Loading...
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