building containing 55 dwelling units,
approximately 18,000 square feet of commercial space, a swimming pool and spa area,
two tennis courts, as well as the parking and landscaped area as amended by the
approved parking/site plan drawn by Gordon Pierce dated August 28, 1986, as well as
the parking plan drawn by Gordon R. Pierce, Architects, dated April 13, 1987,
shall be known as SDDS.
Section 2. Effective Date
Tnis ordinance shall take effect five days after publication following the
final passage hereof.
Section 3.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the valildity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it
would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 4.
The repeal or the repeal and reenaction 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 or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ 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, 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
r
~ TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development
DATE: June 2, 19887
SUBJECT: A request to amend Special Development District 5,
Development Area A, Vail Run, in order to convert an
exterior tennis court to parking, creating a total of
21 additional parking spaces.
APPLICANT: Vail Run Resort
I. BACKGROUND OF REQUEST
The applicant, Vail Run Resort, is requesting to amend
SDDS to allow for the conversion of an existing tennis
court to parking. Construction of the access ramp to the
tennis court would eliminate 5 existing parking spaces.
The proposed parking plan for the tennis court area shows
the creation of 26 spaces for a total of 21 new parking
spaces. It is probable through Design Review, if this
proposal receives approval from the Town Council, that
internal landscaping requirements for surface parking will
reduce the number of parking spaces by another 2- 3
- spaces.
~
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation is for approval. The Planning
Commission voted 6-0 in favor of the proposal with the
condition that the staff give direction to the Design
Review Board that specific attention be placed in mitigat-
ing the negative impacts of the proposed parking lot with
respect to Simba Run via landscaping, lighting design, and
noise reduction methods.
~
C T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 11, 1987
SUBJECT: A request to amend Special Development District n5,
Development Area A, Vail Run in order to convert an
existing exterior tennis court to parking, creating a
total of 21 additional parking spaces.
Applicant: Vail Run Resort
I. BACKGROUND OF REQUEST:
The applicant, Vail Run Resort, is requesting to amend
SDD#5, to allow for the conversion of an existing tennis
court to parking. Construction of the access ramp to the
tennis court would eliminate five existing parking spaces.
The proposed parking plan for the tennis court area shows
the creation of 26 parking spaces for a total new
additional parking of 21 spaces. The Vail Run project was
developed within the jurisdiction of Eagle County and upon
annexation to the Town of Vail was zoned SDDS. Ordinance
6, Series of 1986, established Special Development
District No. 5 and describes the development plan simply
~ as the existing conditions on site. The ordinance goes on
to list permitted and conditional uses. However, there is
no mention of parking requirements or site requirements
such as certain recreation facilities and the maintenance
thereof, or any criteria related to site coverage,
landscaped areas, etc.
The applicant, in a previous submittal, detailed a parking
analysis that shows a shortfall of 97 spaces when
comparing existing conditions to current Town of Vail
. parking standards.
II. IMPACTS OF PROPOSAL
The ordinance establishing Special Development District 5
states no specific requirements regarding the recreational
facilities available to Vail Run Resort. The loss of the
existing exterior tennis court is mitigated by the fact
that there remains two existing covered courts within the
adjacent bubble. The applicant has certainly proven a
need for additional parking on this site and is going to
some length in order to secure parking that they feel is
necessary for the functioning of their property.
The only concern of the Community Development Department
is the impact of the conversion from recreational facility
~
. ,
to parking on the adjacent Simba Run units. The applicant
has proposed a buffer of 15 foot tall Colorado spruce
trees. We would encourage the Planning Commission to
carefully examine the adequacy of this proposed buffer and
pass along any concerns to the Design Review Board.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommendation is for approval. The Community
Development Department feels that the applicant has
sufficiently demonstrated a need for additional on-site
parking and we feel that the only impact of this proposal
is the southwest corner of the lot that is adjacent to the
Simba Run property. We do feel that the proposed buffer
could be increased to further reduce this impact.
C
~
1~
ORDINANCE N0. 18
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.12 PARKING ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF
SECTION 10.12.055 COURT COST UPON DISMISSAL, AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town's parking on private property ordinance is intended to
protect private property owners from unauthorized parking; and
WHEREAS, often private property owners sign a complaint without adequately
checking on the driver of the vehicle and later requests that the complaint be'
dismissed; and
WHEREAS, such requests cost the Town money for Police Officer's time,
prosecution time and court time which should be borne by the complainant.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Uail,
Colorado, that:
1. Chapter 10.12 is hereby amended by the addition of Section 10.12.055 Court
Cost Upon Dismissal to read as follows:
10.12.055 Court Cost Upon Dismissal
At such time as the Municipal Court grants the request of a complainant who has
signed a complaint under this Chapter, to dismiss said complaint, the Court shall
assess court costs against complainant in an amount not less than five dollars ($5)
and not to exceed fifty dollars ($50) for each complaint so dismissed.
2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby
declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more
parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
3. 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 ail and
the inhabitants thereof.
4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail
Municipal Code as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has
accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date
hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced
under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal
of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED 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, 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
-2-
ORDINANCE N0. 19 Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
(KNOWN AS SDD N0. 16, ELK MEADOWS) AND THE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE UAIL MUNICIPAL
CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special
Development Districts within the Town; and
WHEREAS, Lamar Capital Corporation has submitted an application for a Special
Development approval for a certain parcel of property within the Town known as The
Valley, Phase III, part of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 to be
known as Special Development District No. 16; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 16 will insure unified and
and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the
area in which it is situated; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended approval of
the proposed SDD; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and
beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish
such Special Development District No. 16:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF UAIL,
COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report.
The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have
been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and
Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for
SDD 16.
Section 2." Special Development District No. 16
Special Development District No. 16 (SDD No. 16) and the development plan
therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Phase III The Valley, part of
Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2, within the Town of Vail consisting
of 3.6 acres.
Section 3. Purpose
Special Development District 16 is established to ensure comprehensive development
and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town
of Vail. The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town by the Town
Council and meets all design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the
Municipal Code. As stated in the staff inemorandum dated June 8, 1987, there are
significant aspects of Special Development District 16 which are difficult to
satisfy through the imposition of the standards of the Residential Cluster zone
district. SDD 16 allows for greater flexibility in the development of the land
than would be possible under the current zoning of the property. In order to help
preserve the natural and scenic features of this site, building envelopes will be
established which designate the areas upon the site in which development will
occur. The establishment of these building envelopes will also permit the phasing
of the development to proceed according to each individual owner's ability to
construct a residence. SDD 16 provides an appropriate development plan that
maintains the unique character of this site given the difficult site constraints
which must be addressed in the overall design of the project.
Section 4. Development Plan
A. The development plan for SDD 16 is approved and shall constitute the plan for
development within the Special Development District. The development plan is
comprised of those plans submitted by Lamar Capital Corporation and consists
of the following documents:
l. Elk Meadows Subdivision: Preliminary Plan Building Envelopes, Phase III
the Valley, February 23, 1987, Mr. Lee Lechner, Colorado Registered Land
Surveyor
ta
t
2. Elk Meadows Subdivision Access Road Design Drawing, John MacKowen,
Surveying and Engineering, Inc., June 5, 1987
3. Preliminary Landscape Plan, Elk Meadows, Mr. Dennis Anderson, Associates,
June 5, 1987
4. Environmental Impact Report submitted by Mr. Peter Jamar, Associates,
Inc., May 11, 1987 which includes Design Guidelines, Rockfall Mitigation
requirements, and preliminary utility plan.
5. Other general submittal documents that define the development standards
of the Special Development District.
B. The development plan shall adhere to the following:
1. Acreage: The total acreage of the site is 3.6 acres.
2. Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for the site are proposed to be:
a. Single family residential dwellings
b. Two-family residential dwellings
c. Open space
-2-
d. Public and private roads
3. Conditional Uses:
a. Public utility and public service uses
b. Public buildings, grounds and facilities
c. Public or private schools
d. Public park and recreation facilities
e. Ski lifts and tows
f. Private clubs
g. Dog kennel
4. Accessory Uses:
a. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports,
swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-
family or two-family residential uses.
b. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190;
c. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional
uses, and necessary for the operation thereof;
d. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a horse grazing permit in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.58.
5. Parcel Acreages and Uses
a. Building Envelopes
1. .07 acres, 1 single family unit
2. .07 acres, 1 single family unit
3. .06 acres, 1 single family unit
4. .05 acres, 1 single family unit
5. .10 acres, 1 duplex unit
6. .08 acres, 1 duplex unit 7. .05 acres, 1 single family unit
b. Tract 1: 2.53 acres open space
c. Tract 2: .61 acres private access road and parking
6. Setbacks - Minimum setbacks for the location of structures with relations
to building envelope perimeter lines shall be as follows:
. a. No structure shall be located on the utility easement as so designated
on the final plat of the subdivision.
-3-
b. No structure shall be located less than two feet from either the east or
the west perimeter line.
c. No structure shall be located less than three feet from the north
perimeter line.
d. Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove to the contrary, roof
overhangs and decks may encroach into the setback areas described in b and c so
long as such roof overhangs and decks are totally within the perimeter lines of the
building envelope.
7. Densit : Approval of this development plan shall permit nine (9) dwelling
units which includes 5 single family units and 2 duplex units.
A building situated on a single unit residential building envelope shall
not contain more than 1,777 square feet of GRFA; a building situated on a two unit
residential building envelope shall not contain more that 3,554 square feet of
GRFA.
8. Building Height: Building height shall be 33 feet for a sloping roof.
9. Parking: Two parking spaces shall be provided per unit with one of the two
spaces being enclosed.
10. Landscaping: The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated
on the preliminary landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to
the Design Review Board for their approval. The Design Review Board approved final
landscape plan shall represent the general subdivision's landscape requirements.
The entire portion of the building envelope not covered by pavement or
buildings shall be landscaped as well as any areas outside the building envelope
disturbed during construction.
11. Design Guidelines: The Design Guidelines shall be submitted to the Design
Review Board for their approval. The DRB final design guidelines shall represent
the approved design guidelines. Design guidelines for the site are as follows:
a. Roof pitch shall be 4 feet in 12 feet.
b. Roof material shall be metal and be either charcoal grey or marina blue
in color.
c. Siding material shall be either cedar or redwood and shall be applied
horizontally as indicated on the prototypical building elevations. Only light
colored stain shall be applied to siding.
d. Either stucco or siding shall be applied to exposed concrete foundation
walls. If stucco is utilized, it shall be light in color.
e. All windows shall be white metal clad windows.
-4-
f. All decks and balconies shall be constructed utilizing 2 x 12 railings ;
and posts that are at least 4" x 4".
g. All roofs shall have overhangs of at least 1 foot in order to protect
walls and wall openings from rain and snow and to contribute to the building's
character.
12. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreation amenities tax is .30 per square
foot.
13. Protective Covenants: Prior to major subdivision final plat approval, the
developer shall file protective covenants on the land records of Eagle County which
will provide that each owner that builds a structure on a designated building
envelope shall comply with the design guidelines and rockfall mitigation
requirements as outlined in the EIR by Jamar Associates May 11, 1987. Copies of
the guidelines and mitigation requirements shall be available to prospective
purchasers at the Community Development Office and Developer's office.
The covenants shall also state that an owner may choose to have another
qualified engineer/geologist design appropriate rockfall mitigation measures, as
long as the mitigation solution does not have negative visual impacts and is
approved by the Town of Vail Community Development Department and Town Engineer.
The covenants shall also provide in regard to the covenant dealing with
design guidelines and rockfall mitigation that the Town of Vail shall have the
right to enforce the covenant and that the covenant may not be amended or deleted
without Town of Vail approval.
The protective covenants shall be approved by the Town of Vail Attorney,
prior to major subdivision final plat approval.
Section 5. Amendments Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may
be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled
public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060. Amendments
which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be
approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The
Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the
substance of the development plan.
Section 6. Expiration
The applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 18
months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward
completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work
-5-
toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the
Special Development District within the time limits imposed by the preceding
subsection, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the Special
Development District. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the
approval of the Special Development District be extended, that the approval of the
Special Development District be revoked, or that the Special Development District
be amended.
Section 7.
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 8.
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 or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ 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, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this day of , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
-6-
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
-7-
\
TO: The Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: A request for the rezoning of the Valley Phase Three from Residential Cluster to Special Development
District with underlying Residential Cluster zoning.
Applicants Lamar Capital Corporation.
DATE: June 16, 1987
The applicant's request actually involved two planning
commission actions:
1. The review of a preliminary plan for the major subdivision
request.
2. The review of the special development district zoning
request.
The Town Council is not required to review the major
subdivision request unless the Council wishes to call up the
planning commission's decision. However, due to the fact that
the major subdivision request is so closely tied to the special
development district, the staff feels that it would be helpful
to review both requests at the same time.
The Community Development Department recommended approval of
both the major subdivision and SDD with conditions. The
applicant is proposing a major subdivision and SDD on Phase 3
of the Valley. The parcel is 3.6 acres and would be divided
into seven building sites or envelopes. Five of the envelopes
would allow the construction of single family dwellings and two
envelopes would allow construction of duplex residences. A
total of nine dwelling units is proposed for this phase.
This project was originally developed under Eagle County at
which time Phase 3 was allowed 16,000 sq ft of GRFA and a total
of 10 dwelling units for the entire development. When the
project was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1980, the GRFA and
number of units were accepted by the Town. In 1981, the Town
applied Residential Cluster zoning as the underlying zone
district guide for the parcel. The Valley was deannexed from
the Town of Vail in 1985 and subsequently reannexed in May
1986.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request on June 8, 1987,
and recommended approval of the special development district
and approved the major subdivision. A motion to approve the
major subdivision was made by Ms. Pam Hopkins and seconded by
Mr. Sid Schultz. The motion for approval included the staff
conditions and was predicated upon the approval of the Special
Development District. The vote was 3 to 1 with Mr. J.J.
Collins voting against the request. The Special Development
District was recommended for approval in a motion by Mr. Sid
Schultz which was seconded by Ms. Pam Hopkins. The vote was 3
to 1 with Mr. Collins voting against the project. Mr. J.J.
Collins felt that more specific information was needed on the
rock fall mitigation that each owner would be required to
complete. In general, his opinion was that the developer
should be responsible for the mitigation. He was also
concerned about the rock fall hazard between the building
envelopes. He felt that the rock fall could effect the private
access road and parking areas. Please see the enclosed letter
from Mr. J.J. Collins which clearly explains his position on
the project.
The Community Development staff, Town Attorney, and applicants
had a meeting after the Planning Commission review in order to
clarify some requirements on compliance with the rock fall
mitigation requirements. It was agreed that the development of
each building envelope will comply with the environmental
impact report, especially the design recommendations cited by
Mr. Dan Pettigrove, and Mr. Nick Lampiris in revised letters
concerning design mitigataion for rock fall hazards which will
be submitted to the staff on June 15, 1987. The revised letter
will be presented to the Council at the evening meeting. The
applicant has also agreed to include in the covenants for the
Elk Meadows subdivision the requirement that each owner shall
complete the design mitigation work for rock fall hazards.
The staff is also willing to waive the condition that a gas
line be provided in the subdivision. The major subdivision
regulations in section 17.16.150 state that a natural gas line
is required unless otherwise waived by either the Zoning
Administrator, Director of Public Works, Planning Commission or
Council. Due to the fact that electrical is available, staff
felt the gas line could be waived for the subdivision.
11 June 1987
Kristan Pritz
Community Development Department
Town of Vail
P.O. Box 100
Vail, CO 81658
Dear Kristan:
After reconsidering the June 8th PEC hearing regarding the Elk Meadows
application, I would like to reiterate and expand on some of my concerns.
The principal fact regarding this property is that it is affected by a
high rock fall hazard in a geologically sensitive area. "As indicated by
the Town of Vail Rockfall Study the site is located within a high severity
rock fall area." (EIR p. 11)
The applicant has elected to implement a development scheme which
substantially reduces his responsibility for having to deal with and
provide for mitigative structural considerations since he is developing
sites only, not residences. The majority of responsibility would thus
fall on each individual owner for both assessment of the hazard and
mitigative work to protect against the hazard. I think this is
inappropriate. The developer should continue to bear the majority of
responsibility to the Town and his purchasers regarding the hazard and the
means by which it can and must be mitigated.
In my opinion, prudent consideration of the hazard should require the
developer to more thoroughly assess the hazard risks and provide each
homesite purchaser with detailed recommendations from competent
engineering consultants regarding the hazard and the means necessary to
mitigate against it. I believe the developer of a subdivision such as
this would not be providing for the health, safety and well being of the
subdivisions's residents if the responsibility for this action were simply
passed on to each individual resident. A more cohesive and controlled
approach is necessary.
. J
I believe this to be the intent of several sections of the Special
Development District provision of the zoning ordinance, including Sections
18.40.040 (C) and 18.40.050 (F).
There is at least the implication in The Valley's original zoning
approvals that a single developer would be resonsible for the subdivision
and construction of improvements in The Valley. This same implication is
evident in the SDD regulation. The rock fall hazard makes this almost a
requirement, not an implication.
The developer has provided some general direction in this regard which, in
my opinion, is insufficient to the hazard involved. The February 23, 1986
letter from Mr. Pettigrove confirms the existence of the hazard and makes
some general comments regarding mitigation. However, the developers
graphic examples of those recommendations are inconsistent and misleading.
(EIR, Figures 7& 8) I believe it should be the developer's
responsibility, not option, in this SDD application to provide purchasers
with specific design recommendations.
The EIR is too limited and therefore flawed and unsuitable to supoprt the
application. The information presented by the applicant's engineers
begins to address these issues but does not provide the level of
information required by a purchaser to make a reasonably informed decision
to purchase, nor does it provide enough information for the construction
of a safe residence. The applicant's examples contained in the EIR are
totally inappropriate. This indicates to me a"rush it through" approach.
This approach has caused considerable confusion and misunderstanding as
evidenced by the last minute changes requested and submitted by the
applicant.
In summary, I believe that because of the rock fall hazard, the
developer's responsibility to both the Town and the subdivision's future
residents should be increased and remain more in his control with respect
to allowable residential design and the requirement to mitigate against
the rock fall hazard. This responsibility should not be lessened or
decentralized to individual owners.
Please consider the following suggestions:
o If this application is submitted to the Town Council,
the Council should refer it back to PEC for additional
review. The application and EIR are too substantially
flawed and call into question the circumstances
surrounding the PEC's recommendation for approval.
Last minute changes to the application in the form of
the Elk Meadows Conditions of Approval memorandum
submitted to the PEC moments before the application
was reviewed created confusion. Even Larry Eskwith
admitted he was confused about what mitigation
measures the applicant was going to install. I believe
Larry thought the applicant was going to maintain that
responsibility when, in fact, he was not.
-2-
o The EIR should be revised to include a more definite
description of the hazard, and its effect on the
subdivision.
o The applicant should provide several typical plans of
suitable structures which could be built in such a high
hazard area. These sample plans should be clearly
relevant to the consulting engineer's report.
o The applicant should provide detailed plans of
mitigation structures which purchasers may then
incorporate in plans for their residences.
o The detail plans should focus on uphill wall structures,
strengthened roof structures, building materials,
construction techniques, excavation designs and any
other appropriate design and construction methods
currently available to mitigate the rock fall hazard.
o All the above information should be incorporated in
"Structural Design Guidelines" separate from
"Architectural Design Guidelines."
These Structural Design Guidelines should be included
in either the project declaration or in another
convenant to run with the land.
o Perhaps the applicant should undertake a detailed hazard
assessment for each site, a detailed recommendation as
to mitigation measures for each site and make both an
integral part of any sale to a subsequent homebuilder.
This would further increase the developer's
responsibility to both the Town and each homesite
purchaser.
o The applicant should be required to identify and
mitigate against the hazards in the subdivision's common
area, i.e. spaces between the envelopes, the open space
tract and the roadway.
o The Design Guidelines (pp. 16 & 17) area totally
inappropriate to the surrounding environment. Blue
steel roofs, white clad windows and 2 X 12 railings are
, not conducive to providing "both existing and future
residents of the Valley with a pleasing visual
experience."
o The applicant should be required to install a guard rail
along Lionsridge Loop for the protection of homesite
owners from vehicles sliding off that road.
o The applicant should reconsider the construction of
residences rather than the creation of a subdivision
of homesites to facilitate maximum control of hazard
mitigation.
-3-
Once again, the concern of rushing the application through the process
rather than thoroughly studying it becomes evident. The applicant is
simply not prepared to ask for the PEC's consideration nor has the PEC
been provided with sufficient information upon which to make a _
recommendation - favorable or unfavorable - to the Council.
The application has merit but is insufficient in its present condition.
Just as important, we are now told that a similar approach may be utilized
on the Phase VI portion of The Valley. It's time to more thoroughly
assess our responsibility with respect to development in hazard areas and
the developer's role in such subdivisions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly, ,
.
~
James J. olli s `
J
~1,.
JC611b
-4-
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision and rezoning of The
Valley Phase III from Residential Cluster to Special
Development District with underlying Residential
Cluster.
Applicants: Lamar Capital Corporation
I. THE REQUESTS
The requests involve two Planning Commission reviews:
l. The review of a preliminary plan for the major
subdivision request
\
2. The review of the Special Development District zoning
request.
The applicant's request is summarized below:
"The current proposal being made by Lamar Capital
Corporation, the owners of Phase III, is the
subdivision of the 3.6 acre parcel into seven
building sites or 'envelopes.' Five of these
envelopes would allow construction of single family
dwellings and two (envelopes 5 and 6) would allow
construction of duplex residences. Therefore, a
total number of nine dwelling units would be
constructed on the site....
The total Gross Residential Floor area (GRFA)
designated for Phase III in The Valley PUD agreement
is 16,000 square feet. This will allow each dwelling
unit within the project to be a maximum of 1,777
square feet.
Access to the site is off of Lionsridge Loop via a 22
foot wide common access drive. This road is
currently under construction and was given building
permit approval previously by Eagle County.
The owner of the property has chosen to create the
building envelopes rather than construct one single
10 unit development for various reasons: The
creation of the building sites allows the development
of the parcel to be phased and at the same time
provides an overall plan to guide the placement of
dwelling units, access, and common open space within
the parcel over time.
The development of 9 individual free standing
dwelling units and duplex units will be more
compatible with the adjacent developments than would
one single structure containing 10 dwelling units.
The creation of the building envelopes allows for a
variation in residential product type in Vail. A
purchaser will be able to enjoy amenities such as
common open space, guest parking, and a common access
drive which are typically found in a multiple family
development and also enjoy the opportunity to
construct his/her own home much like the owner of a
single family or duplex lot."
II. BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSAL
The Valley project was originally designed as a planned
development of 150 units on 61.2 acres. On July 26, 1973,
the Eagle County Commissioners approved a preliminary plan
with a Planned Development zone designation. The approval
of the preliminary plan was valid for three years. In
July of 1976 the original preliminary plan approval
expired. However, the Planned Development zone
designation remained on The Valley. The zone designation
for Phase III allowed for 10 dwelling units and a total
GRFA of 16,000 square feet.
The developer was required to resubmit a sketch plan and
preliminary plan once the approval had expired. From the
planning files, it appears that several requests to extend
the approvals from the preliminary plan were granted by
the Commissioners. In March of 1980, the PUD plan and
protective covenants were filed with the County. Once
again, this document indicates that 10 units and a GRFA of
16,000 square feet exists for Phase III.
In 1980, the West Vail area was annexed to the Town of
Vail. The Town accepted the 10 unit and 16,000 GRFA as
the allowed development for Phase III of The Valley in
March of 1981. Subsequentlly, The Valley was de-annexed
from the Town of Vail and re-annexed in May of 1987.
(Please see the enclosed summary of events relating to The
Valley Phase III attached to this memo.)
The following information indicates that it is very clear
that Phase III is allowed 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000
square feet. Any sketch plan and preliminary plan
approvals have lapsed since the time of their review by
the County. The most recent sketch plan review for this
project occurred in April of 1980. Even after this review
of the sketch plan by the County, the developer still
needed to return with a preliminary plan for Phase III. A
preliminary plan for this project was never finalized
through the County and considered to be a part of the
approval when the project was accepted into the Town of
Vail in 1980.
In 1981, the Town of Vail merely accepted the zoning of 10
units and 16,000 square feet as the development standard
for the property. Ordinance 13 of 1981 acknowledges the
land use restrictions of 10 units and 16,000 square feet
of GRFA but states that, "for any zoning purpose beyond
the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals, agreements, or
actions, the developments of parcels of properties
specified in this subsection (E) shall be zoned
Residential Cluster." For this reason, the Special
Development District is compared to the underlying zone
district of Residential Cluster which serves as a guide
for the development standards of this phase.
III. MAJOR SUBDIVISION EVALUATION CRITERIA
The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found
in Section 17.16.110 of the regulations and are as
follows:
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 recommendations 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,
density proposed, regulations, ordinances and
resolutions and other applicable documents,
environmental integrity and compatibility with
surrounding land uses.
A. Public Agency and Utility Compan_y Reviews:
The following comments were made by each agency:
1. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation
District: We have no problems with this
project. Water and sewer are available in the
area. We recommend approval.
2. Public Service Company: The original
preliminary plan did not show gas as a utility
being provided by the developer. The developer
has agreed to include gas as a utility for the
project.
3. Holy Cross Electric: No problem.
4. Mountain Bell: No problem. Mountain Bell
requested that the developer fill out one of
their land development agreements as soon as
possible.
5. Heritage Cable: No problem.
6. National Forest Service: At this time, the
adequacy of water and fire protection service is
questioned. The need for adequate response to
fire emergency suppression and availability of
adequate fire hydrants should be considered in
the review for approval. Evaluations should
include concerns of the Vail Fire Department
about water pressure, emergency fire call
response time, location of hydrants, etc. in
terms of both structural and wild land fire
protection, suppression and control.
These issues have been addressed by the Vail
Fire Department and Upper Eagle Valley Water and
Sanitation District.
7. Western Slope Gas: No problem
B. Relation of Proposal to Town of Vail Policies:
Staff believes that the design of the subdivision and
recommendations made in the environmental impact
report will create a project that meets the intent of
Vail's subdivision controls. The density is actually
less than what was originally approved for the site
by one unit.
The EIR states that the potential negative impacts of
the proposal include the "visual impacts and impacts
associated with the location of the site within a
rockfall hazard area." Staff's opinion is that the
developer has designed a plan that protects the
meadow area as much as possible, given the high
severity rockfall hazard and slope constraints on the
northern portion of the lot. In addition, design
guidelines are incorpoarated into the SDD zoning
which will "ensure architectural and visual
continuity with regard to building design and
materials." (EIR p.4)
The Public Works and Fire Departments have also
reviewed the request and the proposal meets their
standards as far as road design, drainage, fire
protection service and adequate fire turn-around
areas.
The staff finds that the proposal does meet the major
subdivision criteria and actually is a significant
improvement from the original sketch plan for Phase
III that was reviewed under the County in April of
1980 and the preliminary plan proposal that was
reviewed by the County last summer. The main area of
improvement is the preservation of the primary
natural feature of the site--the meadow. This has
been accomplished by proposing the building sites on
the north side of the access road.
IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW
A. Design Standards
Section 18.40.080 lists a set of standards that a proposed
SDD development plan must comply with. The purpose of the
review is to show how the development meets the standards
or to demonstrate that either one or more of them is not
applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with
the public interest has been achieved. The design
standards, along with the applicant's and staff's
responses are listed below:
1. A buffer zone shall be provided in any s ecial
development district that is ad'acent to a low
density residential use district. The buffer zone
must be kept free of buildings or structures, and
must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural
features so that adverse effects on the surroundin
areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone
of sufficient size to adequately separate the
proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms
of visual privacy, noise, adequate li ht and air, air
pollution, signage, and other comparable otentially
incompatible factors.
Applicant's Statement:
The "buffering" provided by the project is
appropriate for the type of project proposed and the
nature of the existing and proposed surrounding land
uses. Landscaped areas will serve to strengthen this
buffer.
Staff's Statement:
Phase III is adjacent to Lionsridge Loop on the
northern side of the project, The Valley
Condominiums (Phase I) on the east, and The Valley
Phase VI on the south and west. The northern
property line of Phase III is approximately 25 feet from the edge of the pavement of Lionsridge Loop.
Most of the trees in this area will remain. Staff's
opinion is that this area provides an adquate buffer
on the northern portion of the project. Phase I to
the east provides access to units directly off of
Lionsridge Loop. Staff prefers maintaining the public
right-of-way in its natural state, as opposed to
having paved access and parking areas adjacent to
Lionsridge Loop. It should also be noted that the
special development district will require that no
structure be located less than 3 feet from the
northern perimeter line of the building envelopes.
On the east side of Phase III, the nearest building
from The Valley Condominiums is 190 feet from the
easternmost building envelope. In addition, an open
area ranging from approximately 15 feet at the very
narrowest point to 60 feet from the property line is
maintained as open space adjacent to the eastern
building envelope. The rest of the site on the
eastern portion of the project is designated as open
space.
On the west property lines for Phase III,
approximately 25 feet of open space is maintained
between the building envelope and the western
property line.
On the south side of the project, the road and fire
turn-arounds are within several feet of the property
line. However, no buildings are proposed for this
area. Staff would recommend that the four western
parking spaces in this area be removed from the plan.
Phase VI proposes to maintain as open space the
portion of their project that meets the southern
property line of Phase III. Therefore, the slight
impacts of the pavement should be minimized.
In general, the staff finds that the proposal
maintains adequate buffer spaces on all sides of the
project. We would recommend that additional
landscaping be located by the west fire turn around
and the 4 guest parking spaces be removed.
2. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic
generated, taking into consideration safety, separa-
tion from living areas, convenience, access, noise,
and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be
permitted if they,can be used by olice and fire
department vehicles for emer ency ur oses. Bicycle
traffic shall be considered and rovided when the
site is to be used for residential ur oses.
Applicant's Statement:
The access drive has been designed so as to
adequately serve the traffic needs of the
development. Due to the size of the project, the
need for a separate bicycle path does not exist.
Staff's Statement:
The project has been designed to meet Fire Department
and Public Works' design standards. Staff agrees
with the applicant that a project of this size does
not require a separate bicycle path. There is a
possibility that the road could be continued west
into Phase VI at a future date if desirable.
3. Functional Open S ace in Terms of: O timum
preservation of natural features (includin trees and
drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience and
function.
Applicant's Statement:
Approximately 700 of the site is devoted to open
space use in order to preserve significant features
of the site.
Staff's Statement:
The applicant has made a strong effort to preserve
the meadow area and wooded hillside as open space.
Staff believes that the road is necessary in order to
provide safe access into the project. It is true
that the access could have been directly off of
Lionsridge Loop to the structures built into the
hillside. However, staff did not prefer this site
planning approach, as it would have required very
high retaining walls which would have negative visual
impacts on adjacent properties. Secondly, direct
access to the units off of Lionsridge Loop encourages
parking problems along the Lionsridge Loop right-of-
way as well as snow plowing problems. The staff
prefers to see parking and access removed from the
Lionsridge Loop areas.
Once again, the staff would also recommend that the
western four parking spaces on the access road be
removed from the proposal to free up more open space.
Our opinion is that the 10 guest spaces on the
eastern portion of the site provide adequate overflow
parking for the 9 units. Even with the removal of
the four spaces, each unit would have one enclosed
space, one space in front of the garage, and one
guest parking space. Staff believes that three
spaces are adequate for each unit.
4. Variety: Variety in terms of: housinq type,
densities, facilities and open s ace:
Applicant's Statement:
Design guidelines will be adopted to govern the
character of the buildings. While these guidelines
will result in a certain uniformity among building
design, a certain amount of flexibility in building
design will exist.
Staff's Statement:
Staff supports the idea of using design guidelines to
provide some compatibility among the nine units that
will be constructed within this phase. If anything,
staff would like to ensure through the guidelines
that the units are developed in a compatible manner
so that there does not become too much variety in
terms of design.
5. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals,
families and neighbors:
Applicant's Statement:
Building envelopes are adequately separated in order
to provide spaces between residences and provide
privacy.
Staff's Statement:
The building envelopes are separated from each other
from a distance varying from approximately 18 feet to
27 feet. This separation provides a reasonable
amount of privacy between the residences.
6. Pedestrian Traffic in Terms of: Safety, se aration,
convenience, access to points of destination, and
attractiveness:
Applicant's Statement:
Due to the small size of the proposed project,
separated pedestrian ways are not needed.
Staff's Statement:
Staff agrees with the applicant.
7. Building Type in Terms of: appropriateness to
density, site relationship and bulk.
Applicant's Statement:
The building bulk requirements as established are
- appropriate for the scale of the site and its
surroundings.
Staff's Statement:
Staff agrees with the applicant.
8. Building Design in Terms of: orientation, s acin ,
materials, color and texture, stora e, si ns,
lighting, and solar blockage.
Applicant's Statement:
The buildings will be oriented to take advantage of
views into the open space and southern exposures.
The spacing between buildings is indicated upon the
site plan and provides areas for landscaping, light,
and air.
Materials have been specified within the design
guidelines for the project.
Landscaping will be strictly controlled by the
Homeowners' Association as well as the Vail Design
Review Board. Landscape provisions have been
included in the proposed covenants and are as
follows:
The concerns of the Committee shall be to improve the
appearance of the subdivision and the maintenance of
such appearance. Owners and their representatives or
builders will be required to:
a. Minimize disruption from grading.
b. Revegetate and restore ground cover for erosion
and appearance reasons.
c. Use indigenous species of plant materials as
established by the Committee.
d. Select the man-made elements that blend and are
compatible with the land.
e. Use existing or natural drainage paths whenever
possible.
f. Conserve and protect top soil, rock formations
and unique landscape features.
g. Sod such areas as determined by the Committee.
V. SDD ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The applicant has requested SDD zoning in order to allow
for greater design creativity and flexibility in certain
areas that would not be permissible under straight
Residential Cluster zoning or Single Family,
Primary/Secondary zoning. Below is a summary of the
special development district standards which have been
written to correspond to the Residential Cluster zone
district. Following the narrative for the special
development district is a comparison of the SDD standards
to straight Residential Cluster zoning.
A. Proposed Special Development District:
Purpose: The purpose of the establishment of the Elk
Meadows Special Development District is to allow greater
flexibility in the development of the land than would be
possible under the current zoning of the property. In
order to help preserve the natural and scenic features of
the site, building envelopes will be established which
designate the areas upon the site in which development
will occur. The establishment of these building envelopes
will also permit the phasing of the development to proceed
according to each individual owner's ability to construct
a residence.
Acreage: The total acreage of the site is 3.6 acres.
Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for the site are
proposed to be:
1. Single family residential dwellings
2. Two-family residential dwellings -
3. Open space
4. Public and private roads
Conditional Uses:
1. Public utility and public service uses
2. Public buildings, grounds and facilities
3. Public or private schools
4. Public park and recreation facilities
5. Ski lifts and tows
6. Private clubs
7. Dog kennel
Accessory Uses:
1. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses,
attached garages or carports, swimming pools,
patios, or recreation facilities customarily
incidental to single-family or two-family
residential uses.
2. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home
occupation permit in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through
18.58.190;
3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory
to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary
for the operation thereof;
4. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a
horse grazing permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 18.58.
Development Standards: Proposed development standards are
as follows:
l. Lot Area - Not'applicable; building envelopes
govern.
Building Envelopes
1. .07 acres
2. .07 acres
3. .06 acres
4. .05 acres
5. .10 acres
6. .O8 acres
7. .05 acres
Tract l: 2.53 acres open space
Tract 2: .61 acres roadaway and parking
* Tracts 1 and 2 acreages should be adjusted if
the west guest parking is removed.
2. Setbacks - Minimum setbacks for the location of
structures with relations to building envelope
perimeter lines shall be as follows:
a. No structure shall be located on the
utility easement as so designated on the
final plat of the subdivision.
b. No structure shall be located less than two
feet from either the east or the west
perimeter line.
c. No structure shall be located less than
three feet from the north perimeter line.
d. Notwithstanding anything contained
hereinabove to the contrary, roof overhangs
and decks may encroach into the setback
areas described in b and c so long as such
roof overhangs and decks are totally within
the perimeter lines of the building
envelope.
3. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA): A building
situated on a single unit residential building
envelope shall not contain more than 1,777
square feet of GRFA; a building situated on a
two unit residential building envelope shall not
contain more than 3,554 square feet of GRFA.
4. Building Height: Building height shall be 33
feet for a sloping roof.
5. Parking: Two parking spaces shall be provided
per unit with one of the two spaces being
enclosed.
6. Landscaping: The entire portion of the building
envelope not covered by pavement or buildings
shall be landscaped as well as any areas outside
the building envelope disturbed during
construction.
7. Design Guidelines: Design Guidelines to be
adopted for the site are as follows:
a. Roof pitch shall be 4 feet in 12 feet.
b. Roof material shall be metal and be either
charcoal grey or marina blue in color.
c. Siding material shall be either cedar or
redwood and shall be applied horizontally
as indicated on the prototypical building
elevations. Only light colored stain shall
be applied to siding.
d. Either stucco or siding shall be applied to
exposed concrete foundation walls. If
stucco is utilized, it shall be light in
, color.
e. All windows shall be white metal clad
windows.
f. All decks and balconies shall be
constructed utilizing 2 x 12 railings and
posts that are at least 4" x 411.
g. All roofs shall have overhangs of at least
1 foot in order to protect walls and wall
openings from rain and snow and to
contribute to the building's character.
8. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreation
amenities tax is .30 per square foot.
B. PROPOSED SDD IN COMPARISON WITH RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER ZONE
DISTRICT:
PROPOSED SDD RES CLUSTER
LOT SIZE: 1. .07 ac single unit 15,000 sf,
2. .07 ac single unit containing
3. .06 ac single unit no less than
4. .05 ac single unit 8,000 sf of
5. .10 ac duplex units buildable
6. .08 ac duplex units area
7. .05 ac single unit
.48 total bldg envelopes or
20,909 sf.
SETBACKS: Sides, 2 ft from bldg envelope line front 20'
Rear, 3 ft from bldg envelope line side, 15'
181-27' between bldg envelopes exists rear, 15'
HEIGHT: 33' sloping roof 33' slope
30' for flat roof does not apply 30' flat roof
as design guidelines requires
sloping roof
SITE COVERAGE: no standard for bldg envelopes 25% of site
GRFA: 16,000 16,000 per
annexation agree.
DENSITY: 9 units 10 units per
annexation agree.
LANDSCAPING: Tract l: 2.53 acres 60% of site
Open Space or 70% of the shall be
site is open space landscaped
PARKING: Requires 1 enclosed space, also Requires 1
will have 1 open space within enclosed spc,
bldg envelope + 1 guest space 2 spaces
The proposed SDD varies only slightly from the underlying
Residential Cluster zone district. Due to the fact that
building envelopes are being used, it is difficult to
compare the SDD to Residential Cluster zoning in respect
to lot size. The density is actually one unit less than
would be allowed without the SDD approach. Site coverage
is also difficult to compare in that the building
envelopes will be covered by buildings, but to what degree
the coverage will occur is impossible to determine until
the units are constructed. However, staff believes that
there is adequate open space around the building envelopes
to maintain an aesthetically pleasing amount of open space
and separation among the units. Setbacks also vary from
those that are required in a Residential Cluster zone
district. The separation among the building envelopes
varies from 18 feet to 27 feet. Staff believes that this
separation provides adequate space among the units. All
other development standards meet the underlying zone
district requirements for the Residential Cluster zone
district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Community Development recommends
approval of this proposal. Staff believes that the
request meets the intent of the major subdivision
regulations and special development district's zoning.
The proposal basically follows the underlying Residential
Cluster zoning and Planned Unit Development zoning
originally approved under Eagle County. It departs from
these guidelines in areas that are appropriate to revise
due to the need to preserve the meadow area and the site
constraints of the rockfall hazards and steep slopes.
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
ELK MEADOWS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The development of each building envelope will comply with
the environmental impact report, especially the design
recommendations cited by Mr. Dan Pettigrove in a letter
concerning design mitigations for rock fall hazards. Each
individual owner will be responsible for completing the
rockfall mitigation measure per the Pettigrove letter.
Studies will meet the standards outlined in Section
18.69.052 of the Town of Vail zoning code. An owner may
choose to have another qualified engineer/geologist design
appropriate rockfall mitigation measures, as long as the
mitigation solution does not have negative visual impacts
and is approved by the Town of Vail Community Development
Department and Town Engineer.
2. The proposed preliminary landscape plan and design review
guidelines will be reviewed by the Design Review Board for
their approval before final plat submittal.
3. The applicant agrees to revegetate the access road if the
general subdivision improvements are not completed by
September 1, 1989. General subdivision improvements are
defined in Section 17.16.150 of the Town of Vail
Subdivision Regulations.
4. The declaration of protective covenants for the Elk Meadow
Subdivision states that design guidelines may be adopted.
The staff would require that the wording be changed to
state that design guidelines shall be adopted. The full
paragraph would read:
"Guidelines for the development of the building
envelopes and tracts shall be adopted by the
Committee, which shall, among other things, interpret
and/or implement the provisions of these protective
covenants. Guidelines may be amended from time to
time with the majority vote of approval from the
Committee and approval of the Town of Vail Design
Review Board. The guidelines will be available from
the chair of the Design Committee and Town of Vail
Community Development Department."
5. The following engineering information will be submitted to
staff by June 15, 1987.
a. The revised master drainage plan.
b. The preliminary plan will be revised to show the new
turn-around dimension on the west end of the
property.
c. The road plan will have an engineer's stamp. The
preliminary plan will be adjusted for square footage
totals due to the removal of the four guest parking
spaces on the west end of the project.
d. A letter from Nick Lampiris will be submitted to
address the rock fall design requirements. A
graphic is suggested.
e. Gas line and fire hydrants will be indicated on the
utility plan in the appropriate areas.
* For information purposes, the staff would like to note
that the major subdivision requlations require the
completion of general improvements for the subdivision as
outlined in Section 17.16.150 to be installed within four
years of the date of PEC approval or the plat shall become
instantly invalid. All right to improve or develop the
property on the part of the owner or subdivider shall
thereby be relinquished. This requirement is stated in
Section 17.16.330 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations.
It shall also be noted that in respect to SDD approvals,
the applicant must begin construction of the special
development district within 18 months from the time of the
project's final approval according to Section 18.40.100 of
the Town of Vail zoning Code.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS CONCERNING THE VALLEY PHASE III
April 25, 1973: Conditional approval of the preliminary
plan by Eagle County which zoned The Valley
Planned Development (PD)
July 26, 1973: County Commissioners approve The Valley
preliminary plan and PUD. This approval is
good for three years. The approval
includes 150 units on 61.2 acres.
July 30, 1973: Eagle County Commissioners' special meeting
to confirm Valley approval.
July 26, 1976: The Valley preliminary plan and PUD
approval of July 26, 1973 expires. Some of
the units are under construction. The 120
units that have not been built will require
a new submittal starting with a sketch plan
and preliminary plan review (letter from
Ms. Susan Vaughn, 1977).
May 20, 1977: The Vail Town Council sends a letter to the
Eagle County Commissioners in favor of
extending the Valley's approval as long as
development is carried out according to the
preliminary plan and recreation amenities
are provided.
May 24, 1978: The Eagle County Commissioners grant an
extension of the Valley preliminary plan
approval. This approval would expire on
June 1, 1979. If the approval expires, it
would be required that sketch plan and
preliminary plan review information be
submitted. Also, if any change is made to
the present plan, it would have to be
reviewed by the County Commissioners.
November 13, 1979: Eagle County Commissioners review a sketch
plan and have several concerns.
March 26, 1980: A PUD plan and protective covenants docu-
ment is filed with the County which indi-
cates that Phase III is subject to the land
use restrictions of 10 units and a total
GRFA of 16,000 square feet.
March 27, 1980: Resolution No. 80-20 allowed the phases of
The Valley to be sold separately without
any further compliance with the subdivision
regulations.
April 16, 1980: The Eagle County Planning Commission
reviews a sketch plan for Phase III. The
Planning Commission suggests that the units
be tucked into the hillside on the
northeast side of the project and that the
developer use berming and landscaping to
buffer the project. Staff recommends
approval of the sketch plan.
April 16, 1980: Town of Vail staff sends letter to the
Eagle County Planning Commission which
recommends more tighter, clustered layout
of the buildings toward the hillside. Vail
staff also recognizes the steep hillside
and sensitivity of the meadow area. Letter
from Peter Patten and Dick Ryan.
April 30, 1980: The Eagle County Commissioners reviews the
sketch plan that the Planning Commission
saw on April 16, 1980. The sketch plan
shows 10 townhomes on Phase III.
May 5, 1980: A resolution is passed by the County
allowing three years for the developers to
file preliminary plans from the March 26,
1980 PUD plan approval date.
December 1980: Ordinance No. 43 annexes the West Vail area
including Phase III of The Valley.
March 17, 1981: The Town of Vail Council applies zoning to
The Valley which was recently annexed. The
ordinance was No. 13, Series of 1981.
March 15, 1983: Resolution No. 6, Series of 1983, the Town
Council approves rezoning of The Valley.
Sept. 11, 1985: The Valley is de-annexed from the Town.
Summer 1986 A development proposal is submitted to
Eagle County by Lamar Capital Corporation.
The proposal begins with a sketch
plan/preliminary plan review.
Nov. 5, 1986 The Lamar Capital Corporation Phase III
proposal is withdrawn from the County due
to complications with the time lines for
review and how they will relate to the
property being re-annexed to the Town of
Vail.
May 16, 1986 A grading permit is released by the County
for an access road into Phase III. The
applicant is Lamar Capital Corporation.
May 6, 1987 The road work on Phase III is red-tagged by
Eagle County.
May 7, 1987: Red tag is removed by Eagle County.
May 11, 1987 The Valley is re-annexed into the Town.
May 11, 1987; The Road is red-tagged by the Town of Vail
May 11, 1987: The Road is red-tagged by Eagle County.
May 11, 1987: Lamar Capital Corporation submits a major
subdivision and special development
district zoning request for Phase III.
°
ORDINANCE N0. 20
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM
THE TOWN OF VAIL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, AND THE REAL
ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND OF THE 1987 BUDGET AND
FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS
AS SET FORTH HEREIN.
WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 1987 which could not
have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it
enacted Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1986, adopting the 1987 Budget and Financial
Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Town has received certain revenues not budgeted for previously; and
WWEREAS, the Town Manager had certified to the Town Council that sufficient
funds are available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not
otherwise reflected in the Budget, in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter
of the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it
should make certain supplemental appropriations as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail,
Colorado, that:
Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the
Town Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations for the 1987
Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the
expenditure of said appropriations as follows:
FUND AMOUNT
Capital Projects Fund $547,400
Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 379,100
TOTAL $926,500
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED 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, Vail, Colorado.
F. 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
-2-
TL 5/29/87
TOWN OF VAIL
Supplemental Appropriations
GENERAL FtTND
PROPOSED
ACCOtTNT ITEM SLIPPLEMENTAL
C11-0300-52120 Manager's Housing Allowance (g,gpp)
01-2100-51210 Recreation Plan roll-forward 12,000
01-2100-51210 Retail Market Study 11,800
01-0100-51210 Legal Fees - Singletree 8,800
01-0100-51210 Professional Fees - Carl Neu 3,000
01-0100-51210 Homestake II Consultant 1,000
01-°400-52809 4tri of July Youth Events 11,000
01-8300-52833 25th Anniversary Committee 5,000
01-8300-52806 Cloud Seeding 16,000
01-8300-52834 Vail Arts Festival Banners 1,200
01-6100-52869 Aquatic Center Task Force 3,000
01-6600-50100 Additional Teen Center Emplayee 5,300
01-6600-53100 Teen Center Maintenance 4,500
01-6600-51103 New Year's Eve Teen Event - Advertising 700
01-6600-52416 New Year's Eve Teen Event - Operating 3,300
01-8400-52807 Coors Bicycle Race 1,900
01-0100-52857 Council Contingency (81,700)
GENERAL FUND TOTAL C)
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
PROPOSED
ACCOUNT ITEM SITPPLEMENTAL
507 Youth Center Remodel roll-forward 2,500
701 People Mover Study roll-forward 24,000
902 4-Way Stop Improvment; roll-forward 54,000
502 Arena Mechanical Dampers roll-forward 9,000
508 Old Town Shops Remodel roll-forward 33,600
404 I-70 Interchange 235,000
401 Forest Road Bridge 3,000
403 Black Gore Bridge 25,000
704 Congress Hall Study 48,800
110 Additional Street Maintenance 50,000
530 Recreational Paths Maintenance 60,000
512 Childrens` Fountain Repair 5,000
201 Street Lights - Gore Creek Promenade 8,000
907 Ice Arena Path 3,000
903 Town Residence Improvements 34,500
501 , TOV Shop Improvements (48,000)
CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL 547,400
t'
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND
PROPOSED
ACCOt1NT ITEM SIIPPLEMENTAL
3Q-9334-XXXXX Softball Fields Upgrade 25,000
30-9335-XXXXX Gold Medal Trout Stream 5,000
30-9336-XXXXX Ford Park Development - l, lb, lc designs 50,900
30-9337-XXXXX Rec. Paths & Town Landscaping - Plans 59,000
Neighborhood Park Designs 14,600
30-9337-XXXXX Cascade Eike Path 60,000
Buffehr Park Construction 51200
Righorn Park Construction (no dredging) 55,,900
________________Sandstone Park Construction 57,500
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX TOTAL 379,100
RESOLUTION NO. 20
Series of 1987
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 14 (DOUBLETREE HOTEL)
FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS
WHEREAS, the owner of the Doubletree Hotel has requested
that the approvals granted by Ordinance #5 of 1986 be extended;
and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has unanimously recommended that the Town Council extend this.
approval; and
WHEREAS, the development of this property as prescribed by
Ordinance #5 of 1986 will be a benefit to the health, safety
and welfare of the inhabitants of the'Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
The approvals granted by Ordinance #5 of 1986 are herein
extended for a period of twelve (12) months.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of
June, 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor I
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 9, 1987
SUBJECT: A request to extend the approval of Special
Development District No. 14 (Doubletree Hotel)
Applicant: Vail Holdings, Ltd. Partnership
The attached memorandums and ordinance provide background
pertaining to this request. A number of issues relevant to
this application were discussed at the Planning Commission's
review. Among these include a strong concern that the interim
landscape plan for the Doubletree be completed as soon as
possible. It was also suggested that the developers of the
Doubletree establish contact with the Vail Valley Medical
Center relative to the possibility of constructing a joint use
parking structure. Additional information will be provided to
the Council concerning these issues at Tuesday's meeting.
The Planning Commission action was to recommend the approval of
this SDD be extended for a period of 12 months. If approved as
per this recommendation, the approval of the SDD would then be
extended to September 18, 1988. The Planning Commission also
requested the staff to pass along to the Council their concern
over the existing parking requirements. It was their hope that
an independent study could be done of existing parking
requirements to evaluate whether Town regulations are
appropriate. This issue was raised relative to the
Doubletree's proposal and the present shortfall of parking as
required by Town codes.
. .rT0: Planning and Environmental Commission
C`
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request to extend the approval of Special
Development District No. 14 (Doubletree Hotel).
Applicant: Vail Holdings, Ltd. Partnership
The approval of a special development district expires after 18
months if construction of the project is not initiated.
Approval of SDD No. 14, which allows for a major expansion of
the existing Doubletree Hotel, expires in July of 1987. The
applicant has requested an extension of this approval for
another 18 month period. The Planning Commission's action on
this application is advisory. Any final approval of extending
this zoning requires the review and approval of a resolution by
the Town Council.
ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PROPOSAL
The two main issues relative to this redevelopment centered
around parking and additional density (see enclosed memo to
~ Planning Commission dated February 24, 1986.) Specifically,
the staff was uncomfortable with the significant amount of
additional density with the absence of an overall land use
plan, and the proposed parking that was 50 spaces short of what
is required. The applicant has requested approval for the
identical project as was approved in 1986.
The recently adopted Land Use Plan has enabled some re-
evaluation of our previous position relative to
density. Given the outcome of the Land Use Plan, the staff
would not present such strong concerns for the additional
density as was stated in 1986. This is due to the fact that
there was a preference in the community for concentrating
density in the existing core areas, and more specifically, near
the Frontage Road.
Goals from the Land Use Plan include:
2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a
destination resort while accommodating day visitors.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best
location for hotels to serve the future needs of the
destination skiers.
~ 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so
long as the existing character of each area is
preserved through implementation of the Urban Design
Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
~
~
. , .
~ 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market
place demands for a full range of housing types.
The shortfall of parking spaces proposed with this development
is still a major concern to the staff. We continue to hold the
position that private developments should build the required
parking to avoid the significant problems in the longer term.
As Vail Mountain becomes more and more developed and skier
numbers increase, there will not be available overflow parking
in public structures to make up the short fall. For this
reason, we cannot support the extension of this special
development district.
~
i } .
c 'y•
'
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 24, 1986
SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot 2, Block l, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from
High Density Multiple Family to Special Development District in
order to develop an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums, and
3,350 square feet of ineeting rooms/conference space at the
Doubletree Hotel.
Applicant: Vail Holdings, a Limited Partnership
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
A request has been made to the Town of Vail to rezone the Doubletree
Hotel site from High Density Multiple Family zoning to a Special
Development District. This proposal is requested in order to allow for
additional development on the site. The rezoning is required because the
present level of development is over that allowed under existing zoning.
The development proposed with this application includes 92 lodge rooms, 5
condominiums, and 3,350 square feet of additional meeting room space.
The following table illustrates how this proposal relates to the existing
development on the site as well as that allowed under the existing
' zoning:
ZONING ANALYSIS OF DOUBLETREE HOTEL
Site area 2.6298 acres or 114,554 square feet
ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL
UNDER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
HDMF ZONING
Units:
65 du's 83 du's 51 du's 134 du's
(19 condos (5 condos (24 condos
128 lodge rooms) 92 lodge rooms) 220 lodge
rooms)
25 units/ac 31.5 units/ac 19 units/ac 50.95/ac
GRFA:
68,732 sq ft 73,577 sq ft 42,576 sq ft 116,153 sq ft
Parking Req'd 52 enclosed 200 enclosed 200 enclosed
198 spaces 115 surface 11 surface 11 surface
~ Req'd 261 spaces
Meeting room space: 4040 sq ft 3350 sq ft 7350 sq ft
^ L
. y L
~ While this table illustrates some of the more significant elements
related to this proposal, there are other zoning considerations to be
made when evaluating this application. These and other aspects of this
development plan will be highlighted throughout this memorandum.
II. BACKGROUND ON REVIEW PROCESS TO DATE
Following the acquisition of this property by Vail Holdings, Inc., a
major renovation of the existing facility was completed during the summer
and fall of 1985. It was at this time that the staff first began a
dialogue with the developers and their designers concerning the
feasibility of additional development of this site. To date, the staff
has spent a considerable amount of time with the designers of this
project resulting in a number of additions and modifications to the
originally proposed development plans. To assist in this process, the
t tL~ L_li i_ L._• ~ rr
dCVC'IU~JCI'J dyi'eeu' ~u Nuy Liie ui li Lu u~~liiy Uei lWinston 111 dS a design
consultant for the Town. This is similar to the role Jeff played in the
review of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn proposal last year. In
addition to this review, a work session was held for the Town Council and
Planning and Environmental Commission in November to brief them on the
concepts being proposed in this plan.
As is the case with any rezoning request, final decisions concerning this
application are made by the Town Council. The Planning Commission review
is advisory to the Council and any approval of this plan would involve
the adoption of a new ordinance granting the rezoning request.
~
III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
As stated in the_zoning code, the purpose of special development
districts is to:
18.40.010 Purpose
The purpose of the special development districts is to encourage
flexibility_in the development of land in order to promote its
appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of
new development; to facilitate the adequate and economic
provisions of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural
and scenic features of open areas.
Historically, SDD's have been proposed in Vail to allow for the
development of sites that would be unable to do so under conventional
zoning. Examples of these projects would include Valli Hi where density
increases were allowed in exchange for restrictions on the property to
ensure their use as employee housing, or the Vail Village Inn whose mixed
use character required the SDD zoning. More often than not, however, SDD
zone districts have been requested to allow for increases in densities
over what existing zoning on the site would allow. This is the case with
this application.
~ There are a number of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a request
of this nature. Foremost among these are the nine design standards that
3
are listed in the zoning code. As stated in the code, "The development
/ plan for the Special Development Districts shall meet each of the
( following standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them is not
applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest has been achieved." In addition to these criteria, it is
important to consider the underlying zoning as a point of reference in
evaluating this request. These zoning considerations as well as other
issues that have been raised during the course of this review will be
addressed in this memo.
IU. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS
The following are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates to
the design standards as outlined in the zoning code.
A. A buffer zone shall be provided in any special development district
that is adjacent to low density residential uses. The buffer zone
must be kept free of buildings or structures, and must be
landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that
adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may
require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the
proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual
privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, and other
comparable potentially incompatible factors.
The buffer zone referred to in this design standard is specifically for
~ SDO's proposed adjacent to low density residential uses. Zone districts
adjacent to this property include high density multi-family and the
public use districts. Consequently, this standard is not directly
applicable. However, with a few exceptions, the proposal is within the
existing zone district's required 20 foot setback.
B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated,
taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas,
convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal
streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire
Department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traff-ic may be
consadered and provided when the site is to be used for residential
purposes. -
The proposed site plan involves a number of changes to the existing
vehicular access.to the property. Among these are the addition of a new
access point to service the loading and trash facilities, the removal of
an existing road cut to the hotel entrance, and the development of a
newly aligned entry to the hotel. As a part of the environmental impact
report for this project, a traffic report was done that evaluated trip
generation anticipated from both the existing and proposed development on
the site. One conclusion of this study is that both left and right turn
lanes be provided as an element of this development proposal. In
addition to satisfying the recommendations of the traffic report, if
,i approved, slight grading changes would be necessary to the main entry to
the facility as per Town of Vail engineer's request. It should be noted
that any changes to the road cuts requiring State Highway approval would
have to be obtained prior to the issuance of any building permit for this
development.
4
~ C. Functional open space in terms of: Optimum preservation of natural
features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views,
convenience, and function.
One change proposed in this plan relative to functional open space is
with respect to the Middle Creek area. At the present time this area is
overgrown with vegetation with no real relationship to the existing
facility. Landscape improvements are proposed in this area of the site,
as well as on the Town of Vail stream tract, in order to open the access
to this stream. While a limited amount of landscape materials would be
removed to allow for this development, a preliminary landscape plan has
been submitted indicating a substantial increase in plant materials on
the site. The views/spacial analysis provided in the environmental
impact report indicates that there are no real significant view impacts
with respect to vantage points along the Frontage Road and Interstate.
The scale of the buildings, coupled with the grade change from the
Frontage road to the site, has mitigated the potential view blockage from
this addition. Short range views from some units in the Vail
International Condominiums would be affected by the expansion proposed to
the north of the existing building.
D. Uariety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open
space.
~ With the exception of the five condominium units, the residential
development proposed with this SDD is short term lodging. Other
facilities on site in addition to the meeting room space include indoor
jacuzzis, an outdoor pool, a restaurant, a nightclub, and limited
commercial. Also, see Section VI on Lodge Rooms and Condominium
Restrictions.
E. Privacy in terms of the needs of: Individuals, families and
neighbors.
Given the nature of the uses on this site, as well as the uses on
adjacent sites, staff can see no factors with respect to privacy.
F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: Safety, separation, convenience,
- access to points of destination, and attractiveness.
At the present time, guests of the Doubletree are provided with a
pedestrian linkage to Meadow Drive in order to utilize the Town of Vail
bus system. With this proposed addition, an extension of this walkway is
included linking the existing walkway with the Post Office/Municipal
Building area. This walkway runs along the south side of the property.
~
5
G. Building type in terms of: Appropriateness to density, site
~ relationship and bulk.
It is felt that the designers of this project have done a commendable job
in relating this addition to the existing structure. Specifically, the
additions are done in a way that helps reduce the mass of the existing
tower. As was referred to earlier, the grade change from the Frontage
Road to the site has allowed for a design that does not appear to add
considerable bulk to the site and works to enhance the overall visual
quality as compared to the existing building.
H. Building design in terms of: Orientation, spacing, materials,
color and texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage.
As is the case with the massing of this proposal, the siting of the
proposed additions work well with the existing tower. The extensions of
the existing building help "step" the building off the Frontage Road.
Considerations such as materials, color/texture, signs, and lighting
would all be addressed at the Design Review Board level if this project
were approved. A sun/shade analysis in the environmental impact report
demonstrates that the proposed expansions would have a negligible effect
on the Frontage Road.
I. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: Purposes, types,
maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood.
~ The proposed landscape plan shows 37% of the site being landscaped. This
does not include portions of adjacent property between the Doubletree
site and the State Highway Department right-of-way that would also be
landscaped. It should be noted, however, that this area is required to
be landscaped. Particular attention has been paid to the loading/trash
area as well as the surface parking that is on the site. A considerable
amount of material is proposed in this area in order to screen this
portion of the site.
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL
With the approval of an SDD, the development plan submitted establishes
the development standards for the property. These would address the
standard zoning considerations that are outlined in other zone districts.
In evaluating this development plan, it is important to consider the standards established in the underlying, or existing zoning. The
following is an analysis of these considerations:
Uses
There are no changes to existing uses that would not be allowed
under HDMF zoning.
~
U
~ Densit
Aside from the important site planning issues which must be
discussed, the overriding issue is how to deal with the request for
significant additional density. While the Town deals with requests
for additional density quite frequently, seldom are requests made
of this magnitude. Historically, the staff has not supported
requests for densities above that allowed under existing zoning.
While there have been notable exceptions, the Planning Commission
and Town Council have also been quite critical of requests for
density increases. The growth management report of 1977 and a
general concern of allowing additional development in what is
perceived by many to be an overdeveloped Valley, are often cited as
reasons for denying additional density requests.
Prompted in large part by the Sonnenalp request in 1984, the Town
has been working on the Vail Village Study for over a year. One of
the goals of the study is to evaluate the potential for additional
density in the Village area. This potential is evaluated based
more on design considerations than on what is necessarily allowed
under existing zoning regulations. In conjunction with this
evaluation, goals and objectives are being established to outline
improvements that should be done to the Village in conjunction with
this development. A trade off, or bonus system, is to be developed
that would allow for additional densities in exchange for
substantial return to the community in the form of public
~ improvements or other exactions. It is important to note that this
system is_being proposed after a comprehensive evaluation of the
entire study area that has identified both the improvements to be
made as well as where additional density could be accommodated in a
sensitive manner. It is also important that during the public
process that has taken place for the Uillage Study, there was not a
uniform response in favor of considering additional density in the
Village. However, there has been support for a system that would
allow density increases in conjunction with the comprehensive study
of this type combined with a substantial return by the developer in
the form of public improvements.
Given the submittal before us, it is unfortunate that the
Doubletree Inn is not located within the Vail Village Study Area.
It is equally unfortunate that a Town-wide land use plan is only in
its early stages of development and not near completion as is the
case with the Village Study. The land use plan would provide the
staff a better understanding of the implications that this project
may have relative to other development potentials in the Valley.
~
. i • 7
~ While specific analysis of the Doubletree site would indicate that
some degree of additional density could be accommodated, the
concern of the staff is how this request relates to Town-wide
development issues. For example, the traffic report for the
Doubletree suggests that trip generations to the site can be
accommodated off of the Frontage Road. But what would a cumulative
impact have on the Frontage Road if similar requests for density
increases were to be granted in this area? Likewise, it has been
stated that the design impacts on the Doubletree site are positive
from a standpoint of reducing the mass of the existing tower.
However, without a comprehensive analysis, the staff is
uncomfortable of what implications this proposal may have on other
properties located along the frontage road. Another important
consideration is a system of trade-offs that would be established
for increased density in the Village. While there has been a
formal discussion with the developers on what public improvements
could be provided in conjunction with this development, without a
Town-wide analysis, the staff is unable to provide recommendations
as to appropriate trade-offs for this grant of additional density.
Setbacks
The proposed addition encroaches into the required 20 foot setback
in four areas. While three of these areas are along the Frontage
Road and involve only a few feet, there is a considerable
encroachment along the west end of the property adjacent to Middle
~ Creek. A portion of this encroachment involves the infill of an
area underneath an existing deck. However, new construction to
accommodate a pre-function area for the meeting rooms is proposed
to be constructed up to the property line. The staff had requested
this area to be re-evaluated in an effort to reduce this
encroachment on Middle Creek. It is important to maintain some
amount of setback of buildings from the property line in this area.
r Height
The proposed additions do not exceed the 48 foot height limitation
in the HDMF zone district. The existing tower is 72 feet in
height. _
Site Coverage
S.ite coverage allowed under the HDMF zone district is 55%. This
plan includes 47% of the site being covered by buildings.
~ Landscaping
As has been mentioned, 37% of the site is landscaped. This exceeds
a 30% requirement for the HDMF zone district.
~
, ,8
ParkinA
~
There are a number of approaches that can be taken in evaluating
what the required parking is for this development. Regardless of
how the numbers are calculated, the proposed development does not
meet the parking that would be required for this level of
development. There are 167 parking spaces on the site that can be
considered a grandfathered situation (current requirements for the
existing development on the site would be 198 spaces). The new
development proposed for the site would require 94 spaces (this
includes a 5% multi-use reduction as well as a 50% reduction for
the required parking for the meeting room space). Considering the
167 grandfathered spaces, an additional 44 spaces are being added
to the site to accommodate the new development proposed. This
results in a net deficit of 50 parking spaces on the site. In
evaluating the parking required, the staff is comfortable with a
total of 261 spaces to be provided on site. It should be noted
that this figure of 261 spaces gives the applicant consideration
for a 50% reduction of spaces for a meeting room facility as well
as an interpretation that acknowledges a 25 space shortfall that is
present at this time. Without these considerations, the required
parking on the site could be as high as 316 spaces. It is felt
that the 261 figure is both realistic from a planning standpoint as
well as reasonable in terms of the interpretations that have been
made.
~ VI. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
Fire Department Issues
At the present time, the Fire Department has not signed off on this
design because of inadequate access and operational widths for the
additional development proposed for the site. Final determinations
regarding code requirements will be made at the building permit
review if this project is approved. Any significant changes to the
site plan that may result from this review would require Planning
Commission approval if made.
Easements
As._.proposed, the underground parking structure and portions of the
lodge addition would encroach on existing utility easements. If
approved, the design of the underground parking structure would
allow access to these utility lines. Construction on these
easements would require approvals of all utility companies prior to
the issuance of any building permit for this project.
1
~
. . g ,
Restrictions on Lodqe Rooms and Condominiums
~ The staff has r
equested and the applicant has agreed that the
accommodation units proposed in this plan would be developed as
lodge rooms. This would mean that if a proposal to convert these
units to condominiums were to be made, they would be reviewed with
respect to the criteria outlined in the condominium conversion
ordinance (i.e. if approved for conversion to condos, they would be
restricted to short-term rentals). In addition, the applicant has
agreed to restrict the conversion of these units to a time share
form of ownership for 20 years. The staff has also requested that
the use of the 5 condominiums be limited by those restrictions
outlined in the condominium conversion ordinance. This would
assure the Town that these units would be in the rental pool 48
weeks of the year.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As demonstrated in this memo, the proposed development plan
satisfactorily addresses a number of design standards outlined in the SDD
zone district. The plan presented provides a number of significant
improvements to the existing site conditions on the property. However,
the plan is significantly short of what the staff feels to be the
required parking for this level of development. In addition to the
shortfall of 50 parking spaces, staff also questions the high percentage
~ of valet spaces within the structured parking area. As proposed, 76 of
the 200 spaces would require valet service for utilization. Staff is
also disappointed to see the proposed surface parking on the site. While
the location of these surface spaces is not highly visible, it would be
much preferred to have the parking entirely enclosed.
It is the feeling of the staff that this project's inability to meet the
parking requirements is an indication that the development proposed is in
excess of what the site is capable of handling. The development proposed
includes 134 dwelling units. This number is over twice that allowed
under existing zoning. To even consider supporting a project that is
requesting this dramatic increase in density while not meeting its
parking requirement is inconceivable to the staff. It is the reeling of
the staff that it is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate how it is
satisfying the development standards of the Town. With an SDD rezoning
request to allow for this increase in density, it is the feeling of the
staff that this application should meet and exceed the respective minimum
or maximum development standards of the Town to show the highest quality
development possible. This project has not demonstrated that it is
meeting this objective.
The staff feels the parking requirements as described in the zoning code
for those types of uses on this site are valid. Here again, it should be
emphasized that the required parking acknowledges a 50% reduction in
meeting room space, the multi-use credits, as well as acceptance of the
~ grandfathering of the existing situation. The Town simply cannot afford.
to make concessions with regard to parking. We cannot risk the creation
of a parking problem with respect to private developments as this will
aggravate the problem of providing skier parking. This becomes
particularly true when considering a request for such a significant
increase in density.
! .
1 0
~ Without the information afforded us through the completion of a land use
plan and policies applicable to these types of density increase
proposals, the staff is not in a position to support density increases of
this magnitude. Approval of this proposal would establish a significant
precedent with respect to a Town policy on density increases within the
Town. A land use plan is an important tool in evaluating proposals of
this nature or other issues such as the potential land trade at the Lodge
and Spraddle Creek sites. The Planning Commission is strongly urged to
consider these implications when evaluating this request.
~
~
r
• . .
~ ORDINANCE N0.5
Series of 1986
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT (KNOWN AS SDD N0. 14) AND THE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL
MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD
THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development
districts within the Town; and
WHEREAS, Vail Holdings, a Colorado Limited Partnership, has submitted an •
application for special development approval for a certain parcel of property
within the Town known as Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing, to be known
as Special Development District 14, and commonly referred to as the Doubletree
Hotel; and I
WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 14 will insure unified and
~
coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the
area in which it is situated; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD;
and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and
beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish
said Special Development District No. 14;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report.
The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code
have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the
Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed
development plan for SDD 14.
Section 2. Special Development District 14
Special Development District 14 (SDD 14) and the development plan therefore,
are hereby approved for the development of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead
Second Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of 2.6298 acres or 114,554 I
~ square feet, more or less.
~
Section 3. Pur ose :
~ Special Development District 14 is established to ensure comprehensive
development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general
character of the Town of Vail and to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of
a key property in the Town. The development is regarded as complementary to the
Town by the Town Council and meets all design standards as set forth in Section
18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special Development District 14 which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the
standards in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. SDD 14 is
compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while
maintaining its unique character.
Section 4. Development Plan
A. The development plan for SDD 14 is approved and sha'll constitute the plan
~ for development within the special development district. The development
plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Anthony Pellechia,
Architects as dated December 27, 1985, and consists of the following
documents:
1. Site plan
2. Preliminary landscape plan by Berridge and Associates, Inc.
3. Typical floor plans
4. Elevations and sections
5. The Environmental Impact Report dated January, 1986 as prepared by
Berridge and Associates, Inc.
B. The Development P.lan shall adhere to the following:
Setbacks Setbacks shall be noted as on the site plan listed above.
Height
Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the elevations listed
above.
Coverage
Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above.
Landscaping
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the
~ preliminary landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted
to the Design Review Board for their approval.
2
. ~ ~ ~
.
~ Parking and Loading
Parking and loading shall be provided as indicated on the site plan and
floor plans as listed above. In no case shall the parking provided on
site be less than 211 spaces with 200 of those spaces underground and a
maximum of 11 located on the surface. Parking access shall be controlled
by a gate (or similar structure) or by an attendant or by other
acceptable methods.
Section 5. Densjty
Existing development on the site consists of 128 accommodation units and 19
dwelling units consisting of 73,577 square feet of gross residential floor area.
The approval of this development plan shall permit an additional 92
accommodation units and 5 dwelling units, consisting of 42,576 square feet of
~ gross residential floor area. The total density permitted with the approval of
this development plan consists of 220 accommodation units and 24 dwelling units
with a total of 116,153 square feet of gross residential floor area.
Section 6. Uses
Permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be as set forth in the High
Density Multiple Family zone district.
Section 7. Amendments
Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance
may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly
scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060.
~ Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be
required to_be approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been
followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes
a change in the substance of the development plan. .
~
3
; : ~ ~ ~
• ~
Section 8. Expiration
~ The applicant must begin construction of the special development district within
18 months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward
the completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently
work toward the completion of the special development district or any stage of
the special development district within the time limits imposed by the preceding -
subsection, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the special
development district. They shall recommend to the 7own Council that either the
approval of the special development district be extended, that the approval of
the special development district be revoked, or that the special development
district be amended.
Section 9. Conditions of Approvals for Special Development District 14
A. The development contained within SDD 14 shall not be converted to any
~ form of time share ownership for a period of 20 years from the date of
the approval of this ordinance. The applicant agrees to limit the use of
any new dwelling units approved with this development plan to those
restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075.A, Condominium Conversion, of
the Vail Municipal Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth in Section
17.26.075 of the Mun'ic) pal Code of the Town of Vail shall not apply to
~
the dwelling units during any period during which they are owned by any
i
individual who is also an owner of the Doubletree Hotel.
B. The 92 additional accommodation units permitted with the approval of SDD
14 shall be developed as lodge rooms under a single ownership. Any
~ proposal to condominiumize the accommodation units would require approval
as per the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vail.
C. The applicant shall bear all costs related to the design and construction
of the right turn deceleration lane and left turn lane as recommended in
the transportation element of the Environmental Impact Report. These
improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy for any new residential units developed on the
C site.
4
. • ' ~ ~ ~
• • .
. , .
D. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall ~ demonstrate that all required approvals from the State Highway Department
for changes to access off the South Frontage Road have been obtained.
E. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any
improvement in SDD 14, the owner or owners of SDD 14 shall grant an
easement to the Town of Vail for the use of the public for access across
SDD 14 to the Vail Valley Medical Center located on lots E and F, Vail
Village Second Filing, County of Eagle and State of Colorado.
F. . Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any
improvement in SDD 14, the owner or owners thereof shall pay into the
Town of_Vail_parking fund the__sum of $235,000.00. The amount of
$235,000.00 shall be firm for six months. After a six month period, the
~ Town shall have the right to increase said sum to reflect the increased
costs of building parking spaces within the Town.
The owner or owners of SDD 14 shall have the option of paying the parking
fee in its entirety at or before the issuance of any building permit, or
in the alternative may pay the fee in five equal installments of 20% of
the entire fee. Should the owner or owners choose to pay the parking fee
in installments, they shall pay the first installment to the Town of Vail
at or before the issuance of the building permit and at said time shall
issue a promissory note to the Town requiring the issuer to pay the rest
of the parking fee in four equal annual installments of principal and
interest payable on the anniversary date of the first payment and each
~ year thereafter at a yearly interest rate of 10% until paid in full. The
promissory note shall be secured by a deed of trust on the property
included within SDD 14 and the form of both the promissory note and the
deed of trust shall be as determined by the Town Attorney.
~
5
`~~r. . . • ~
~r~. ~ •
• -
i io
° Szcton
.
fany Part, section> subsection> sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
~.,...x~; :
"-=;S for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
,,alidity 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 11. 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 12.
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 18th DAY OF March
~ 1986, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 18th day
of March , 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the
i
Uail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 18th day of arc 1986. ~
~
Paul R. Jo"~/ton, Mayor
~ATTE T
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk ;
i
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ~
in full this lst day of A ril , 1986.
. Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem
'
ATTEST;:
4a,
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
6
, ,~rRES7-ElY~-I . 1lBJElV/ •
J uC.K I,LU(-t(.Vl Yteve
Bub Kenda.P.t
Rab Fvn.d
AGENDA , CaZi,n Gteason
REGULAR MEETING Lwvcy E4fuv,ith
LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY A~t Abp.ea.na,2p, neryc.esewt.i.ng the Baand
JUNE 10, 1987 Pam Bn.andmeyet
10:00 A.M.
1. Consideration of the Board of the following
modification of premises:
a. Vai1 Oasis Corp., dba, the Uptown Gri11 Apptoved UKavu.mUUb.e.y.
b. Lancelot, Inc., dba, the Lancelot Restaurant Cont.i.nc.ied t0 7-8-87.
c. Koumbaros, Inc., dba, the Clocktower Cafe Cawti.nued tv 7-8-87.
d. Sweet Basi 1, Inc., dba, Sweet Basi 1 Conti,NCCed ta 7-8-87.
e. Henault Investments, Inc., dba, Blu',s Beanery Cant.i.nued ta 7-8-87.
f. J. Ila Buckley, dba, Torino's Restaurant and Cavrt.i.nue.d to 7-8-87.
Bar
g. Bridge Street Restaurant Association, dba, CavLt.i.rw.ed to 7-8-87.
Vendetta's
2. Consideration of the Board of the following items CavLti.vu.c.ed ta 7-8-87.
for Vail Village Plaza Liquors, Inc., dba, Vail
Village Plaza Liquors:
a. Corporate Structure Change, as follows -
1) Josef Staufer 33-1/3% stock
2) Anne P. Staufer 33-1/3% stock
3) Fran Moretti 33-1/3% stock
b. Manager Registration - Josef Staufer
3. Consideration of the Qoard of a manager registration '
fior Vail Food Services, Inc., dba, the Golden Peak
Restaurant:
a. Caren Lynn Li 1 j enberg Apptoved Unari,imausty.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Board of an Apptoved uvi.a.nimac.,6.ey, with /speciat
appl icati on by the Vai 1 Eagl e Val l ey Rotary C1 ub, for c~~~e/tatiUn ta be given ta
a Special Events Permit - malt, vinous, and spirituous ctean-up and .6ecwr.i,ty.
beverages - at the location of Tract B, Vail Village
Seventh Filing, Golden Peak, on July 4, 1987, from
10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Board of an Apptoved Unani.mvu~s.ey.
application by the Colorado Environmental Coalition,
in conjunction with the Sierra Club Rocky Mountain
Chapter, for a Special Events Permit - malt, vinous,
and spirituous beverages - at the location of the
Vail Public Library Community Room, 292 West Meadow
Drive, on July 2, 1987, from 2:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.
and on July 5, 1987, from 2:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Board of an Apptoved Unavumvuzty.
application by the Vail Valley Foundation, for a Special Events Permit - malt, vinous, and spirituous
beverages - at the location of Ford Park, the Ford
Amphitheater, 530 South Frontage Road East, on
July 11, 12, and 16, 1987, from 2:00 P.M. to
11:00 P.M. each day.
7. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Board of an Apptoved Una.wunauzty.
application by the Town of Vail, for a Special
Events Permit - malt, vinous, and spirituous
beverages - at the location of Bighorn Park, 4810
Meadow Drive, on July 10, 1987, from 9:00 A.M.
to 10:00 P.M.
LOCAL LIQUOR LiCENSING AUTHORITY
REGULAR MEETING
PAGE TWO
JUNE 10, 1987
8. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Board of an Appnaved Unawtmoc.us.ey.
application for a new license, Beer and Wine
Liquor License, by J.A.M.E. Corp., dba, the
Fountain Gafe and Restaurant, at the location of
223 Gore Creek Drive, Vail, Colorado, and listing
the following officers and directors:
a. President/Treasurer/Director/,50% shareholder -
Erwin Erb
b. Vice-President/Secretary/Director/50% share-
holder - Maria Erb
c. Director - Paula Bolter
d. itegistered Manager - Mari-a Erb Appnaved Unavumvu.zZy.
9. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Board of Appnoved Una.wima".2y.
the continuation and.revision of an application
for a new license, Beer and Wine Liquor License,
by Larkim Enterprises, Inc., dba, Kowloon, at
the location of 2161 North Frontage Road, Vail,
Colorado, with the following officers, directors,
and shareholders:
a. President/Director/100% Shareholder, Budrow
C. Larson
b. Vice- President/Treasurer/Secretary/Director,
Charles.M. Kimorough
r.. Registered Manager - Charles M. Kimbrough Appnave.d {In.avumacu6.2y.
10. ;PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Board of a Lieev6ee ~auvid gu.i.P,ty o6 the
suspension/revocation Iiear•ing for Hyperbole, Ine., vti~taUvn; becawse v6 .e.a.cfz v6
dba, Purcell's, with the grounds for suspension carmsemu.d o~ the Bvand (2-1 vate),
or revocati on as fol l ows : S-imanett wi.U neview neeotcd a6
heaxivig aiul ac,t..i.on vn viatati.an
• On April 8th, 1987, Hyperbole, Inc., dba, wite be tafzen ce.t the 7-8-87
Purcell's, allowed alcoholic liquors to be removed mee,t.i.Kg.
from its licensed premises, in violation of .
Reg. 47-128.8, C.R.S., as amended.
11. Notification of the Board of recent renewals:
a. Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., dba, Bully III Unavumau~sty Appnove.d.
b. The Menu, Inc., dba, the Menu Unan,imawsty Appnaved.
c. Vail Racquet Club Restaurant, dba, the Unavumoc.zty Aprycvved.
Racquet Club Restdurant
i-2. Other business. Nane.
13. Any other matters the Board wishes to discuss. Nvne.
M ee,t i.ng ad1 awcvied at 1:25 P. M.
~
TOWN OF VAIL
SALES TAX ESTIMATION WORKSHEET
MONTH 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 ~ 1987 1987
; BUDGET ACTOAL Variance
December 549,000 590,242 820,762 737,506 853,100 906,758 905,955
January 626,448 514,102 675,186 636,752 742,262 881,304 890,585 ' 1,131,000 1,167,280 36,280
February 624,040 594,292 687,792 751,856 824,650 918,154 946,552 ; 1,062,000 1,~35,786 73,786
March 683,000 697,464 853,648 977,828 1,084,814 1,187,520 1,316,652 ; 1,310,000 1,378,782 68,782
April 246,820 308,436 355,300 319,546 481,204 531,668 430,877 ; 539,000 425,961 (113,039)
_SUBTOTAL 2,729,308 2,704,536 3,392,688 3,483,488 3,986,030 4,425,404 4,490,621 ; 5,053,000 5,171,005 118,005
May 89,180 135,774 147,378 156,588 166,200 162,912 244,987 ; 224,000
June 176,044 245,204 247,326 257,744 262,696 280,828 361,627 ; 361,000
July 281,846 339,418 349,116 407,474 406,462 447,815 479,507 ; 534,000
August 268,052 332,724 348,756 384,338 402,792 386,985 512,513 ; 518,000
September 176,090 285,918 268,598 324,670 384,864 340,102 374,060 ; 435,000
October 137,376 225,024 223,830 138,614 206,248 209,282 237,504 ; 266,000
November_____140,630 210,254 245,894 281,704 310,588 229,083 376,657 ; 366,000
TOTAL 3,998,526 4,478,852 5,223,586 5,494,620 6,125,880 6,482,411 7,077,476 ; 7,757,000 5,171,005 118,005
.
I
. . I
REC'D MAY 2 8 1987
MEMO FROh1 THE DESK OF
PETER G. KALTMAN
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
_T~ 4k Cdn~?e-ls. ~-~J
a ~ -c ~ ~C--2 ? -f-~ti, s c o ~n-~ ~
t, ?~1 ~ r~ w~ f~~. e c 2~ Q-~-e. r..~
U~ ~ C ce v S-Q d~
U
A- l~c ~ca.spl ( ~vo~.fe t~ J Ic~~
G -5~
I ~ ~ C~
~vN, T
/
ri~ a' 1tY
`I ...QS/
- O-j
7
~el
S~ Vc
Peter G. Kaltman, C.P.A. .
20 Grove St. Middletowa, NY 10940 .
~
Bristol Federal:M>b RmJ U N-41987
SAVINGS BANK
June 2, 1987
Vail Town Council
Mr. Ron Phillips, Town Manager
75 S. Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Phillips:
BRISTOL FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK currently owns four units in Simba
Resort Condominiums, Units #1210, 1407, 1509, and 1511.
The proposed creation of a parking lot at Vail Run will negatively
affect the value of two of the four units. There would be a loss of privacy
and an increase in noise, greater exposure to security risk, and impaired
view.
It is our understanding that other options for increased parking
facilities are available to the Vail Run complex.
We do not believe that increased parking for that complex should
be at the expense of the current owners of units within the Simba Resort
Condominiums.
Very truly yours,
RH. MODEEN
/
Senior Vice President
RHM : j w
222 Main Street• Bristol, Connecticut• 06010. (203) 589-4600
P.O. Box 576
Vail, CO 81658
The Vail Town Council
75 So. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The owners and directors of Casolar Vail wish to first thank you for
. taking the time to review and consider the proposed change of turning
a tennis court into a parking lot at Vail Run.
At Casolar we have seven units which would have their views altered to
varying degrees by this change. We are also concerned that the additional
lighting, noise and pollution would detract from the area. Our third
concern is that this would set an undesirable precedent for property
owners in Vail to convert recreational amenities into parking lots.
We feel this conversion would detract from the use and enjoyment of our
property, and ultimately it would hurt the values of our property. We
find this totally unacceptable, and we urge you to reject this change.
We also ask that the town planning staff review the documents for snecial
development district #5, soecificall,y section 3C. This document lists
the businesses that are allowed in the commercial space in Vail Run.
It is our interpretation that this precludes occupanc,y b.y Airport Transnortation
Services and the F1qutilus facility. Also, it appears that Vail Run is
operating a tennis and swim facility open to the public in violation of
its soecial develobment district. Section 3C does not allow for anything
such as an athletic club or swim & tennis facility other than for the owners
and guests of Vail Run. We feel that if these operations were eliminated
that substantially if not all of the parking shortage would be eliminated
along with it.
Sincerely,
Casolar Homeowners Association
~ i
Chris Neuswanger
Director
- • ~ . . . y.
REC'D J U N- 5 1987
JAY L. LASSNER
132 DARTERS LANE
MANHASSET, NEw YoRx 11030
,
~q
o
~ v-tA
~
.~L-o
~ ~.t - • aT
SimbaResort
CONDOMINlUMS IN VAIL
.
May llr 1987
Towti of Vail
Planntng.and Cuvirotwiental Commiss:lun
Tuwn of Val.1 ,luulcip.zl BuiJ.cling s
' Vall, CU 81657 .
Ke: Proposed Parking I.ot at ~
Vail Kun '
To Lhe Plaiuitug and Environinental ConunlssiO i:
I, Aiuie Sullivan, as Vtce-Presldent of the mba ltesort Homeowner's
AssoctaCion and ttie Genecal Mauager of Unite Slmba rlSn:tf'.rment, am
representing Simba Resort. Simba ltesor.t obj cts to a prc~poGed parking
area wli:Lch is tu be constructecl ad_jacene to o r property ].ine. Thls
proposed parlcing lot will 1?ave an inunecl:tal-e i1pact on twelve unlte at
Sl.mUu Resort as L-l?ey will direclly overloolc tle pr.opused parking lol:. One
of our grc,uncl level walk-ouL- condominiums is Chin ZO feet uL L}ie now
exlsling tennis Qourt aiicl Llie pr.oposed parking lot. ~
We believe that tliis proposed ctiange wuu1S hav a dLsasterous impact on
Slmba Kesort Lor.tlie followlng reasons:
1. The proposed parking lot is nol only a acent to our properly
' bue -ls wiehiii 20 Peee of several of ou owner's condominiurns. A
parkitig lot woulcl strip, Llie nuw enjoye privacy of our walk-out
• units and would :LuiLl.ate a no1se tactor This noise Lactor
would cunstil-ute tlie slainming of car trnks and doors at a11
liuurs of L'he morning and evening in add:tion to voices (wl?icli
nol' on].y travel upward bul outward), an the aaded traLLic
Ilow problem.
2. OuCdoor parlcing lots lnvil-e unwanted el.e aiiLs wLere property losses
coulcl occur. '
3. Tlie liglits (generally Mercury) would nec sitale Fid(I.LI:I.OIlii I. C(7SC8
' to Sl.wba as the wlnduw treat;ments would ve l:o he replaced for
the twelve un-lts over.l.volc.tng l-t?e pr.oyose park.Lng lot. Our pr.esent
window Creatments w<iulcl tiuL be adecluat-e clefuse the adQltional
ligtittng creat-ed by tlie parking loC.
4. Fo"Ll..ut.Lun f.rrini aiilo exliaiists would aFfeclllie un:Lls w:itti balcunies
closesL Co tlie E,arklng 1,1L.
5, lleprec:Lation fur propcrrfy v:ilue f.vr- ilmbmRF;;ort (;ondem:iniums au(l Clie
surrounEling ccnclomirtJ_utns; le. Snow Fox, 13 .akawny t•!-.t• and '1'elemark.
1100 Norfh Frontage Road • Vail, Colorado P1657 3) 476-0344
.
. ~ / ~ ~
~
TOWIl of Vail -Z- rlay 11, 1987
The Va.Ll Valley atf.ards 1 wounlalii gelaway Lor tliose peop.le wlio w.Lsh lo escape
Lrom the clty envlronment, l-lius Llie reason for invesl-ing in mounta-in property.
With l'lie preseiiL propused paricl.ng GiLe we fPe.l that our properly and other
properties in llie S..inclsLone arer.? woul.d cleprecLale r.al-lier than appreciate.
Fur. ther, we clo itut feel llial S1.inL<t Ke;;urt :ahouli] suCCer hecau.^,e Vall Run
dtcl not p.lan ll'f> par.king Laci.llt-i.es wiCli I.oresJ.ghl- :i.^, rv i.ts Cutur.e parktiig
IIP.E.'(1s. I
~ .
We propuse as an optl.on llial Va_i1 Ruu reuiove lt-s Erxisting tenn:f.s btibbLe and
construcl lls pr"posed parking hvl lliere. IL- wuul.cl Llieu be ad.jacent to
Vail Run, nol on ly For tlielr gu'rsls' conven Lence bul' ln view oE the Vai 1
• Run bu11cl.Lng. V;,il Run's wana}wenl would Chen 1•e :ib1.e Cu adminisCec secur.ity
Uy coutrolling the actlvities jitlilu the p»rktng loC. '1'hiG wou:ld spare SLmba
Resort and the su7roundJng pr perl':IeS oC any unc(ESirable elewenls wl?[ch coulcl
lncur possible propei ty .loss r daaiage.
We invite the Town uI Val_l. Panning and Lnvlrunme it:il Connnission to prevtew
these concerns by personally taking tour of Sima:i Resur. t's grvuncls to real:Lze
firstliand the close proxlmit of tl~ls proposed pa -k1.ng lot to our propert-y and
the ditficulty Vail llun wil have in attempting to muiliter the 1ot.
In closing, we fee.l lhal- by liavLng (:litg pnr.lciny; l"l nexl- to the Va11 Kun
bu:lldtnp, j.tselL ur (wliere t e tennls hubble pro;:enl.ty sl'ancls) !.L will noL'
Ue a detrtment to Siiuba IZe )rC Cur reasons previuus:l.y menLi.oiied, as ll ts
Vail Run who will benefit onomical.ly from thls 'ncrease in parking space.
i
Stt113A IZLSOKT CONDOr1IN1UMS '
5incerely,
Ann - t~1. Su11iva?1
Vice-Presiclenl/GE:neral. Pla aget:
.
~
tow~ of uai ~
75 south trontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 off(ce of communfty development
MEMORANDUM
T0: Larry Eskwith
~
FROM: Susan Scanl
~
DATE: June 15, 1987
SUBJECT: Lease Rates for Outdoor Dining Areas
I. INTRODUCTION
Several weeks ago I was asked to research the rates charged
by other municipalities for the leasing of city owned land.
This was to apply more specifically to land leased for
outdoor dining areas or decks. Apparently the request was
made so that a feel could be gotten for what an equitable
rate would be. In May of 1987, the Town Council re-
evaluated the lease price for each of the local popcorn
wagons and decided to charge $2 per square foot per month
or $24 per square foot per year.
II. RESEARCH
In order to get a fair perspective on what an equitable
rate would be I contacted several cities who do lease
property for outdoor dining. Below are the results of
those contacts:
(1). City of Aspen, Contact: Mr. Larry Thoreson,
accountant/auditor for the finance department 925-
2020 ext. 242
Last year Aspen charged $1.69 per square foot/month
for mall lease spaces. Their recommendation to
Council this year was to raise the price to $1.79 per
square foot/month.
The Council however, decided to increase the lease
rate to $2 per square foot/month. This rate is
charged only for the months that the outdoor dining
area is in operation and must be paid prior to the
start of the season. If for some reason the deck does
not operate for the entire period the rent is rebated.
The City has very strict specifications and guidelines
for the use of this lease area. I do have a copy of
Aspen's lease agreement and attached you will find a
copy of some past lease amounts.
(2). City of Boulder, Contact: Ms. Ellen Flannely, Real
Estate Open Space office 441-3440
The City of Boulder does allow the leasing of city
property of outdoor dining areas. The lease rate
charged for these areas is dependent on the location,
whether it is in a residential area, downtown or in
the mall area. In order to determine the lease rates,
a rough appraisal is done of the surrounding property
values (purchase price) and the lease rate is
calculated using a figure of 8-10% return per year. For example, in the downtown area the purchase price
is $20 -$40/square foot and the lease rate is $3/per
square foot/year. The lease price for residential
areas is lower because of lower prices for property.
Any dining areas in the mall area have lease prices
set by a code lease.
(3). City of Denver, Contact: Ms. Merle Miser, Denver
Partnership of 16th Street Mall 534-6161
The lease rates for outdoor dining areas in the 16th
Street Mall area and downtown Denver were set
approximately 5 years by City Council. The rate is
currently $250 per month or approximately $.83 per
square foot. Ms. Miser indicated that they are
currently trying to double this figure to
approximately $1.65 - $1.70 per square foot/month.
.
_ _.V Dc- ,,.:t. -Ij a, r- e ,
~^Tr,Tt'Aj ~ u,~:i _ . ^r
~..~i~..__..~ ...'i:~S_~J~~; ,.rrr ~ C.r L~ .SL~
. f ~ n ~ ?33
_ 2':, x
: j,L. Thoi•?=
po
.
::@:
111S2E
.3G . t T..1 ' ':_:u.
_ oi?i~q;1e~~! 'ali~;,~~nt.~} TyV,~i
=~r S,',F} -~0f': n 1 ^T~O~?;I ~t r.~.;iDU~..:a . _~I
. ~ Q ~lii i
i _li' 4 i'10 T a ,?T'~':y
; u~ . -9.^ ` ~D. i~~1? ~ u_.
~_t~iyn~ ~rl~~ ~ = I~ ---L n ~ n ^ -
r1f ,O'l- _.n,~ ~ . - b'l4._ ~,2_.11.20 . en. r nn
-p p r~n "
iP,,.~r~.ri c ~~'`^~_:~.^:.i~ 4.0 a2z`?•<.!? .r a~i. (rl
P'lr-n+~^'i S!'irOr~/^ ~0 4.0 ` . . 1 n ' -n r, r u
. t~ • .,~~_c :.0 t 0
0n e . n .P~(1
~'j n~
~ `?~i ;,?,~?r91,t'J'; 4 $_.~U . ~ c~• ; ~n ~tA
.L`
F'arlqer~ 52~, S,•'S %G~' 3. ^ 'i_.34 -t :~~q~~:1 2209;!.;(? ;~.,~n
F'nr•,irrrn r~ ~ ~ • ' : . ~
o-•• ry` n3 10 11.42 :_i&'?'"1 ":4?'~~ p(? 1 ~ ~
,]yn ~l'.~": ~1.~„'y
_ ?J!_ri 520 Q /C4 2.0 ''r:.v;; S:5uQA0 315~~ tl~l ~
'''1 c
,
.E ?iT•+~;:" c^~; ~.C :_.54 r'6`7 <1tu7• a~/•Ar} n~: ~ry'.._.n
~
' NJ~~J`. V_'J.Q0 500 ~n.'~;
a~ ~
qOft J.!? ; ? ,J /JC ev ?.C 0a5.° :_757.60 W.7`710 3100 y~- z~.Q0 a~I.
U~~~~
..'e'=-,-'= 276 6,7 ~~S c n .,?;0,?4 -1±~,•~
r:'n3: - • ,_...r,F, . •t.~_ _.a. $0.00 ~ ;
°q5~~ -~7'- f C 0 . ~2~ ~ $~~.r:';'~
f~?i==`~.Q1i 4.~ .~1.~~:.l k:... ~.°!q bU36A3 $.~1 1I1 e
.°eas's , 2',= =,7,F,9. v/~n 9313.76 ' ~O.C~J
~ = ~:1313.76 :~J.C~'~ $
°CS ~-t, n
6~!~_', • / S j 4.0 1=.25 a1:•9!.`?4 3'391.03 :•!?.i^0 50,00
Y~,ry~ ~ ,2u!'~ '?7!°rq/a~` ~#.0 s?~.:4 ~=i1iS.3S $?4?9.=:; ; 0. $(;,:~r~
..~_~~S : .7~, .4 l i 7 7 : J ).n ::~:i.;`I t ~t_5.C. ~~,Lv..~ i~ ~~c .J S v~ ~J ~ '1~:
_ ' P i,0. (`:0 5 0 .vr1
~~~s~ ` c`
2':~ _.v?s9,9%°`• `,n ._.v" ~_~~~~."0 a1656,00 c0.00 'n
ij n.,a- y,;.:•,
~ ";l; '`A 3? L~9 0
g ? ^7L - - . . . y`~.
~
`
~i ` A•!, f±, ~~9 _265.70 $1865.75 ~=~1.0_, e'~.''~'
<qn-~0011) s/1$ 611=12 1 Ai 5 5 X0 0
=rcn Ni? CQ. 2 " i '~l.: nl•' 7/:i~: 3 ;1 -t ~ ~c '-'~l_'.~: ~ E0500
~ ;.?.c!: =r1 ^r?
=r=ii - :i:..°
.:_:i :40 6,'r7,2:1-- Q:~~n~ =.i :1.14 ai•C~.sr' t!~ ~ 14~.=O ~
;r~r~ )ar~o 7.n. 2''~ =f,i=1.r'iGt j.:' L1.26 512160 7_209,4(! ' 1O.:•.
. :1
:~ic.~. i . i.i? 240 :,'1_ ~ ;.r z..-,,L•4nJ 9;~ o:'^' ~ . `~_~'J ?~'1J• eC.n
~'..r 1V
Q
:~°fi '~:i12 :0. ~r4i~ i') 51A2 T~~ 5 3 . '70 '~i353.:~„~ xr~,:•,.~ g
=
- ~it ,._C.E C:. ~ n~; `•y ` rl
.t~ - - U,'r-rr ~-p .G S'9?c.~JG ;0.0:' $.fj~r.l
~~afi ,1oQ W. ..21 ('7'2'9.i2+ 4.0 ':•1 .5Q %2041..'t ?201t.56 ,(l. v n 5 0. r\rl
_;;e:c 'f:r;a Co. 5; !~-?~_,~~E; 45 $1~q $2r .;c1 _.~~~i y'~
_ F?Sc' tn r.,~,
11 8 7 Y:~ a.~o s?8~t. ~t E~- . .v. 01
A Oniort Restnurnnt, Inc. N1 f,, 7, 1 qn? ]n •,1.12 ;!':n?.;O :t702A0 A0 30.00
=';_^'i ti1T~Q~i:t iC::. .'',9'~ ~,J^;-~'~ ^_.G.' ~9 .A!!4.4(1 r.q0^.4 ~ er,' ~
:t. ._~8 ~ ' ri ~~;1 F~,rl . , ~
t/ • ~v.
.4 :'.'S '~Q.CO i,0,~l ir .lJ.
::f~FS:~1L;''Q^+~, _:?C. ?~Ij C,?,~~^,~2 A.~1 r _ t ;.n '.l~ .'v 'iv}.l'~
" ,2~~? 6. $2~',
~n.. , =G/.,0 ~ : q _ n C~3b.80 $ C. Q
~frd I .~~1 ~j.~~ 1{.'~i :0.00 $t~.v0 $0,~~~7 ~ 1r.,`~
r~ ;,~1
!'li oii ^~as F ,,~?~1T•;i~!' ~I:. `~±n 7O O~C~i ' r . i~..•,:
-
- • ~ - T "?.~Q ~?a.,.fn Qq~':~.~0 :G.~~^
."I~. 1 ~ • .
:~j ,~iii:o~i 1°5:'7~1T'al:,
0 5,:,:,9!c-,5 4 .0 $?A? $1335.50 $:335.60 ,n.Y) ~ 30..,n,.,. ~ ~..r.~;.,J
.
~~~I:I R_=f~1~1(•C~;' 2t c n~~r• ' v
+n ' c/.-= ,.:V/=C 4, La - , :.~"7 nc Q~c;~ c
.y., ._.~.?.r~1 ;0,00 $0.00
REr JUN 1 6 1987
June 12, 1987
Mr. Ron Phillips
Town Manager-City of Vale
Vale Town Council
Vale, Co. 81657
Dear Mr. Phillips:
As an owner at Simba Run I would like to voice my objection.
The reason being the proposed construction of a parking lot at
Vale Run Properties under the present conditions. I understand
that the bus activity alone would cause noise and odor pollution.
In addition to the automobile activity this would cause annoyance
to the Simba Run owners and guests at that lot level.
I understand that there is another location on the Vale Run
Properties where the tennis court bubbles that is further
removed from Simba. This area would give Vale Run the needed
parking and avoid the problem that would have been created.
I also understand that the other alternatives that could be
considered are landscaping and lot positioning. I hope these
alternatives of the current thinking will be pursued to
satisfy both parties.
Co (r ' YZ..
Jim Stress
JS/pp
cc: Ann Sullivan
REC'D JUN 1 6 1987
June 13, 1987
Vail Town Council
75 South Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Special Development District Ordiance No.6
Dear Vail Town Council:
The Telemark Townhouse Association Board of Directors
has instructed me to write this letter. The Association
is opposed to the proposal by Vail Run to turn their
existing outdoor tennis court into additional parking
spaces.
First off, Vail Run has adequate parking for the design
and intended use of the building. Secondly, additional
parking means additional traffic on Lionsridge Loop
which we do not need. And last but not least, several
Telemark Townhomes views would be adversely affected by
looking out over additional parking versus the current
view of the tennis court.
The Telemark Townhouse Association therefore requests
that you disallow the removal of the tennis court.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Kwapil `
~
President
Telemark Townhous ssociation
Df1N SI[fINBLRG
9th June, 1987
Vail Town Council
75 S. Frontage Road West
Vail, Co. 81657
U. S. A.
attn: Mr. Ron Phillips,
Town Manager
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Being one of the owners at Simba Resort Condominiums, I should
like to express my deep concern regarding Vail Run request to
convert the exterior tennis court twenty feet from the front
building of Simba into a parking lot.
Amongst various disadvantages, I find the following:
1. Twelve units directly affected
2. Noice
3. Loss of privacy
4. Pollution specially affecting some of the units
5. Property value will become depreciated
No doubt some other option can be taken into consideration
without damaging Simba Resort properties.
I will very much appreciate your kindly analizing this problem
so as to find the fair solution.
Sincerely, sii BERG
ygn