Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-21 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session UAIL TOWN COUNCIL , REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1987 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1987, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 17.26.075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Uail concerning condominium conversions. 2. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1987, second reading, an ordinance adding Chapter 18.09 to the Vail Municipal Code, such chapter to be entitled Hillside Residential District, and setting forth development standards for such zone district. 3. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 5.20, "Transient Dealers" of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; providing a definition of street entertainer and street artisan; restricting the operations of street entertainers and street artisans and setting forth certain exceptions to said restrictions. 4. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance imposing zoning dis,tricts on parcels of property in the recently reannexed West Vail area including, but not limited to, Vail Intermountain subdivision, blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 and Stephens Subdivision as well as certain unplatted parcels. 5. Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance imposing zoning districts on parcels of property in the recently reannexed West Vail area including, but not limited to, Lionsridge Filing No. 2 and Filing No. 4, Ridge at Vail, and Cliffside. 6. Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance approving a special development district (known as SDD No. 17) and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. 7. Sign Variance Request for Vail Conoco 8. Review of a Planning and Environmental Commission Decision to Approve an Exterior Alteration and Conditional Use Permit at Blu's Restaurant 9. Appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission Decision to Deny a Density Control and Side Setback Variance Request made by A1 Weiss CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 10. Town Manager's Report 11. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1987 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1987, second reading, amending Kristan Pritz the TOV Subdivision Regulations concerning Condominium Conversions in Section 17.26.075 Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1987, on second reading. Background Rationale: The applicants are requesting to amend the condominium conversion section of the Subdivision Regulations concerning an owner's personal use of a - converted condominium. This request was reviewed by the PEC on June 22, 1987. The PEC recommended approval. (Applicants: Mr. Tim Garton, Mr. Dave Garton) Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1987, on second reading. 7:50 2. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1987, second reading, Hillside Rick Pylman Residential Zone District Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1987, on second reading. Background Rationale: An element of the Land Use Plan was , . the creation of a new zone district entitled Hillside Resident`ial. Community Development staff has designed a district that we feel meets the intent of the Land Use Plan. The PEC also recommended approval. _ Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1987, on second reading. J 8:10 3. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1987, first reading, to allow Tom Braun for a limited program of street activity (artisans and entertainers) Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1987, on first reading. Background Rationale: Numerous Work Session discussions have taken place over the past few months. The ordinance proposed allows for a limited number of artisans (two dimensional portrait artists) and entertainers in the Village and Lionshead. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1987, on first reading. 8:25 4. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1987, first reading, reapplying Rick Pylman zoning to reannexed East Intermountain Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1987, on first reading.. Background Rationale: The ordinance will reapply zoning that was in place for this area prior to the deannexation. That zoning is outlined in the Town of Vail zone district map. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1987, on first reading. 8:45 5. Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1987, first reading, reapplying Rick Pylman zoning to reannexed areas known as the Valley, Ridge at Vail and Cliffside Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1987, on first reading. Background Rationale: The above described properties have recently been reannexed to the Town of Vail. This ordinance will reapply the same zoning that was in effect previous to the deannexation of this area with one exception. The area of The Valley Phase III has been rezoned Special Development District No. 16, known as Elk Meadows. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1987, on first reading. 9:05 6. Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1987, first reading, rezoning Peter Patten the Ramshorn Lodge from Public Accommodation and Parking District to Special Development District (in order to add a third floor to the existing two story building) Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1987, on first reading. Background Rationale: On July 13, 1987, the PEC approved by a vote of 7-0 to rezone the Ramshorn Lodge and the parking lot next to it from Public Accommodation and Parking District respectively to Special Development District. The owners of the property wished to construct a third floor addition consisting of 3 dwelling units and 5 accommodation units. (Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership) Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1987, on first reading. 9:25 7. Sign Variance Request for Vail Conoco Rick Pylman Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the variance request. Background Rationale: The site of the former Exxon station on the South Frontage Road in West Vail is going to reopen as a Conoco station. Because of the change in product, there is a change in signage. The new signage must come into compliance with the Town of Vail sign code. The applicant is requesting a variance from height, square footage, and number of sign requirements of the Vail sign code. Staff Recommendation: Approve the request. The DRB voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variance to the Town Council with conditions. 9:45 8. Review of a PEC Decision to Approve an Exterior Alteration Tom Braun and Conditional Use Permit at Blu's Restaurant Action Requested of Council: Uphold or overturn the PEC's approval of these requests. Background Rationale: The requests involve a patio enclosure (exterior alteration) with a"greenhouse" that includes operable walls/windows and an expanded deck (conditional use permit) that is predominantly on Town land. As "property owner", the Council gave Blu's permission to proceed through the PEC process. The PEC approved both requests by a 3-2 vote. Staff Recommendation: Uphold the two PEC approvals. The staff strongly supports this proposal (see enclosed memos). -2- - . • . . '_r . 10:05 ' 9. Appeal of a PEC Decision to Deny a Density Control and Side Tom Braun Setback Variance Request made by A1 Weiss Action Requested of Council: Uphold or overturn the PEC's denial of this request. Background Rationale: The request involves a deck enclosure of 308 sq. ft. The property is non-conforming now as the existing GRFA is well over what is permitted by zoning. The request is also in excess of the 250 sq. ft. permitted by Ordinance No. 4. The PEC unanimously denied the request. Staff Recommendation: Uphold the PEC decision and deny the request. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 10. Town Manager's Report 11. Adjournment -3- ' ORDINANCE N0. 21 Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.26.075 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL CONCERNING CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS. WHEREAS, Ramshorn Partnership has submitted an application to amend Section 17.26.075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the amendment provides a reasonable solution to creating a balance between owner use and guest use of a converted condminium; and WHEREAS, the short term bed base for the community will continue to be protected through this amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has unanimously recommended approval of this amendment to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, such amendment must be approved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to amend said Section 17.26.075. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 17.26.075 A.I. is hereby amended to read as follows: A1. An owner's personal use of his or her unit shall be restricted to 28 days during the seasonal period of December 24th to January lst and February lst to March 20TH. This seasonal period is hereinafter referred to as "high season." "Owner's personal use" shall be defined as owner's occupancy of a unit or non- paying guest of the owner or taking the unit off of the rental market during the seasonal periods referred to herein for any reason other than for necessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which may make the unit unrentable. Occupancy of a unit by a lodge manager or staff employed by the lodge, however, shall not be restricted by this section. Section 2. Section 17.26.075 A.4. is hereby amended by the addition of sub-paragraph A.4 to read as follows: A.4. The converted lodge units shall not be used as permanent residences. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON SHALL BE PRESUMED TO BE A PERMANENT RESIDENT IF SUCH PERSON HAS RESIDED IN THE UNIT FOR SIX (6) CONSECUTIVE MONTHS NOTHWITHSTANDING FROM TIME TO TIME DURING SUCH 6 MONTHS PERIOD THE PERSON MAY BRIEFLY DWELL IN OTHER PLACES. Section 3. Section 17.26.075 C is hereby amended to read as follows: C. The converted condominium units shall remain available to the general tourist market. If unsold 30 days after recording of the condominium map, the unsold converted condominiums shall be required to be furnished and made available to the general tourist market WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF RECORDING OF THE CONDOMINIUM MAP. This requirement may be met by inclusion of the units of the condominium project at comparable rates, in any local reservation system for the rental of lodge or condominium units in the Town. Section 4. If any part,.section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The 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. Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1987• Kenr R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 21, 1987 SUBJECT: Ordinance #21 Amending Section 17.26.075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. On July 7, 1987, the Town Council recommended approval of the ordinance on first reading. The following changes have been made to the ordinance: l. In Section 17.26.075 A.4, the definition of a permanent resident has been changed to read: "For the purposes of this section, a person shall be presumed to be a permanent resident if such person has resided in the unit for six consecutive months notwithstanding from time to time during such six month period the person may briefly dwell in other places." Previously the ordinance defined a permanent resident as "any use of thecondominium by one person or more for a continuous period of time greater than six months." .2. In Section 17.26.075C, the second sentence has been changed by adding the following phrase to the end of the sentence: "...within 90 days after the date of recording of the condominium map." This change was requested by Council members during the Town Council meeting on July 7th. ORDINANCE N0. 23 Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 18.09 TO THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE, SUCH CHAPTER TO BE ENTITLED HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND SETTING FORTH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUCH ZONE DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Town of Uail has adopted a Land Use Plan as development policy, and WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan of the Town of Vail designates certain areas for low density hillside development, and WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan of the Town of Uail recommends the creation of such a zone district, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends to the Town Council adoption of said district, and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to adopt a new zone district entitled Hillside Residential zone district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT OR9AINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.09 is hereby added to the Vail Municipal Code to read as follows: Hillside Residential (HR) District 18.09 Sections: " 18.09.010 Purpose 18.09.020 Permitted Uses 18.09.030 Conditional Uses 18.09.040 Accessory Uses 18.09.050 Lot Area and Site Dimensions 18.09.060 Setbacks 18.09.070 Height 18.09.080 Density Control 18.09.090 Site Coverage 18.09.110 Landscaping and Site Development 18.09.120 Parking ~ 18.09.010 Purpose The Hillside Residential District is intended to provide sites for low density single family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The Hillside Residential District is intended to insure.adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable low density high quality residential development of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 18.09.020 Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted in the HR District: Single family residential dwellings One caretaker apartment per lot 18.09.030 Conditional Uses The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit 'in aCcordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. Public utility and public service uses B. Public buildings, grounds and facilities C. Public park and recreation facilities- D. Equestrian centers located on five acre minimum lot size area bordering public ~ land ON PROPERTY BORDERING PUBLIC LAND. 18.09.040 Accessory Uses The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the HR District: A. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreational facilities customarily incidental to single family 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. 18.09.050 Lot Area and Site Dimensions The minimum lot or site area shall be twenty-one thousand, seven hundred eighty (21,780) square feet of contiguous buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of fifty feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square eighty feet on each side within its boundaries. r . setbacks shall be fifteen feet, and minimum rear setbacks shall be fifteen feet. 18.09.070 Height For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet. For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty-three feet. 18.09.080 Density Control Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each site. Not more than twenty square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each ore hundred square feet for the first twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780) square fee.t of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area over twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780) square feet. On any site containing two dwelling units, one of the units shall not exceed twelve hundred (1,200) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA). This unit shall not be subdivided or sold separately from the main dwelling. This unit may be integrated into the main dwelling or may be integrated within a garage structure serving the main unit, but shall not be a separate freestanding structure. 18.09.090 Site Coverage Not more than fifteen (15) percent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. 18.09.110 Landscaping and Site Development At least seventy (70) percent of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet with a minimum area of not less than three hundred square feet. 18.09.120 Parking Off-street shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of tl~e remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it 3 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 3. 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 tfie 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. Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1987. Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 4 ORDINANCE N0. 24 Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5.20, "TRANSIENT DEALERS" OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF STREET ENTERTAINER AND STREET ARTISAN; RESTRICTING THE OPERATIONS OF STREET ENTERTAINERS AND STREET ARTISANS AND SETTING FORTH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO SAID RESTRICTIONS WHEREAS, the Town Council would like the visitors, guests and residents of the Town of Vail to have the opportunity to enjoy a variety of activity throughout the public streets of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Town Council further believes that street activity provided by street entertainers and street artisans would add to the ambiance of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 5.20.020 "Definitions" of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of paragraphs E and F to read as follows: 5.20.020 E. "Street Entertainer" "Street entertainer" means a person who performs mime, magic, music, juggling, comedy, story telling, or other types of entertainment on public land or right of way at no charge to the public. 5.20.020 F. "Street Artisan" "Street Artisan" means a person who creates and sells portraits, landscapes, streetscapes and other types of two dimensional art on public or private property. Section 2. 5.20.030 "License-Required" of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.20.030 License-Required It is also, in addition to the prohibitions set forth in Section 5.20.010, unlawful for any person to be engaged in the business of a transient dealer, peddler, solicitor, hawker, itinerant merchant, huckster, canvasser, transient vendor, STREET ENTERTAINER OR STREET ARTISAN within the town without first obtaining a license for conducting any such business or activity with the town as provided in this chapter. Section 3. Section 5.20.040 "License-Application-Fee" of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.20.040 A. Licensed-Application-Fee A. Every person, before transacting any business as a transient dealer or any other activity described in Section 5.20.020, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE ACTIVITIES EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 5.20.100, shall first procure from the town clerk a license permitting him to engage in any of the selling or soliciting activi.ties referred to in this chapter. This license shall be referred to as a "transient dealer's license." Section 4. Section 5.20.070 "License - Term - Cancellation" of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.20.070 A. Licenses - Term - Cancellation A. A transient dealer`s license OR PERMITS UNDER SECTION 5.20.100 issued under this chapter may be revoked by the Town Council, after notice to the licensee and a hearing at which the licensee may be heard, for any of the following causes: 1. Fraud, misrepresentation, or false statement contained in the application of the li.cense; 2. Fraud, misrepresentation, or false statement made in the course of carrying on his business as a transient dealer; 3. Any violation of this chapter; 4. Conviction of any crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; or 5. Conducting the business of a transient dealer in an unlawful manner or in such a manner as to constitute a breach of the peace, or to constitute a menace to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. Section 5. Section 5.20.090 "Selling on streets prohibited" of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.20.090 Selling on streets prohibited Under no circumstances shall any person conduct any selling or soliciting activity on or in any public street or right-of-way within the town. This sectionn shall not, however, be deemed to prohibit the selling of taxicab or pedicab services on the streets or rights-of-way within the town, where such vehicles are permitted to operate by the laws of the town OR THE SALE OF ARTISTS' WORK AS PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 5.20.100 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Section 6. Section 5.20.100 "Exemptions" of the Muncipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado is . hereby amended by the addition of paragraphs C and D to read as follows: 5.20.100 Exemptions C. IT IS DEEMED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL THAT FOR PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND TO MAINTAIN THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND PUBLIC WELFARE THAT A MAXIMUM OF FOUR PERMITS MAY BE ISSUED FOR STREET ENTERTAINERS AT ANY GIVEN TIME. OF THESE PERMITS, NO MORE THAN TWO SHALL BE ISSUED FOR THE VAIL VILLAGE AREA, NOR MORE THAN TWO FOR THE LIONSHEAD AREA AT ANY ONE TIME. LENGTH OF THE PERMITS SHALL BE FOR ONE MONTH. A PERMITTEE MAY REQUEST A PERMIT EXTENSION FROM THE REVIEW COMMITTEE. APPLICATIONS FOR STREET ENTERTAINER PERMITS ARE MADE TO THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE. PERMITS SHALL BE'ISSUED FOLLOWING THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION BY A REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE REVIEW COMMITTEE SHALL CONSIST OF THREE MEMBERS AND SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL. THE REVIEW COMMITTEE WILL MEET PERIODICALLY AS NECESSARY TO REUIEW APPLICATIONS. CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE IN ITS REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. OVERALL QUALITY OF THE ENTERTAINMENT 2. VARIETY OF THE PROPOSED ENTERTAINMENT RELATIVE TO OTHER ENTERTAINMENT AND ACTIVITY WITHIN THE TOWN 3. APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ENTERTAINMENT RELATIUE TO THE PROPOSED LOCATION (I.E. SPACE NEEDS, IMPACT ON ADJACENT PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SPACES, RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE VICINITY). 4. THE DEGREE OF IMPACT FROM NOISE AND OTHER FACTORS RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED ENTERTAINMENT 5. APPROPRIATENESS OF PROPS, DEVICES, ETC. REQUIRED FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT 6. REFERENCES LIVE OR VIDEO TAPED AUDITIONS OF THE ENTERTAINMENT SHALL BE MADE TO THE REVIEW COMMITTEE. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION, THE COMMITTEE SHALL EITHER APPROVE, APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS, DENY OR TABLE THE APPLICATION. APPLICATIONS FOR A STREET ENTERTAINER PERMIT SHALL INCLUDE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ENTERTAINER(S), A FILING FEE AS DETERMINED BY COUNCIL, A DESCRIPTION OF THE ENTERTAINMENT PROPOSED, DESIRED LOCATION (APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS FOR ENTERTAINMENT FOR THE VAIL VILLAGE AND LIONSHEAD AREAS ARE ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT), A STATEMENT REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF AREA NEEDED FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT, A LISTING OF OTHER AREAS AND FESTIVALS AT WHICH THE ENTERTAINER(S) HAS PERFORMED, LIST OF REFERENCES, A LIST OF ALL EQUIPMENT, PROPS, DEVICES, ETC. THAT ARE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THE ENTERTAINMENT, AND OTHER INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BY THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THE REVIEW COMMITTEE. PROOF OF INSURANCE AND/OR INDEMNIFICATION MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE DESCRETION OF THE TOWN MANAGER OF THE TOWN OF VAIL WHEN DEEMED APPROPRIATE. STREET ENTERTAINERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM UTILIZING ANY SIGNS OR ADVERTISEMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR PERFORMANCES. ALL PERFORMANCES BY PERMITTED STREET ENTERTAINERS SHALL BE FREE TO THE PUBLIC. ENTERTAINERS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO REQUEST GRATUITIES FROM AN AUDIENCE FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THEIR PERFORMANCE PROVIDED THE SOLICITATION IS DONE IN A COURTEOUS, SUBTLE, AND NON- AGRESSIVE MANNER. D. IT IS DEEMED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL THAT FOR PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND TO MAINTAIN THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND PUBLIC WELFARE THAT A MAXIMUM OF 8 PERMITS MAY BE ISSUED FOR STREET ARTISANS AT ANY GIVEN TIME. OF THESE PERMITS, NO MORE THAN 4 MAY BE ISSUED FOR THE VAIL VILLAGE AREA NOR MORE THAN 4 FOR THE LIONSHEAD AREA AT ANY GIVEN TIME. LENGTH OF THE PERMITS SHALL BE FOR ONE MONTH. A PERMITTEE MAY REQUEST A PERMIT EXTENSION FROM THE REVIEW COMMITTEE. APPLICATIONS FOR STREET ARTISAN PERMITS ARE MADE TO THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE. PERMITS SHALL BE ISSUED FOLLOWING THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION BY A REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE REVIEW COMMITTEE SHALL CONSIST OF THREE MEMBERS ND SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL. THE REVIEW COMMITTEE WILL MEET PERIODICALLY AS NECESSARY TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS. CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE IN ITS REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. OVERALL QUALITY OF THE ARTIST'S WORK 2. VARIETY OF THE ARTIST'S WORK RELATIVE TO OTHER ACTIVITY WITHIN THE TOWN 3. THE VALUE OF THE ARTIST'S PRESENCE ON THE STREET FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ENTERTAINING THE PUBLIC 4. APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION 5. REFERENCES EXAMPLES OF THE ARTIST'S WORK SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE REVIEW COMMITTEE. FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION, THE COMMITTEE SHALL EITHER APPROVE, APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS, OR DENY THE APPLICATION. APPLICATIONS FOR A STREET ARTISAN PERMIT SHALL INCLUDE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ARTIST, A FILING FEE AS DETERMINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL, A DESCRIPTION OF THE ARTIST'S WORK TO BE PERFORMED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE PERMIT, DESIRED LOCATION (APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS FOR ARTISTS FOR THE VAIL VILLAGE AND LIONSHEAD AREAS ARE ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT), A STATEMENT REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF AREA NEEDED FOR THE ARTIST, A LIST OF REFERENCES, AND OTHER INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BY THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THE REVIEW COMMITTEE. PROOF OF INSURANCE AND/OR INDEMNIFICATION MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE DESCRETION OF THE TOWN MANAGER OF THE TOWN OF VAIL WHEN APPROPRIATE. STREET ARTISANS ARE PROHIBITED FROM UTILIZING ANY SIGNS OR ADVERTISEMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR WORK. STREET ARTISANS UNDER THESE PROVISIONS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO SELL THEIR WORK TO THE PUBLIC. HOWEVER, ONLY SUCH ART CREATED ON LOCATION AS SPECIFIED BY THE TERMS OF THE PERMIT SHALL BE PERMITTED FOR SALE. THE SALE OF ANY OTHER WORK, WHETHER CREATED BY THE ARTIST OR OTHERS, SHALL BE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. UPON APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION, THE ARTIST SHALL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 5.20.040 D OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Section 7. If any 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. Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer; Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1987. Paul R. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 21, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to reapply zoning on recently reannexed portions of Vail Applicant: Town of Vail At the regular Planning and Environmental Commission meeting of July 13, 1987, the PEC unanimously recommended approval of the request to reapply zoning to The Valley and to the Intermountain area. Staff recommendation is to approve the rezoning as stated in the attached memorandum. ~ ORDINANCE N0. 25 Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING DISTRICTS ON PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE RECENTLY REANNEXED WEST VAIL AREA INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED T0, VAIL INTERMOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, BLOCKS 1,2,3,4,5, 6,8, AND 9 AND STEPHENS SUBDIVISION AS WELL AS CERTAIN UNPLATTED PARCELS. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, Colorado, recently re-annexed a portion of the West Uail area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on June 26, 1987, as depicted in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the Vail Municipal Code sets forth procedures for the imposition of zoning districts in recently annexed areas; and WHEREAS, Section 31-12-115 (S) CRS, 1973, as amended, requires the Town to bring newly annexed areas under zoning ordinance within 90 days after the effective date of annexation; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has considered the zoning to be imposed on the re-annexed area at a public hearing nd has made a recommendation to the Town Council to adopt zoning as proposed in this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to so zone said property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Procedures Fulfilled The procedures for the determination of the zoning districts to be imposed upon the recently re-annexed west Vail area as set forth in Chapter 18.68 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled. Section 2. As provided in Section 18.080.030 of the Vail Municipal Code, the zoning administrator is hereby directed to properly modify and amend the official zoning map to indicate the zoning specified herein. Section 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 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 4. 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. Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem 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 ORDINANCE N0. 26 Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING DISTRICTS ON PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE RECENTLY REANNEXED WEST UAIL AREA INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED T0, LIONSRIDGE FILING N0.2 AND FILING N0.4, RIDGE AT VAIL, AND CLIFFSIDE. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, Colorado, recently re-annexed a portion of the West Vail area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on May 1, 1987, as depicted in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the Vail Municipal Code sets forth procedures for the imposition of zoning districts in recently annexed areas; and WHEREAS, Section 31-12-115 (S) CRS, 1973, as amended, requires the Town to bring newly annexed areas under zoning ordinance within 90 days after the effective date of annexation; and WHEREAS, an application from the owner of Phase III of The Valley has previously been zoned as Special Development District 16, said rezoning shall , remove the parcel from the jurisdiction of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has considered the zoning to be imposed on the re-annexed area at a public hearing nd has made a recommendation to the Town Council to adopt zoning as proposed in this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to so zone said property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Procedures Fulfilled I~ The procedures for the determination of the zoning districts to be imposed upon the recently re-annexed west Vail area as set forth in Chapter 18.68 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled. Section 2. A parcel located in the Valley known as Special Development District No. 16, Elk Meadows, as generally shown on the attached Exhibit A, shall be exempt from this ordinance. Section 3. As provided in Section 18.080.030 of the Vail Municipal Code, the zoning administrator is hereby directed to properly modify and amend the official zoning map to indicate the zoning specified herein. Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The 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. Kent R. Rose, MaYor Pro Tem 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 • f S TO: Planning and Environmental Commission C FROM: Community Development DePartment DATE July 13, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to reapply zoning on recently annexed portions of Vail Applicant: Town of Vail The Town of Vail has recently re-annexed two areas of the Vail Valley that were involved in the de-annexation of certain areas of west Vail. The two areas that have been recently been re- annexed and are proposed to be zoned are the area commonly known as The Valley, and the area commonly known as Intermountain. THE VALLEY This request is to reapply zoning on property known as Lots 20 and 21, Section l, a part of the north half Section 12 Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, commonly known as Lionsridge Filing 2 and Filing 4, Ridge at Vail, and Cliffside. ~ The Town of Vail is proposing to reapply the same zoning that was in effect prior to the deannexation with one exception. The area known as Phase III of The Valley has applied and been approved as Special Development District No. 16,~entitled Elk Meadows Subdivision. To review the zoning to be applied on specific parcels, please refer to the attached zone district map. INTERMOUNTAIN A request to reapply zoning on recently reannexed portions of Vail known as a portion of the west half of Section 14, and a portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, commonly known as Vail Intermountain Subdivision, blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 and Stephens Subdivision as well as certain unplatted portions. The Town of Vail is proposing to reapply the zoning that was in effect previous to the West Vail de-annexation. In order to review the zoning proposed for specific parcels, please refer to the attached zoning map. ~ ~ - TOWN OF VAIL ZONING LEGEND ~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ~ TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ~ TWO FAMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESlDENTIAL DISTRICT ~ RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DISTRICT ~ lOW DENSITY MULTiPLE FAMILY DISTRICT ~ MEOIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DIS7RICT ~ PUBLIC ACCOMODATION DISTRICT SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OISTRICT ~ PUBLIC USE DISTRICT . ~ r'•' COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT . COMMERCIAL CORE 2 DISTRICT ~ Y-COMMERCIAL CORE 3 DISTRIC7 ~ EM COMMERCIAI SERVICE CENTER DISTRICT ' AGRICULTURAL 9 OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ~ 6REENBELT a NATURAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT , ~ HEAVY SERVICE DiSTRICT A4RKING ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT • ~ SKI BASE RECREATION • cJOt)00. lOOU <'~5 U~' pOri rc'~?So Uo ' noc C' 0(> )cr~ ~ _ ~c>c~huoo 0o J6o o~~c~ o(~bU ~ ocin~~Qc~clu6u~~~uo o an.~hc - ~ogo~oH. 0 ~~c,oo0uur, ` y OODUiUUnp'i ~00~ LpNE C?P fip ~ r>~•rJ0 .OQL~~-~- t70 trh , ()~l~ ;,4r~LarTeo ' A ~ ( l, CORTIN ° EAGLE COUNTY r~n U cTr ~~r"~< c n .fu 1Au 'a p ~ l U )(lU,)O ilCly r>n~ ci~u[,Aodou~ o. oc~c9C~c~~d~~ ; q ~ 1U . . , ~ ~ c>ur1 ,~c B,o "c, , cr~a ~ . dric> 1)9(4)s ~,,G000 ~T(c 0 ~ o . . ~ ~1 > > o r_1,o R,~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ " . ~ • - .-~,1:L ~ - i~ o o c ,C ~ cJ ~ c ~ • ~ pn~~CS ~T ~ , . ~ ~r ? ~ c Ao ~t q . ~n~~'~~ r, ' ;c ~ q , c,r,~ir rpua 0 ' ~ o t4~c~ c,i> ry~` o ,c • " . ' A~~ . ~ ~ oo . , ~ . ' A ¢{`U . ? ~ ( ~rr3ij?~ic - ~ c i~ C;u.; oc~ it o ~c~ F4 r,r•. ocr~i o3 c~c, hc ni~~, u ?y ~t i7 4RO ( Or, . O SQ p~, U U> F)s O n~ O, C. A UC~ OUii~)!)O~' INTERSTATE 70 - -_i~_-- _ . • : : . . ~ ~ . ~ . . . - ~ ~ ;TD5 0 i~ .~i . ~ ~ . . ' - U s 9~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~,~'.f • 8K.14 ,-;o~ - cLF~ow p ELLIOTT F =i3 e 7 ~ ) , , -U i ~ . . f - \ ~ .~ml ~ i g r c~ c~ i ~i~. b • : : ; Ur~JU.'tFo'.' \ ' ~ ~ ~ >o~~ -..uc~y~ ~ ~q _..L..,- ~ 1t; . i MEADOW CR .,r100 EEK r1~~, : .~4;. On ):7 ~2~ ~!f'[1~. ~~~C . RWE ~ i ' . ^ • t • , . \ ti,~. ~ 1;;~;~ . DIVISION 14 U iqU U ~ ;000~5~-k. . ~ , ' PLATTE~~•~`~•. i ' ~SUB - , u c'~ ~ ~u ~ t1~., ~ cr u p :l~o 0 o q , 4 ~ ~ : :Z ' - : • ' ~ . OO:IU~~)?rCbl)t IlU J() OC)t\... ; , . ~V ' ~ r O;i<> >O14 0 •~d<?n00~_ Ha ~ ..5~:: ;UNPtaTtE • • _ _ . ~ , . . . D . ~ .~~1 •Ot>i~ v~t .EO~I'~~pu! ..3.,-. . , . ; , W dn•. dst'l.', ' • . . . . O n p p . , ,u . noo~~ . ~uo. u S . . ' - . yA ~TUU o o0i~~t'~. . ~ , 0/~,~ . : . . , ~ c~ o ~l~ 3 ' • ~~~o~ ~o ~~Q~(~~,Q . • f•HAeF ~ • . : ~ : . ; . . • . ,~5~ ; ;7~ , ...UNRATTED" . [ ' . . . ooUOl~i)O'• G c . ~ OUO:)O;.).~. N _~.~`Sy ' • . ~ ~ \ o't s, o 0 0~~ a n c. • ; 0. t~~' . , ~ c oap,c~ c;\ o~~ o cU ) Pa Hr ~ p ~~U . UQU~7~ i)1)~) < O?~4,E. lU o~ _~O '>f>c1r~:_~ r)O 7G0~~ - 9`~. JP ~ )ie ' ,.'~r" - ~>•:~0~~~ '~ot o CKJOt~i, . c~a7 ' ~ cpo~ ~ ol~u: . 00 0 pU. Ur~Qk)Oh0 a U iA o O O O ~ t7k r O ~9c> >J~) c u. ~ ~C <7g_) ~ J'JT1Uq 0000 LANE_~• ~1~ w~N i,;)• U: rl. O:)< Ji, O Ios~',)< SP~R • rJt)c' Z ~ ooo. o~so~ o noI,~ .b-> > s-„ r D M~• U , . ~v U'JV~ O,)'.7"~O" r~~, o.#, ~ abc~~ i~c on bo o: ooC P,~ upunc.~. J , w . ~ IIaJ 0:~~ ~~~7nnr>Qi~~ n~ U Jc)Uq0- O~~ c)II t~00C)00 U!~n~~OU~ ' . U000 000o ?UUUUOOOUnOOOU00 u (Q ,~~~~7\pp c;c~i~:)c~~,yf~.~p<)nt)' UOV~OOOnuU )pOUqnO000UnpOOqO~ V ouo,-, ,U<mUO c)()bll )OUOU0oq0000O0000O w o ~ w oovo0 oooooouooooooo' ~ ~ 0 0000 0u00u00o000 0 0o ~ 0 ou~. nuu > B.L.M. ~Q 0 ~~o() 0 :~0 0„00 ~~~~~o~ ooo~»k) C) ()()o()()()ooooB.L.M. ~00oUo00~~00()ooooooUo 0 0~ .00000000 ',~~~~~~0 0 ( . "17c~00 )00( 0000n0000000n0000000<7t, ~ ~ ~.~~'4ci ~>13vi~ opo~~c~onc~ouqµ~ooooor>oo~ ~ Opi.)i)i)p (>f)0000(')OOppUpOUO0070 i •7 iti:~t:)C OOOC)tJO0U00UbU0000U0 c~~~~.>o 1)l)0000000000r uuouuoooqooooooo0 lp ')(JVC1lJn0 0 0 JCI0 0 0 n0~ ~ OOOqC~Oe)OC)()OU0 UO~ SCA~E ~",200' UUOOr>OODUUpUUU~ )C)OOC)`.>cli7U~i0(lr~ 2pU c iOc i~i)V(ii~l)U . .~C)OC)Uc)U0C7r' )k)OODU(')r I UOnOo ~ . ~ : . . . . , , " . , • _ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . , , . , ' . . ` . . . TRACT A ' , . . . , , . ' . . . - . , . ' . . ~ . . . ' ' . ' . ~ M . ~ ' ' + /t~ i i Ai i ' , , . . . . . , . . . . . . - . t . » " ,w ~ „ . , . ' . . . ~ ~ ~ Y r . • . _ . . . . . . • . . . . TR/,CT D ' ~ . + + . . . I / I , , . . . . . , . . . . . . r.. ~ K " r ~ ' „ y'~` r. / I / / / / % , di. . , j ~~Y _ ?iiiii. M.r~.• ' /I/////, ' • , ~.yr' s' iiii/i • . . . pPPOTATO PGTp1 . . , , , tt~ , ~ . w . . , ~ . . "L1QN'8::RtDG~. ~ _ . M4~, WHITE RIVER -F.IEING,IV(~:-4.:: . r,Nf NATIONAL _ , . FOREST . ~ Y`y ~ ; ~ r ~ ~ . , , ~ PARCEL A LION'S RIDGE FILING N0.2 ~vi TOWN OF VAIL BOUNDARY ~ 'A9 LQM . .PMAS2~•' 000 ~ . TR f• ' 000 ~ 00 00 5~. f ? ~R , o00 '.'v~idse.~~.•: r'•'•: T f .1~ 's'.Y:• .y4:• . : B.I {r~ M. JtSA~i : . re• ~ . ' Atifa . 'PR~L'P ~ •'oA'.•':: ~ • ~'Q:~ : . • , . .~....~i..... 00 000 000.. ~ . ~eE :P1jA K•)i: o0 00 0000 o 000 0 00 ogooo 00 ..i 00 0~0 0~0 00000 1 00 0000 `.~'f .r;•.' . iiii/ii 00 O~O 00 I iiiiiii ~ , iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiii iiiiiiii 0 Q000 000 ~ iiiiiiiiii, OOOm0000 . . iiii/iiiii?iii 000 ~ ~iiiiiiiiiriiii. iiiiiiiiiiiiii X10 • /J/I//I///////////////////I ~C~/ 4 • 7,,,,,,,,,,,,, iiiiiiii i/iiiiiiiiii/iiiiiiiiii iiiii t . f' " iiiiiiiiiiiiiii/iiiiiii /iiiiiiiiii G~ l?. - E~~Jt~JYW1{J~6GivA~1'~7~7/~P}j• „ c. ~ R S`~~'~'fw ~ iiiiii//iiiiiiiii~:i ~ WiJ~iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii.iiiiiiiiiiiiii O 000 .w.~ '~Y. .iiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii • 000 000 p000 iiiiiiiiiiii//ililii~~~ii 0 000 00 U0000 A ADE . iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii f 00 Q 000 0000 . ~s. iiiiiiiiii~i • 00 ~ 00 00 000 O ` i///ii//iiii/~iIiiiiiiii• ~i / iv il> 1,0 i0.~~~/ • 00 OQOO 000 00 VILLAGE iiirii, ! " ~w iir ~•i~i~~~~~~~~~~~~ O 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 . ii..... O O 00 000 0000 0 ~ ~00 00 00 OQO 000 0 ~ O O 0000 000 O'v0 O . . o00 ooopc~o 000 oq ° p ` dE~ ORDINANCE N0. 27 Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (KNOWN AS SDD N0. 17) AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE 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, the Ramshorn Partnership, owners of the Ramshorn Lodge, has submitted an application for special development district approval for certain parcels of property within the Town known as Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing and a part of Tract F-1, Vail Village 5th Filing and a part of vacated Hanson Ranch Road right-of-way known as Parcel RH as further depicted on the attached survey (Exhibit A); and • WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 17 will ensure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Uail 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 said Special Development District No. 17. 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 #17. ~ Section 2. Special Development District 17 Special Development District No. 17 (SDD 17) and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of the three parcels noted above within the Town of Vail. Section 3. Purpose Special Development District No. 17 is establis'r: :!isure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harr:^ ~i:.:ith the general character of the Town of Uail and to promote the upgradirif; 2development of a key property in the Town. The development is regar.- -:om.plementary to the Town by the Town Council and meets all the design stand:: set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant as of Special Development District No. 17 which cannot be satisfied throU,- Imposition of standards in a Public Accommodation zone district. SDD17 is cr :la ~,,iith the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while maintainin,u: :;~ique character. Section 4. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD 17 is approve. ~`,all constitute the plan for development within the Special Developmen:. .t. The development plan is comprised of the following plans and consli- :~.e Tollowing documents: 1. Site and landscape plan by Morter Arc.- _ aated June 29, 1987, sheet No. 1 entitled "Ramshorn Remodeling." Dian may be revised according to final Design Review Board approvai =T so, the final site and landscape plan will reflect the apprc:.. dGte. The final site plan shall also show the sidewalk as per c; in or approval no.3. 2. Existing first and second floor plans June 29, 1987 by Morter Architects. 3. Floor plan entitled "Ramshorn Third i= uuition" dated June 29, 1987 by Morter Architects or as revised ar:c ~,ved by the Town Council with a revised date on said floor plan. 4. Existing Phase 2 floor plans as shoavn 5 dated June 29, 1987 by Morter Architects 5. Elevations as proposed on Sheet No. 65, Juiie 29, 1987 by Morter Architects 6. Building section as depicted on Shee-u ' c'ated June 29, 1987 by Morter Architects B. The development plan shall adhere to the :~Ig: Setbacks i te p1 ;_od above. Setbacks shall be as noted on the s Hei ht Heights of structures shall be as indicate:.: ::~e elevations listed above but in no case shall exceed 42 feet on any part of the site. 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 finai landscape plan approved by Design Review Board and on file in the Community Development Department. Parking Parking shall be provided as indicated on the site plan, but in no case shall the site have the ability to park less than 41 automobiles. Section 5. Density SDD 17 shall not contain more than 22 accommodation units representing 7,529 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) and 10 dwelling units representing " 9,521 square feet of GRFA. The site shall have a maximum density of 21 units per acre representing a total GRFA of 17,050 square feet. Section 6. Uses Permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be as set forth in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Section 7. Use Restrictions Owners' use restrictions for all of the dwelling and accommodation units except the third floor addition as proposed and approved in July and August of 1987 shall be as set forth in the condominiumization approval granted to this property in 1984 (please refer to the June 20, 1984 memorandum and attachments from Community Development Department to Planning and Environmental Commission). Said restrictions are on file in the Community Development Department. Owners' use restrictions as per Section 17.26.075 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations shall apply to all of the third floor addition as proposed and approved in July and August of 1987 with the exception of 1556 square feet of Unit B located on the northerly end of the third floor. Thus, dwelling units A and C as well as five accommodation units (allowed to be used as bedrooms for the adjacent dwelling units) shall be restricted as far as the owners' use as per Section 17.26.075 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations Section 8. 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 9. 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 impo.sed by the preceding sub- section, 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 10. Conditions of Approval for Special Development District 17 1. The SDD shall encompass both Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract F-1, Vail Village 5th Filing and Part of Parcel RH as shown on Exhibit A. Tract F-1 shall be restricted in that all density which could be realized from the rezonin9 to Public Accommodation on that parcel is now being utilized with the construction of this project. That is, Tract F-1 shall not be utilized in ' the future to increase the density of the site and the site contains its maximum amount of density utilizing all parcels owned by the Ramshorn Partnership. 2. The part of the lot located on Tract F-1 shall be redesigned to increase its capacity by 3 parking spaces, a new mini-car space and 4 overflow parking spaces shall be provided in the parking lot north of the buildings to provide a total of 8 new parking spaces for the project. This addititonal parking shall appear on the final site plan. 3. A concrete L in width, with a concrete curb separatinc il be constructed from the entrance to the par' : agreed upon route along the frontage of the pro.; ~ end of the project. This sidewalk shall be cc:. applicant. Final design of the sidewalk sr; _!ilding permit is issued and the applicant , oinding agreement at the time of building r;; -waid sidewalk. 4. If, in the i Council there exists an inadequacy of parking ori -,n to the condominium association. Within t1r:c ~iaiion shall institute valet parking. Valet par':•;; Point forward when conditions warrant (i.e. when :=nced). Violation of this provision will const. u on the property according to this ordinance. 5. The design °g and possible street lighting adjacent : 'sed ai the Design Review Board level. 6. The use rea .::-ion 7 of this ordinance shall appear on the conr :~;i th the Eagl e County C1 erk and Recorder. Section 11. If any part, se_ :!ause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason . .ion shall not affect the validity of the remaining pi:. ~ the Town Council hereby declares it would have pass_ rt, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phras- ~::ct that any one or more parts, sections, subs~_ Nnrases be declared invalid. Section 12. I The repeal or L.. ny provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as providec: - afifect any right which has accrued, any duty imposec . =d prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecutior or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of tr- , :ed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision herepv :on or any ordinance previously repealed or suN: :ad 'nerein. 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. Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pro Tem 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 \ o .-A. r r~T G v r~ C R T I v ~r ~A . c~ r~ 4' . ~JJ ~ N 56°55'05 E , 24:94' 3~. N 74°14'06E, 20.60'\ ~ jsr,9s,~~ • / ~ i'Y' N 82-46. 32E 59.88~ a00~9F A L PARCEL RH P1 trre'C7 l 7 ( PARKING LEASED FROM P-2 ASSOCIATE5) R=161.4i' / n= 29°II'45" N 8'.59 0,6 E fOUND PIN9CAP L= 82.25' 92.94 L 5 2568 T= 42.04' 'OINT OF CH = N 67° 23'14 " E, 81.36. EGINNING .0 ~9B ~o* ~o/ G C. E. o 1j o, a~ • ti 9~ ~ ~ ~/J~K~~c.C~ ~r! d STAIRS 9 i ~ • 59 2g . 2' . q. / 0. 23. 3 LEVCL ADDITION 70 ~4~ , . I' ?O. • 9p, PATIO O ` \ 3O' y STAI RS DEC K ~ ~SO\~~ ~ 99' o L.C.E W O ~ = 2.2 I `nT a NO O. Q _ t~ -cN\~E~E 2 LEVEL BUiLDING G.C E. 0 _ e - 0 L / ~m ~ 0. v' ~ G.C.E 30.5' 0 i020 40. BRASS CAP MONUMENT SCALE I= LO~-~o FOUND N 28°22~ E, \ n l. ~ o 4.78' -9.p• UTILITY ESMi Bk.405 Pg 253//~- J $ 82° $7 QO - _ G.C.E ~~~-=TIUTr =4$E 874$~ ~ $v. / ~ M=N7 \ TOTAL \PO\ ~2.5. a i ~ 15.0' R= 175.00• DECK i Q. v W ~t_ p=76°2909~~ LC.~o ~ M - ~L~2_ L=233.61' m o ` T= 137 92' 75. CH = N 46°15'28" W I SHED T iAC o 216.6 5"-' m Poo~S ~ W W L~ PA R T vr i~ \ G.C.E. G.C.E. G.C.E 34.1• MN n 1 00 zZ _E -CREEK C IFOUND PIN l.S 22575 N03°SB4, 2.2' AIN VAIL INTERCHANGE L~ 36.05' M L F i ,1 39.85' N84°30'03W I R 0 A D ( 50' ~J I ~ ~NTERgT4tE TOWN OF VAIL HK.y NO' ~0 EAST MEADOW DRIVE iNORTH FRONTAGE ROAD ' \ ~ e11R.IGf.T SITF ~ TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 21, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract F-l, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation and Parking District respectively to a Special Development District in order to construct a third floor addition consisting of three dwelling units and 5 accommodation units for the Ramshorn Lodge. Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership On July 14, 1987, the applicants appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with this request. The PEC voted 7-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The SDD shall encompass both Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract F-1, Vail Village 5th Filing. Tract F-1 shall be restricted in that all density which could be realized from a reoning to Public Accommodation on that parcel is now being utilized with the construction of this project. That is, Tract F-1 shall not be utilized in the future to increase the density of the site, and the site contains its maximum amount of density utilizing both parcels owned by the Ramshorn Partnership. 2. The part of the lot located onn Tract F-1 shall be redesigned to increase its capacity by 3 parking spaces. A new mini-car space and 4 overflow parking spaces shall be provided in the parking lot north of the buildings to provide a total of 8 new parking spaces for the project. The applicants shall make every effort to provide an additional two parking spaces for overflow guest parking on the site. 3. A concrete sidewalk a minimum of 6 feet in width, with a concrete curb separating it from the road shoulder shall be constructed from the entrance to the parking lot on Tract F-1 along an agreed upon route along the frontage of the project to the entry on the north end of the project. This sidewalk shall be constructed and paid for by the applicant and shall be agreed upon before a building permit is issued. 4. The applicant shall solve any future parking problems on- site by utilizing valet parking. The staff recommendation is for approval. C TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 13, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract F-1, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation and Parking District respectively to a Special Development District in order to construct a third floor addition consisting of three dwelling units and 5 accommodation units for the Ramshorn Lodge. Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The request is for a Special Development District to construct a third floor addition onto the existing two story building of the Ramshorn Lodge. The applicant wishes to build approximately 4,881 square feet of additional GRFA divided into three dwelling units and five lock-off bedrooms (accommodation units) breaking down as follows: - ~ Unit A - 940 sf Unit B - 1556 sf Unit C - 1122 sf 5 A.U.'s, 1263 sf total The applicant proposes to restrict all of the units with the exception of Unit B(1556 sf) to the owner's use restrictions as per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. The Ramshorn property encompasses two different lots which consist of a main parcel where the buildings stand containing 23,216 square feet (.533 ac) zoned Public Accommodation and another lot of 6,006 square feet adjacent to the east zoned Parking District. The following table shows the zoning analysis as existing and proposed: EXISTING PROPOSED A.U.'s 17 6,266 sf 22 7,529 sf D.U.'s 7 5,903 sf 10 9,521 sf Total Density 15.5 12,169 sf 21 17,050 sf - Total Keysl 24 31 C EXISTING PROPOSED Common Lobby/Lounge 1,038 sf 1,038 sf Total Allowable Density 13 (2.5 over) 8 over Percent of Total in A.U.'s 51% 44% Percent of Total in D.U.'s 49% 56% Percent of Total GRFA Rental Restricted 90% (approx ~ 84% (approx) 1. Keys are defined as rentable units,s both D.U.'s and A.U.'s. 2. It was unknown at the time of the memorandum exactly how many square feet are existing that aren't restricted. 68% of the third floor square footage would be restricted. The applicant proposes a special development district due to the fact that the requested density is over the ~ allowable for the existing portion of the property zoned PA and because the end result will not meet the definition of a lodge which is the principal permitted use in the Public Accommodation zone district. Also, as proposed, the properties would be ten spaces below the required number as per the parking chapter of the zoning code. It is important to note with regard to this application that Tract F-1 on which one of the parking lot for the lodge is located is a separate piece of ground zoned Parking District. This small parking lot would be more suited to Public Accommodation zoning in this particular area and would allow an additional three dwelling units (or 6 A.U.'s) to be constructed on the lodge itself (considering the lot line would be abandoned). Such a proposal will result in one larger site, all of which would be zoned Public Accommodation and would allow an additional third floor. Such a third floor could have up to 49% of the square footage devoted to unrestricted dwelling units while still maintaining the definition of a lodge under the PA zone. The application in front of us proposes essentially the same thing without the rezoning and lot line vacation, but with substantially greater restricted area including an additional 7 keys over and above what exists today. 2 t. II. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA A. Buffer Zone The provision of a buffer zone is not applicable with this proposal due to it being a third story addition to existing construction. B. Circulation System ~ The circulation system on the property would be unchanged. C. Functional open s ace in terms of • o timium preservation of natural features (includin trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience and function. The open space existing on the property will remain unchanged. However, recreational facilities will be improved with the installation of a new 12 person hot tub adjacent to the existing swimming pool. With respect to views, the applicant has provided a view analysis which indicates little to no impact upon ~ views in the surrounding area with the possible ~ . exception of some interference of views from the lower level of the Tivoli Lodge. , D. Variety in terms of: housin ty e, densities, facilities and open s ace. With the exception of the westerly dwelling unit consisting of 1556 square feet, the housing type proposed is accommodation and dwelling units restricted as per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. This section of the Subdivision Regulations is currently in the final phases of an amendment process in which the regulation would be revised to restrict four weeks out of the eight week high ski season among other provisions to ensure that these condominiums are available to the general tourist market. We feel that this amount of restriction is the minimum necessary to continue the Ramshorn Lodge as a positive contributor to the Town of Vail bed base. We also feel positive that the recent revision to the proposal which adds two additional accommodation units making a total of five will increase the ~ availability of rentable lodge rooms in the proposal. While the proposal includes a significant amount of 3 ( new square footage devoted to dwelling units and this, in turn, tips the definition of lodge "scale" away from strict compliance of this definition (lodges can have a maximum of 49% of square footage in D.U.'s), the rental of condominiums is an important variety with regard to the overall tourist bed base. That is, condominiums are an extremely popular form of rental accommodation and the addition of rental restricted condominiums to the bed base is a positive one for the community. This concept is promoted in the proposed Vail Village Master Plan.. With regard to the additional density which is not allowed by underlying zoning, it is the staff's opinion that the proposal presents no significant negative impacts in the area of mass and bulk. In reviewing the proposed Vail Village Master Plan with regard to this application, a third story on the Ramshorn Lodge is called out in the Action Plan as a reasonable infill project. The staff feels it is important that in utilizing the proposed Vail Village Master Plan in evaluating this proposal that all relevant aspects or proposed policies of that plan are utilized and not just portions thereof. Thus, the Master Plan would require 100% of the proposed square footage to be rental restricted, whereas this ~ is not 100% complied with by the applicant. E. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and neighbors. The staff sees no negative impacts upon this criteria. F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, se aration,, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness. The staff recommends that the applicant construct that portion of the sidewalk proposed as part of the Golden Peak redevelopment project along this property's interface with the street from the _ entrance to the eastern parking lot to the drive entering the project on the north. We feel that this is a reasonable requirement with regard to not only. the granting of additional density, but that this sidewalk will be a positive benefit in and of itself due to the large volume of pedestrian traffic and the general unsafe pedestrian conditions in this area. There is a large number of pedestrians walking on the street along this site, and we propose the applicant ~ construct a minimum six foot wide concrete sidewalk 4 C with a concrete curb separating it from the roadway. Final design on this improvement would be agreed upon before a building permit is issued for the project. The requirement of this improvement is in keeping with others required when additional density or special development districts have been approved throughout the Town. G. Building type in terms of: a ropriateness to density, site relationshi and bulk. As stated above, staff feels that the mass and bulk proposed is acceptable and has been called out as such in the proposed Vail Village Master Plan. H. Building design in terms of: orientation, s acinq, materials, color and texture, stora e, si ns, lighting, and solar blocka e. Since the proposal entails an addition to an existing building, the Design Review Board will review the compatibility of materials, colors, textures, etc. With regard to solar blockage, the applicant is well within his height limitations and is not unduly shielding sun from adjacent properties. The proposal includes additional landscaping which will be ~ presented to the Commission. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL A. Uses The uses proposed on the third floor have been discussed. The property will not meet the strict definition of a lodge upon completion of this addition. However, with 84% of the entire project being rental restricted and available for tourist use, the intent of the Public Accommodation zone remains. The staff feels that it is important to note that 68% of the floor area of the proposed addition will be rental restricted versus a minimum of 51% under the rezoning scenario outlined on the front page of this memo. B. Density A thorough discussion of the density is presented under the SDD criteria. ~ C. Setbacks 5 C Because the existing building encroaches into the 20 foot setback on the southwest corner, the addition will continue this encroachment. There would be no negative impacts allowing this small amount of encroachment to continue. D. Height The height proposed is a maximum of 42 feet, whereas the maximum allowed is 48 feet. E. Site Coverage Site coverage remains unchanged. F. Landscaping The proposal includes additional plantings. around various areas of the site, and this will be reviewed in a presentation to the PEC. G. Parking With the 1984 condominimization of this project, parking was an issue. Under that approval, the applicant created the parking lot to the east of ~ the project which includes 11 full size parking spaces. Total parking existing for the project today is 33 spaces. The three additional dwelling units require two spaces each, while the five accommodation units require a total of 4 additional parking spaces for a grand total of 10 additional required spaces according to the parking requirements in the zoning code (43 spaces total). The applicant has submitted a parking study (enclosed) which indicates a maximum useage of 1.33 cars per day per condominium. The applicant feels strongly that additional parking is not needed for this project. The staff, while recognizing that units restricted to short term rental may require less parking overall as opposed to long term residential units, feels that the additional parking should be provided. The staff recognizes that due to the nature of the accommodation units also functioning for a portion of the year as bedrooms for the dwelling units, that the 10 additional required spaces are a maximum situation. However, if indeed the ~ maximum number of keys are utilized (realizing ~ maximum occupancy), additional spaces will most likely be needed. 6 ( Eight additional spaces can be provided on the site with a combination of a redesign of the southerly edge of the eastern parking lot from two full size parallel spaces to five compact car spaces in combination with one new mini car space in the parking lot to the north of the buildings as well as four overflow parking spaces in the turn-around (entrance area). We feel it important that the redesign of the eastern parking lot to five compact spaces and the new mini-car space be provided as a conditional of approval and that the turn-around area be utilized for the maximum or overflow situation which could occur. While not meeting complete parking requirements, the redesign does meet 80% of the requirements, and we would feel comfortable with this parking redesign (leaving the project only 2 short). IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposal. Significant last minute negotiations with the applicants have occurred to allow staff to support this project. Although the inability of the end product to meet the ~ strict definition of a lodge is-,_not what we would ideally like to see, we feel that the property will remain to function as a lodge and meet the intent of providing high quality tourist accommodations. The staff deems it critical that this property remains functioning as a lodge and that the units, both A.U.'s and D.U.'s, are available to the tourist bed base as per the owner's use restrictions outlined in the Subdivision Regulations. We feel the proposal gives us a better product than one which could be developed under the rezoning and minor subdivision scenario which would add Tract F-1 into the project and allow 49% of the top floor to be unrestricted dwelling units. Although the applicants feel strongly that additional parking is not necessary, the staff simply cannot recognize the short term parking study submitted as conclusive evidence. We still feel that all developments proposed should provide adequate on-site parking until such time as the requirements are revised in a fair and equitable manner (if such a revision ever occurs). It is not prudent planning to allow this project to proceed without additional parking-and risk that the overflow parking be located in the Village Parking Structure which is predominantly unavailable in the winter months. 7 ( The following conditions of approval are a strong element in the staff's recommendation for approval: l. The SDD shall encompass both Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing, and Tract F-l, Vail Village 5th Filing. Tract F-1 shall be restricted in that all density which could be realized from a rezoning to Public Accommodation on that parcel is now being utilized with the construction of this project. That is, Tract F-1 shall not be utilized in the future to increase the density of the site and the site contains its maximum amount of density utilizing both parcels owned by the Ramshorn Partnership. 2. The part of the lot located on Tract F-1 shall be redesigned to increase its capacity by 3 parking spaces, a new mini-car space and 4 overflow parking spaces shall be provided in the parking lot north of the buildings to provide a total of 8 new parking spaces for the project. The applicants shall make every effort to provide an additional two parking spaces for overflow guest parking on the site. 3. A concrete sidewalk a minimum of 6 feet in width, with a concrete curb separating it from the road ~ shoulder shall be constructed from the entrance to the parking lot on Tract F-1 along an agreed upon route along the frontage of the project to the entry on the north end of the project. This sidewalk shall be constructed and paid for by the applicant and shall be agreed upon before a building permit is issued. ~ 8 . ' . ~ rams-horn POST OFFICE BOX 705 VAIL. COLORADO 81658 PHONE (303) 476-5075 TO: Jay Peterson FROM: Uavid Garton RE: 1987 Parking Study at Rams-Horn Lodge Condominiums DATE: ,June 15, 1987 ~ we undertook a parking study at The Rams-Horn Lodqe Condominiums durina January, E'ebruary and March of 1987. On a daily basis, we identified cars in the parking lot as to whether the cars were owned by Rams-Horn management, parking space sublesees or awnersirenters of _the three kams-Horn Condominiums that had been sold. Regarding the cars belonginq to people using the sold units, we found the following: 71 cars in 186 condominium/days 4 cars were found on one day during the study 3 cars were round on nine days during the study 2 cars were found on twelve days during the study ' Either ane or zero cars were found on all the other days or the study Thes2 results show we had an averaqe of .38 cars per condominium per day. 'I'he most cars we ever had wEre tour cars for the three existing condominiums or a maximum of 1.33 cars per day per conaominium. ~ . l ~ FRANK H. WYMAN ( v ~~'r 375 PARK AVENUE ~ NEW YORK, N. Y. 10022 •/"r' ~ (212) 759. 6358 ~ ~q J ~G~~ . June 30, 1987 ~ Planning & Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail Town of Vail Colorado 81657 Dear Sir: I understand that your Commission is planning to hold a hearing on July 13 on an application by the Ramshorn Lodge in accordance with section 18.66.060 under the municipal code requesting a special development district in order to be able to add a third ~ floor to the existing structure.. I have been a property owner in Vail since 1964 and own an apart- ment at the All Seasons Condominium. I-.am also President of the Condominium Association. Both in my capacity as an individual property owner and as President of the thirty-four member Association, I would like to protest the granting of any permit to increase the density or change the height restrictions of the Ramshorn property. All the property owners in the immediate vicinity either at All Seasons, Vail Trails East, Vail Trails West and elsewhere, bought their homes with reliance on the preservation of the building codes as they exist today. To change the building restrictions to gratify a developer's lust for monetary gain would violate the property rights of dozens of property owners in the immediate vicinity. It would be bad planning as well as a detriment to the environment. It would destroy views now enjoyed by neighboring property owners, aggravate parking problems and be a detriment to the area from every conceivable point of view. s ~ - 2 - I trust that your Commission will deny this application as well as any other that would be in violation of the original building restrictions promulgated in Vail's original development plan. Very truly yours, , ~/1..-. Frank H Wyman FHW:sl ~ . ( ~ . 1 ? PENDLETON 8 SABIAN, P. C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ~ ~ CHARLES H. COWPERTHWAITE SEVENTEENTH AND GRANT BUILDING TELEPHONE: (303) 839-1204 SUITE 1000 TELECOPIER: (303) 831-0786 303 EAST SEVENTEENTH AVENUE TWX: 910-931-0407 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 July 8, 1987 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Town of Vail Municipal Building 75 So: Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Public Hearing - July 13, 1987 Application of Ramshorn Partnership for Special Development District Ladies & Gentlemen: On behalf of All Seasons Condominium Association, Vail Trails East Condominium Association and Vail Trails Chalet ~ Condominium Association, this is to register our objection to the establishment of a Special Development District to accommodate the addition of a third floor to the Ramshorn Lodge. Due to the close proximity and relative location of our clients' buildings to the Ramshorn Lodge, the Ramshorn proposal would have greater adverse effect on them than vir- tually any other landowner or groups of landowners. We have reviewed the Plan of Morter Architects dated January 9, 1984 as last revised on June 15, 1987 and from virtually every angle, it is obvious that the height and mass of the structure as proposed would have a significant and detrimental effect on surrounding buildings which, inciden- tally were all constructed at about the same time. To approve the plan in its present form is tantamount to working a change in the historical character of the neighborhood. Members of the Commission will no doubt recall the pro- longed and intense negotiations concerning the redevelopment of the Golden Peak base area which, through the intervention of many people and organizations, including our clients, led to a negotiated settlement which, among other things, limited the height of the base area buildings. / t ~ , . , . _ ~ Page 2 ~i July 8, 1987 While we believe that a similar carefully considered approach should be adopted regarding the Ramshorn proposal, we wish to emphasize the dramatic and adverse effect any increase in height of the Ramshorn Lodge would have on its neighbors. Pending an opportunity to work with the Ramshorn owners on an approach that would not significantly affect the present view plane, we urge the Commission to deny the applicant's request. Very truly yours, ~ C_- - C arles H. owper waite - CHC:do cc: All Seasons Condominium Association Vail Trails East Condominium Association Vail Trails Chalet Condominium Association ~ Community Development Department, Town of Vail ~ ~ PENDLETON 8 SABIAN, P. C. C T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 13, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract F-l, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation and Parking District respectively to a Special Development District in order to construct a third floor addition consisting of three dwelling units and 5 accommodation units for the Ramshorn Lodge. Applic'ant: Ramshorn Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The request is for a Special Development District to construct a third floor addition onto the existing two story building of the Ramshorn Lodge. The applicant _ e._square..f.ee.t- af_-- . additional GRFA divided-into-th-ree dwelling units and five lock-off bedrooms (accommodation units) breaking down as follows: ~ Unit A - 940 sf ~ Unit B - 1556 sf Unit C - 1122 sf 5 A.U.'s, 1263 sf total The applicant proposes to restrict all of the units with the exception of Unit B(1556 sf) to the owner's use restrictions as per Section 17.26:075 of the Subdivision Regulations. The Ramshorn property encompasses two different lots which consist of a main parcel where the buildings stand containing 23,216 square feet (.533 ac) zoned Public Accommodation and another lot of 6,006 square feet adjacent to the east zoned Parking District. The following table shows the zoning analysis as existing and proposed: EXISTING PROPOSED A.U.'s 17 6,266 sf 22 7,529 sf D.U.'s 7 5,903 sf 10 9,521 sf Total Density 15.5 12,169 sf 21 17,050 sf Total Keysl 24 31 TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 21, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th . Filing and Tract F-l, Vail Village 5th Filing from Public Accommodation and Parking District respectively to a Special Development District in order to construct a third floor addition consisting of three dwelling units and 5 accommodation units for the Ramshorn Lodge. . Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership On July 14, 1987, the applicants appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with this request. The PEC voted 7-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The SDD shall encompass both Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village ---_.-:---5th-::Fi.ling..:and.._Tx-act._.E_=_l,_....Va.i1_-•Ui.1.l,age...-_5:th...F.i.l.ing.___-Tract. - - F-1 shall be restricted-iri-that-all density which could be realized from a reoning to Public Accommodation on that parcel is now being utilized with the construction of this project. That is, Tract F-1 shall not be utilized in the future to increase the density of the site, and the site contains its maximum amount of density utilizing both parcels owned by the Ramshorn Partnership. 2. The part of the lot located onn Tract F-1 shall be redesigned to increase its capacity by 3 parking spaces. A new mini-car space and 4 overflow parking spaces shall be provided in the parking lot north of the buildings to provide a total of 8 new parking spaces for the project. The applicants shall make every effort to provide an additional two parking spaces for overflow guest parking on the site. 3. A concrete sidewalk a minimum of 6 feet in width, with a concrete curb separating it from the road shoulder shall be constructed from the entrance to the parking lot on Tract F-1 along an agreed upon route along the frontage of the project to the entry on the north end of the project. This sidewalk shall be constructed and paid for by the applicant and shall be agreed upon before a building permit is issued. 4. The applicant shall solve any future parking problems on- site by utilizing valet parking. The staff recommendation is for approval. i ~ EXISTING PROPOSED Common Lobby/Lounge 1,038 sf 1,038 sf Total Allowable Density 13 (2.5 over) 8 over Percent of Total in A.U.'s 51% 440 Percent of Total in D.U.'s 49% 56% Percent of Total GRFA Rental Restricted 90% (approx~ 84% (approx) 1. Keys are defined as rentable units,s both D.U.'s and A.U.'s. 2. It was unknown at the time of the memorandum exactly how many square feet are existing that aren't restricted. 68% of the third floor - . . _ . . square-footage-would-be restricted. The applicant proposes a special development district due to the fact that the requested density is over the ~ allowable for the existing portion of the property zoned . PA and because the end result will not meet the definition of a lodge which is the principal permitted use in the Public Accommodation zone district. Also, as proposed, the properties would be ten spaces below the required number as per the parking chapter of the zoning code. It is important to note with regard to this application that Tract F-1 on which one of the parking lot for the lodge is located is a separate piece of ground zoned Parking District. This small parking lot would be more suited to Public Accommodation zoning in this particular area and would allow an additional three dwelling units (or 6 A.U.'s) to be constructed on the lodge itself (considering the lot line would be abandoned). Such a proposal will result in one larger site, all of which would be zoned Public Accommodation and would allow an additional third floor. Such a third floor could have up to 49% of the square footage devoted to unrestricted dwelling units while still maintaining the definition of a lodge under the PA zone. The application in front of us proposes essentially the same thing without the rezoning and lot line vacation, but with substantially greater restricted area including an additional 7 keys over and above what exists today. 2 II. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA A. Buffer Zone The provision of a buffer zone is not applicable with this proposal due to it being a third story addition to existing construction. B. Circulation System The circulation system on the property would be unchanged. C. Functional o en s ace in terms of - o timium preservation of natural features (includin trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience and function. The open space existing on the property will remain ,:._._...unchanged..___ _However, ~recreational __fa,cil.ities ,.will be _ _ - - improved with the-installat-ion of a new 12 person hot tub adjacent to the existing swimming pool. With respect to views, the applicant has provided a view analysis which indicates little to no impact upon ~ views in the surrounding area with the possible ~ . exception of some interference of views from the lower level of the Tivoli Lodge. D. Variety in terms of: housin ty e, densities, facilities and open s ace. With the exception of the westerly dwelling unit consisting of 1556 square feet, the housing type proposed is accommodation and dwelling units restricted as per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. This section of the Subdivision Regulations is currently in the final phases of an amendment process in which the regulation would be revised to restrict four weeks out of the eight week high ski season among other provisions to ensure that these condominiums are available to the general tourist market. We feel that this amount of restriction is the minimum necessary to continue the Ramshorn Lodge as a positive contributor to the Town of Vail bed base. We also feel positive that the recent revision to the proposal which adds two additional accommodation units making a total of five will increase the availability of rentable lodge rooms in the proposal. ~ While the proposal includes a significant amount of 3 ~ new square footage devoted to dwelling units and this, in turn, tips the definition of lodge "scale" away from strict compliance of this definition (lodges can have a maximum of 49% of square footage in D.U.'s), the rental of condominiums is an important variety with regard to the overall tourist bed base. That is, condominiums are an extremely popular form of rental accommodation and the addition of rental restricted condominiums to the bed base is a positive one for the community. This concept is promoted in the proposed Vail Village Master Plan. With regard to the additional density which is not allowed by underlying zoning, it is the staff's opinion that the proposal presents no significant negative impacts in the area of mass and bulk. In reviewing the proposed Vail Village Master Plan with regard to this application, a third story on the Ramshorn Lodge is called out in the Action Plan as a reasonable infill project. The staff feels it is important that in utilizing the proposed Vail Village ..:.-....Mas.ter.,.P.lan__in- evaluating, -this_.:pr.oposal.-.-.that..:all...,. . . relevant aspects-or-proposed policies of that plan are utilized and not just portions thereof. Thus, the Master Plan would require 100% of the proposed ~ square footage to be rental restricted, whereas this ; is not 100% complied with by the applicant. ~ E. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and nei hbors. The staff sees no negative impacts upon this criteria.' F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, se aration, convenience, access to oints of destination, and attractiveness. The staff recommends that the applicant construct that portion of the sidewalk proposed as part of the Golden Peak redevelopment project along this property's interface with the street from the entrance to the eastern parking lot to the drive entering the project on the north. We feel that this is a reasonable requirement with regard to not only the granting of additional density, but that this sidewalk will be a positive benefit in and of itself due to the large volume of pedestrian traffic and the general unsafe pedestrian conditions in this area. There is a large number of pedestrians walking on the street along this site, and we propose the applicant ; construct a minimum six foot wide concrete sidewalk 4 ~ with a concrete curb.separating it from the roadway. Final design on this improvement would be agreed upon before a building permit is issued for the project. The requirement of this improvement is in keeping with others required when additional density or special development districts have been approved throughout the Town. G. Building type in terms of• a pro riateness to density, site relationship and bulk. As stated above, staff feels that the mass and bulk proposed is acceptable and has been called out as such in the proposed Vail Village Master Plan. H. Building desi n in terms of• orientation, s acin , materials, color and texture, stora e, siqns, lighting, and solar blocka e Since the proposal entails an addition to an existing building, the Design Review Board will review the .---,.-:---.-...:-.-_c.ompatibil.ity._of.._matter-ial.s,__.cnlor.s,_.te.x.tures,._.etc. With regard to solar bl-ockage, the applicant is well within his height limitations and is not unduly shielding sun from adjacent properties. The proposal ~ includes additional landscaping which will be ~ presented to the Commission. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL A. Uses The uses proposed on the third floor have been discussed. The property will not meet the strict definition of a lodge upon completion of this addition. However, with 84% of the entire project being rental restricted and available for tourist use, the intent of the Public Accommodation zone remains. The staff feels that it is important to note that 68% of the floor area of the proposed addition will be rental restricted versus a minimum of 51% under the rezoning scenario outlined on the front page of this memo. B. Density A thorough discussion of the density is presented under the SDD criteria. ~ C. Setbacks l 5 ~ Because the existing building encroaches into the 20 foot setback on the southwest corner, the addition will continue this encroachment. There would be no negative impacts allowing this small amount of encroachment to continue. D. Height The height proposed is a maximum of 42 feet, whereas the maximum allowed is 48 feet. . E. Site Coveraqe Site coverage remains unchanged. F. Landscapinq The proposal includes additional plantings around various areas of the site, and this will be reviewed in a presentation to the PEC. - ,:-._,.G. _._.....P~rki~.g . . . With the 1984 condominimization of this project, parking was an issue. Uncler that approval, the applicant created the parking lot to the east of ; the project which includes 11 full size parking ~ spaces. Total parking existing for the project today is 33 spaces. The three additional dwelling units require two spaces each, while the five accommodation units require a total of 4 additional parking spaces for a grand total of 10 additional required spaces according to the parking requirements in the zoning code (43 spaces total). The appTicant has submitted a parking study (enclosed) which indicates a maximum useage of-1.33 cars per day per condominium. The applicant feels strongly that additional parking is not needed for this proj ect . The staff, while recognizing that units restricted to short term rental may require less parking overall as opposed to long term residential units, feels that the additional parking should be provided. The staff recognizes that due to the nature of the accommodation units also functioning for a portion of the year as bedrooms for the dwelling units, that the 10 additional required spaces are a maximum situation. However, if indeed the maximum number of keys are utilized (realizing ~ maximum occupanc p 'L y), additional s aces will most likely be needed. 6 / Eight additional spaces can be provided on the site with a combination of a redesign of the southerly edge of the eastern parking lot from two full size parallel spaces to five compact car spaces in combination with one new mini car space in the parking lot to the north of the buildings as well as four overflow parking spaces in the turn-around (entrance area). We feel it important that the redesign of the eastern parking lot to five compact spaces and the new mini-car space be provided as a conditional of approval and that the turn-around area be utilized for the maximum or overflow situation which could occur. While not meeting complete parking requirements, the redesign does meet 80% of the requirements, and we would feel comfortable with this parking redesign (leaving the project only 2 short). IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . : . . . .:.w_ _ - . . . _ - . . . . . - The staff recommends approval o-f the proposal. - Significant last minute negotiations with the applicants have occurred to allow staff to support this project. Although the inability of the end product to meet the ' strict definition of a lodge is not what we would ideally ~ Iike to see, we feel that the property will remain to function as a lodge and meet the intent of providing high quality tourist accommodations. The staff deems it critical that this property remains functioning as a lodge and that the units, both A.U.'s and D.U.'s, are available to the tourist bed base as per the owner's use restrictions outlined in the Subdivision Regulations. We feel the proposal gives us a better product than one which could be developed under the rezoning and minor subdivision scenario which would add Tract F-1 into the project and allow 49% of the top floor to be unrestricted - dwelling units. Although the applicants feel strongly that additional parking is not necessary, the staff simply cannot recognize the short term parking study submitted as conclusive evidence. We still feel that all developments proposed should provide adequate on-site parking until such time as the requirements are revised in a fair and equitable manner (if such a revision ever occurs). It is not prudent planning to allow this project to proceed without additional parking and risk that the overflow parking be located in the Village Parking Structure which is predominantly unavailable in the winter months. 7 C The following conditions of approval are a strong element in the staff's recommendation for approval: l. The SDD shall encompass both Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing, and Tract F-l, Vail Village 5th Filing. Tract F-1 shall be restricted in that all density which could be realized from a rezoning to Public Accommodation on that parcel is now being utilized with the construction of this project. That is, Tract F-1 shall not be utilized in the future to increase the density of the site and the site contains its maximum amount of density utilizing both parcels owned by the Ramshorn Partnership. 2. The part of the lot located on Tract F-1 shall be redesigned to increase its capacity by 3 parking spaces, a new mini-car space and 4 overflow parking spaces shall be provided in the parking lot north of the buildings to provide a total of 8 new parking spaces for the project. The applicants shall make . :.-._,..ever.y..e.f.f.nrt,.-to:_.prouide...a_n..additional.,.two...:park-ing spaces for overfIow-guest-parking on the site. 3. A concrete sidewalk a minimum of 6 feet in width, with a concrete curb separating it from the road i shoulder shall be constructed from the entrance to the parking lot on Tract F-1 along an agreed upon . route along the frontage of the project to the entry on the north end of the project. This sidewalk shall be constructed and paid for by the applicant and shall be agreed upon before a building permit is issued. i 8 ~ MOMS- orn POST OFFICE BOX 705 VAIL. COLORADO 81658 PHONE (303) 476-5075 T0: Jay Peterson FROM : i:lavid Gar t c n RE: 1987 Parking Study at Rams-Horn Lodqe Condominiums DATE: .Ju:,e 15, 1987 ~ Gde undertook a barkinq study at The Rams-Horn Lodqe Condominiums aur-,na Jatluary. F?bruary and flarch of 1987. On .s daily basis, we iaen-iried cars in the parking lot as to whethrr the cars were owned by Rams-Harn manaqement, park_ing space sublesees cr cwnersirenters ot the three Rams-Horn Condominiums that had been solci. Regardina the cars bPlonging ro people using the sold units, we found the tollowing: 71 cars in 186 condcminium/days 4 cars were found on one day during the stuciy 3 cars were tound on nine days during the studv 2 cars were found cn twelve days during the study Eith?r are cr zero cars were round on all the otner davs or the studY 2';ese results shcw we ha1 an averaqe of .'_~8 cars per cor,dominium pEr dsr. '~he mos* cars we ever had were tour cars tor the three e:{istin7 c--ndom:niums or a maximum or :.33 cars per day per conaominium. ~ , FRANK H. WYMAN 375 PARK AVENUE ~ NEW YORK. N.Y. 10022 (212) 759.6355 4 L/ Af~~1'~ !v{L~1 . , June 30, 1987 ~ Planning & Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail Town of Vail Colorado 81657 Dear Sir: ._.._.._____..:._u.:_..._.:.,.-.,~_....._._.:..- . . _ - . . . I understand that your Commissioh'--is plarining to hold a hearing on July 13 on an application by the Ramshorn Lodge in accordance with section 18.66.060 under the municipal code requesting a special development district in order to be able to add a third ~ floor to the existing structure.. I have been a property owner in Vail since 1964 and own an apart- ment at the All Seasons Condominium. I-.am also President of the Condominium Association. Both in my capacity as an individual property owner and as President of the thirty-four member Association, I would like to protest the granting of any permit to increase the density or change the height restrictions of the Ramshorn property. All the property owners in the immediate vicinity either at All Seasons, Vail Trails East, Vail Trails West and elsewhere, - bought their homes with reliance on the preservation of the building codes as they exist today. To change the building restrictions to gratify a developer`s lust for monetary gain would violate the property rights of dozens of property owners in the immediate vicinity. It would be bad planning as well as a detriment to the environment. It would destroy views now enjoyed by neighboring property owners, aggravate parking problems and be a detriment to the area from every conceivable point of view. ; - ~ - 2 - ~ ~ I trust that your Commission will deny this application as well as any other that would be in violation of the original building restrictions promulgated in Vail's original development plan. Very truly yours, YWvFrank H man FHW:sl ~ - ~ r' ~ - PENDLETON 8 SABIAN, P. C. T ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW f a ~ CHARLES H. COWPERTHWAITE SEVENTEENTH AND GRANT BU(LDING TELEPHONE: (303) 839-1204 SUITE 1000 TELECOPIER: (303) 831-0786 303 EAST SEVENTEENTH AVENUE TWX: 910-931-0407 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 July 8, 1987 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Town of Vail Municipal Building 75 So. Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Public Hearing - July 13, 1987 Application of Ramshorn Partnership for Special Development District Ladies-=~-~entlemen.......,.....~.._,..-.:,:...._ On behalf of All Seasons Condominium Association, Vail Trails East Condominium Association and Vail Trails Chalet Condominium Association, this is to register our objection to the establishment of a Special Development District to ' accommodate the addition of a third floor to the Ramshorn Lodge. Due to the close proximity and relative location of our clients' buildings to the Ramshorn Lodge, the Ramshorn proposal would have greater adverse effect on them than vir- tually any other landowner or groups of landowners. We have reviewed the Plan of Morter Architects dated January 9, 1984 as last revised on June 15, 1987 and from virtually every angle, it is obvious that the height and mass of the structure as proposed would have.a significant and detrimental effect on surrounding buildings which, inciden- tally were all constructed at about the same time. To approve the plan in its present form is tantamount to working a change in the historical character of the neighborhood. Members of the Commission will no doubt recall the pro- longed and intense negotiations concerning the redevelopment of the Golden Peak base area which, through the intervention of many people and organizations, including our clients, led to a negotiated settlement which, among other things, limited the height of the base area buildings. , ~ Page 2 : July 8, 1987 While we believe that a similar carefully considered approach should be adopted regarding the Ramshorn proposal, we wish to emphasize the dramatic and adverse effect any increase in height of the Ramshorn Lodge would have on its neighbors. , Pending an opportunity to work with the Ramshorn owners on an approach that would not significantly affect the present view plane, we urge the Commission to deny the applicant's request. Very truly yours, ~ - ~--L C arles H. iwper waite ~7 - CHC:do ' _ cc: All Seasons Condominium Association Vail Trails East Condominium Association Vail Trails Chalet Condominium Association ~ Community Development Department, Town of Vail i ~ / ,L.` . PENDLETON 8 SABIAN, P. C. 1\ \ ~~Iy lowo, of uai ~ 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 -(303) 476-7000 office of community development MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 21, 1987 SUBJECT: Sign Variance Request for the Vail Conoco APPLICANT: GTS, Inc. Vail Conoco Station is opening on the site of the former Exxon Station located on the Sou•th Frontage Road in West Vail. The applicant is requesting a.12 foot x 3 foot 7 inch sign to be located on the existing si.gn pole which is 14 feet tall, adjacent to the roadway. They have also requested a second sign to be 3 1/2 feet x 1 foot mounted on the wall of the building adjacent to the entry. This creates total signage of approximately 48 square feet. Both signs as proposed are internally lit. . The Sign Code allows for single business use, signage up to 20 square feet, the height of:a free standing sign is restricted to 8 feet above grade. This request requires variance from size, height, and number of sign criteria of Section 16.20.053 of the Sign Code. The Design Review Board recommended approval of the free standing sign adjacent to the roadway, and denial of the request for the 3 1/2 square foot wall mounted sign adjacent to the building. The Design Review Board felt that that sign was extraneous and that sign could be replaced by using window signage as allowed through the Sign Code. By amending the application this way the Conoco Station would only then require a variance from two critexia of the code as oppposed to three, that of size and height. Staff recommendation is for approval for the request as stipulated by the Design Review Board. TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 15, 1987 SUBJECT: Sign variance request for the Vail Conoco APPLICANT: GTS, Inc. I. REQUEST The Vail Conoco station will be located at the site of the former Exxon station on the South Frontage Road in West Vail: As an Exxon station as recently as a month ago the station displayed 320 square feet of signage, that signage was split between two separate free standing signs. One 70 to 90 feet in the air and the other 14 feet in the air. The Conoco station is requesting a total of 48 square feet of signage to be split between two different signs, a free, standing sign adjacent to the frontage road is 14 feet in height and is a dimension of 12 x 3.3 feet 7 inches which is approximately 44 square feet. The second sign will be a 3 1/2 foot x 1 foot sign mounted on the wall of the building adjacent to the entry, this sign will total 3 1/2 square feet for the total square footage of approximately .48 square feet. The Sign Code allows for a single business use, signage up to 20 square feet, and in the case of this building having only one pedestrian or vehicular way only one sign would be allowed. The height of a free standing sign is restricted to 8 feet above grade. This request would require a variance from size, height, and number criteria of section 16.20.050 of the Sign Code. II. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES Before the board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the board must find that: A. There are special circumstances or conditions a lyinq to the land, buildinqs, to o ra hy, ve etation, si n structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent riqht-of-way which would substantially restrict the effectiveness or the si n in question; provided, however, that such s ecial circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply qenerally to all businesses `or enterprises. Staff Response: Gasoline service stations as businesses directly oriented to vehicular traffic traditionally display signage above and beyond what would be allowed through the Vail Sign Code. The West Vail area consisting of the Phillips 66 and the West Vail Texaco stations display signage comparable to what was previously existing on this site as an Exxon station. That signage, as nonconforming through the Town of Vail Sign Code, has an amortization period of five v~ years.*Due to the recent de-annex and re-annexations of this area the clock has started over again for the five year amortization period of that signage. The gas stations at the Main Vail interchange as well as the Chevron station located at the edge of Lionshead, do meet the Town of Vail Sign Code. These stations are oriented mainly to local traffic. The operators of the Vail Conoco station feel th they relate more closely to the West Vail statio van I-70 interchange oriented service station. They that they would be severally restricted in competition with the existing gas stations by complying with the Town of Vail Sign Code. They have submitted a proposal that they feel will meet needs, which is substantially reduced from the previous Exxon signage on this site. As a staff, we feel that the applicants have responded to their needs and the Town of Vail Sign Code by presenting a responsible request. B. That special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the a licant Staff Response: While the operators of this service station stay the same, the fact that they have changed from Exxon to Conoco, requires them to come into compliance with the sign code. They therefore do not benefit from the annexation actions as the other West Vail stations do. While the change in product requiring the change in signage is a circumstance created by the applicant, we feel that this situation of dealing with this competition is a circumstance that was not created or controlled by the applicant. C. That the qrantinq of the variance will be in qeneral harmony with the pur ose of this title and will not be - ' materially detrimental to the persons residin or working in the vicinity, to ad'acent ro erty, to the neighborhood, or to the ublic welfare in general. Staff Response: Generally, the Town of Vail Sign Code is oriented to pedestrian and slow moving local vehicular traffic. The Town of Vail Sign Code does not really address the needs of interchange oriented businesses such as a service station. We feel that this applicants request given the signage of other existing interchange gas , stations, and the previous signage displayed at this site, is reasonable and therefore harmonious with the purpose of this title. D. The variance applied for does not de art from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use Staff Response• We feel that the applicant has presented a proposal that is sensitive to the environment of the Town of Vail and to the Sign Code and Design restrictions of the Town. While this is a substantial variance from the Town code, we do feel that this does not depart from the provisions of the title any more than is required in order to meet the applicants needs. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the variance request for size, number of signs and height. Staff believes that the proposal is harmonious with the sign code's requirement that signage not call undue attention to itself, while the request for additional square footage does depart somewhat from the signage allowed in the code, the nature of this business dictates somewhat of a departure from the Town of Vail sign code. Staff recommends approval of the request. . . ~rwo ~ GE n.iCi6C0 9.u+L• K¢L=~EV 2`tiGU¢ E ~ Lsr,• "Arta ~ 4?'§.uLe _ To rY-nM r.,.x w.+rmi ~ NGSGKoUUO Tb ~ F'L•T4H R19 '4efi R~ oco . ~ . ~ , .~,4;_,rr•.: • . . - . . . . _.,s~. .r,•....~..`... . • ~--Yi~a ~~'~'•~?y!t'~~ - _ rd~"-L~-,x:i1~;~S+~ . AgML AF-M c I ~ ~ ~ - ~ . • I ~ ~ - , ~ ~ 'l ~~~r.~ . • K ? ~ 6G~,fRa /ZMD GJIZFA4M W ~ZakQa2+M . . Ip' T1+K. /.urnIuUrt is4IJ Ed/ T- DML rA70TtD ' . jo rY.=H M7 49al 1QiWW4 ~ (ilLL ~ ~Q ~ I I' 4 . E..n. . :ozo Do r F i ~ Its~ i TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 21, 1987 SUBJECT: "Call Up" of a PEC decision to approve a conditional use permit and exterior alterations at Blu's Restaurant. Applicant: Blu's Restaurant This request involved the enclosure of an existing outdoor dining deck and the subsequent expansion of a dining deck that is predominantly on Town of Vail land. This past winter, the Town Council gave the applicant the opportunity to proceed _ through the Planning Commission review process for improvements on Town property. The proposal was approved by the Planning Commission by a 3-2-1 vote. The proposal has been called up for further review by the Town Council. Two letters concerning this proposal are attached for your review. There are a variety of issues related to this proposal that are outlined in the attached memorandums. These center around the the enclosure of a dining deck, expanding a dining deck on Town land, and the applicants involvement in the upgrading of the Gore Creek Promenade. Staff feels strongly that this proposal stands on its own merits in terms of design and compliance with applicable review criteria. The council is encouraged to uphold the decision of the PEC. fasthof framshammer, Inc. Telephone: 303/476-5626 Pepi Gramshammer 231 East Gore Creek Drive Sheika Gramshammer Vail, Colorado 81657 July 2, 1987 To Vail Town Council Vail, Co. 81657 Gentlemen: This is to confirm in writing my protest concerning 31u's enclosure of his porch and then extending the porch out onto the walkway on town property. P"y feeling is: if Blu's wants an open porch he should keep it the way it is now. But it is not fair that he wants to enclose his porch and take more town property for additional open seating. If Blu's is granted this request it will mean the pedestrians have to walk all around his patio and it will prohibit the continuous flow of foot tarffic along the river. I would like to ask the town council to look very seriously into this matter ~rrny` Pepi Gramshammer Fountain Cafe & Restaurant 223 E. Gore creek Dr. Vail, Co. 81657 July 2, 1987 To the Vail Town Council Va i 1, Co. 81657 Gentlemen: I would like to take this opportunity and let you know my feelings about the Blu's porch enclosure and extension of his porch onto town property. It simply is not fair that Blu's should be granted an extension of his porch out beyond of his present boundaries. This would mean the people walking along the river have to take a detour around his open porch. If 31u's wants to enclose his porch, he will loose the outdoor seating, otherwise he should stay as is. Please consider this matter carefully, since it could happen in the future that other businesses`come up with the same idea. Are we to loose the open frontage area along the river? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely C'z Maria Erb Fountain Cafe ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June B, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I in order to enclose an existing dining deck at Blu's Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Blu's Restaurant I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The two elements involved in this proposal are the enclosure of a portion of the existing dining patio adjacent to Blu's and the expansion of the existing outdoor dining area. The design of the patio enclosure incorporates a glassed roof with totally operable walls on the south elevation of the restaurant. Another aspect of the enclosure includes an airlock entry vestibule in the location of the existing restaurant. The dining patio expansion is located predominantly on Town property. Earlier this year, the Town Council granted Blu's the opportunity to proceed through the review process with ~ this basic design. The potential expansion of this dining Affl!k patio was planned for and incorporated into the overall design of the Gore Creek Promenade. . II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST As outlined in the zoning code, review criteria for requests of this nature are established by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The emphasis of this review is on the project's compatibility with both the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations. Detailed architectural and landscape considerations become the purview of the Design Review Board if this project is approved. The Planning Commission is also charged with addressing standard zoning issues not covered in the Urban Design Guide Plan. III. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN Expressed as Sub-Area Concepts, the elements of the Guide Plan identify physical improvements to improve the overall fabric of the Village. There are no specific proposals identified in this element of the plan relative to this proj ect. , • ; ` C IV. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ~ These Urban Design Considerations address large scale land planning issues, as well as form giving considerations that go beyond the property lines of the project proposal. These considerations contain the following: Pedestrianization: This consideration is intended to reinforce and expand the quality of the pedestrian's walking experience throughout the Village. The proposed patio expansion encroaches into the existing walkway, naw referred to as the Gore Creek Promenade. This linkage is a key element to the success of the pedestrian system in the Village. If approved in conjunction with improvements to the promenade, a 10 foot width will remain during those times when the patio is in place. This.10 foot width is over a span of 32 feet. Remaining portions of the Dromenade are generally 15 feet in width. It is felt that ver such a short distance that this reduction in width is iiot a detriment to the walkway. To the contrary, staff feels that the activity provided by the dining deck works well with the narrowing of the sidewalk's width. It sho__ uld ~e noted that the railing enclosure of the patio is `-removable and during winter months t we alk waywill _ - ~ maintain its-15--foot width. Vehicular Penetration: There are no impacts related to ` vehicular penetration from this proposal. Streetscape Framework: While there may be slight modifications to the landscaping of this deck, 4 street trees have been proposed to mitigate the loss of the existing wooden planter. Coupled with a new planter immediately west of the patio and dining enclosure, this treatment will provide a colorful framework along this portion of the promenade. The high degree of transparency inherent in the greenhouse enclosure will provide visible activity for the pedestrian on the promenade. In addition, the operable front walls and dining deck will provide outdoor activity when feasible. Overall, the proposal will improve the street-scape framework for this area of the promenade. Street Enclosure: Because of the open space directly adjacent to this property, the street enclosure considerations are not directly applicable. However, there is a nice stepping effect created by this expansion in conjunction with the Sweet Basil proposal. Street Ed e: While the overall appearance of the walkway is linear, there is a fair amount of variety found in the ~ buildin5s along the promenade. To a slight degree, the patio enclosure eliminates a slight "jog" in the building forms along the walkway. Nonetheless, the irregular r ` , 't . facade lines of this streetscape are maintained and reinforced by this patio expansion as well as the Lancelot patio. Building Hei ht: There are no considerations applicable to building height as a result of this proposal. Views: Views are not impacted by this proposal. Service and Delivery: While the seating capacity for the restaurant will be increased, it is not anticipated that n increased number of delivery trucks will be needed to service this expansion. Sun/Shade: As was the case with Sweet Basil, this enclosure is designed in complete compliance with recommendations made in the Guide Plan. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Additional parking demands created by the enclosed space will be met by payment into the Town's parking fund. The exact amount will be calculated at the time of building permit. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is for approval. While this recommendation, along with the Sweet Basil recommendation, are contrary to other actions by the Town concerning deck enclosures, staff feels this proposal is warranted. Our position is based primarily on the northern exposure of the deck. In addition, the walls on the north elevation are totally operable. Blu's has demonstrated their desire to open their existing operable walls when weather permits. This creates a very pleasing experience and, in fact, allows for more people to enjoy the feel of outdoor dining. This increases the sense of activity along the street on a year around basis. Another consideration relative to our support of this enclosure is the patio expansion. While located predominantly on Town land, the outdoor dining area is being maintained. However, there is a direct impact on the patio expansion with respect to the existing walkway. Without improvements to the walkway, the width of the sidewalk would be reduced at its narrowest point to 5 feet. This is unacceptable, and improvements to the walkway are required to facilitate this project proposal. Given the level of improvements on both sides of this property, it is reasonable to expect a similar treatment along this frontage. Another consideration not directly applicable to the ~ Planning Commission's review is the railing treatment proposed to define the deck. The staff has a significant concern over the wooden railing treatment and question its appropriateness. With a few exceptions, wrought iron has been used to define many of.the recent dining deck expansions in the Village. Another design consideration for the applicant is that the railing defining the deck must be removable. While supporting the enclosure and the basic footprint of the expansion, staff cannot support the design of the railing as proposed. - The staff would encourage the Planning Commission to adopt the following conditions of approval: l. The walls on the north elevation be totally operable. 2. The applicant consider design alternatives for the railing treatment to be submitted at DRB review.. 3. Sidewalk improvements consistent with the Gore Creek Promenade design be made in conjunction with this proposal. Consistent improvements shall mean identical materials and design. The upgrading of the ~ walkway shall be made over the entire length of the ~ Gore Creek Plaza building frontage and shall be done C in conjunction with construction and expansion of the • existing patio. ~ ( TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to expand an outdoor dining deck at Blu's Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive. , Applicant: Blu's Restaurant I. CRITERIA TO BE ADDRESSED While all significant issues relative to this project have been addressed in the exterior alteration memorandum, the zoning code requires a separate conditional use approval for the expansion of the dining patio. The following criteria are to be used in this review. A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District• There are no effects upon vehicular traffic relative to • this proposal. f B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District• This proposal will not reduce nor increase vehicular traffic into the core. C. Reduction of nonessential off-street arkin There is no effect on this consideration. D. Control of delivery, picku and service vehicles There is no anticipated increase in the frequency of deliveries to this establishment. E. Development of public spaces for use by edestrians As indicated in the exterior alteration memorandum, a significant improvement to the existing walkway will be done in conjunction with this proposal. If approved and constructed, the applicant is to be commended for his participation in this public improvement. While necessary to facilitate the patio expansion, the level of improvement is of high quality and consistent with the improvements on adjacent properties. ~ F. Continuance of the various commercial residential and public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to . ~ maintain the existinq character of the area As expressed in the exterior alteration memorandum, the staff feels strongly that this proposal will increase the level of activity along the promenade. G. Control quality of construction, architectural desiqn, and landsca e desi n ln Commercial Core I so as to maintain the existin character of the area The sidewalk improvements are of the highest quality found in the Village, the landscape improvements maintain or improve the existing landscaping of the patio, and the design of the enclosure is an improvement over existing conditions of this property. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is for approval as per the conditions outlined the exterior alteration memorandum. C . C ~ L TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 21, 1987 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request at Lot 27, Vail Village West Filing No. 2 Applicant: Albert D. Weiss The accompanying memorandum outlines the specifics related to this request. It was the recommendation of the staff that the applicant propose his addition in compliance with the provisions outlined under Ordinance 4(the ordinance that ' allows additional GRFA of up to 250 square feet). It is felt that minor design modifications could be made to the proposal that would allow the application to comply with the limitations outlined in Ordinance 4. - Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny this application. Their comments were generally the same as those expressed in the staff inemorandum. ~ . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department C DATE: June 22, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a density control variance and a side setback variance in order to enclose existing decks on Lot 27, Vail Village West Filing 2. Applicant: Albert D. Weiss I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The proposed deck enclosures entail two variance requests, one for encroachment into the required 15 foot side setback, and the other for GRFA over what is allowed under existing zoning. The enclosures proposed affect two existing decks on the north side of the property located on the first and second levels. While the existing structure is located within the side setback, a variance to the proposed enclosure is required because the degree of this encroachment is being increased by the deck enclosure. The extent of this encroachment is 4 feet, leaving 11 feet between the structure and the property's easterly boundary line. Allowable GRFA for this property is 2,616 square feet (not including allowable credits). Existing GRFA within both units is 3,476 square feet. The applicant has recRzested 250 ~ square feet under Ordinance 4, and an additional 58 square feet under the variance process. The total additional GRFA amounts to 308 square feet. II. 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 existin or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Because many of the structures in this area were constructed prior to incorporation into the Town of Vail, the neighborhood abounds with nonconforming situations. These would include setback as well as density considerations. As proposed, the setback requested is consistent with the previous requirement under Eagle County (10 foot side setbacks). The degree of encroachment proposed does not adversely affect existing or proposed uses in the area. ~ • / C Existing GRFA on the property is nearly 50% greater than what is presently allowed under Vail's zoning. While.this situation may continue due to its nonconforming status, it is inappropriate to consider additional development beyond that allowed under brdinance 4. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a s ecified re ulation is necessary to achieve com atibility and uniformity of treatment amon sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without rant of special rivile e As stated, there are numerous nonconforming situations in this neighborhood. Because of the existing location of the structure and lack of physical impacts on adjacent properties, it is felt that there is legimate cause to grant a setback variance. However, the applicant has requested GRFA beyond that allowed under the provisions of Ordinance 4 and the staff feels strongly that to approve this request would be a grant of special privilege. The ultimate goal of any development controls are to limit the amount of development in a community. Ordinance 4 has gone beyond this to allow for small additions under special circumstances. To consider GRFA beyond the 250 square feet that may be permitted, particularly on a property that is dramatically ~ over its current allowable square footage, is unacceptable to the staff. The effect of the requested variance on liqht and air, distribution of population, trans ortation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There are no direct impacts on any of the above ' considerations. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the ro osed variance. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings 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. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is unable to support the request as presented. While we see legitimate hardship for the requested side setback variance, we are strongly opposed to the additional GRFA requested (beyond the 250 square feet allowed under C Ordinance 4). If the proposal were within the 250 square foot allowance, the staff would feel comfortable supporting the setback variance. However, as proposed, the staff would recommend denial of this application. We recommend that the Planning Commission encourage the applicant to consider scaling back the addition to be within the provisions permitted under Ordinance 4. ~ John M. Perkins / Architect, AIA / Post Office Box 266 / Vail, Colorado 81658 / 303-949-4637 ~ \ 18 June 1987 Mr. Tom Braun, Planner Town of Vail North Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Snow Slide Damages to the Weiss Residence Consideration of Hardship ~ Dear Tom; I have made a visual inspection of Mr. Weiss' residence on Gore Creek Drive in West Vail. I have verified the following damages, potentially dangerous conditions and general concerns: . Snow falling from the roof has annually seriously dam- aged the deck and stair railings. Currently, a make- shift railing is in place, providing a bare minimum of protection. . Moisture is currently causing discoloration, cracking, peeling and spalling of the stucco-covered north wall. . Potential structural damage to the concrete masonry units at the sill of a sliding glass door on the grade level is evident. . There is a generally dangerous condition of snow and ice build-up on both of the decks. It is my opinion that the above mentioned concerns constitute a serious hardship to Mr. Weiss' maintaining his residence in a safe ~ ~ and attractive condition. I urge you to recommend approval of h2r. Weiss' applications for variance to the density and side setback regulations on the basis of these obvious hardships. If you have any further questions regarding Mr. `Veiss' applications, please do not hesitate to call me. ou, jJ.hanky ins s : Mr. A1 Weiss c f ? RWD J U L 10 1007 j VAIL VILLAGE INN ~ Village Inn Plaza Condominiums July 8, 1987 The Planning Commission The Town of Vail 75 So. Frontage Road W. Vail, C0. 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen: After reading the editorial in last week's Vail Trail, and the report in today's Vail Daily, I can't help but feel that the ears of the Planning Commission are closer to the feelings of the community than those of the elected town officials. Vail, since its inception, has never been known to do things the "usual" way. Being different has made us what we are today, and people keep coming back, not only to ski the best mountain in the world, but to also experience the ambiance that the resort offers. A great deal of that ambiance, in my opinion, would be destroyed if we let the Highway Department go ahead and install traffic lights at the 4-way stop. The congestion at the 4-way stop is nothing new and has existed during peak periods even before Interstate-70 was built in the valley. I can remember many times when our then mayor, Mr. Ted Kindel (Vail's first mayor) directed traffic on the old U.S. 6 and Vail Road intersection. The manning of the 4-way stop during rush hours is not a novel idea, but has worked satisfactorily for many years when people appeared to do it. It seems to me lately that there is a hesitancy to direct traffic at the 4-way stop,_ and while I do not want to assume that this is deliberate in order to get support for the traffic lights, one sure does get that feeling! I fail to see how a traffic light, no matter how well computerized, could adjust adequately to the various patterns occurring at various times of the day. To me, the simplest solution would be to religiously control traffic on a daily basis between 7:30 and 9:30 A.M., and again, between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M., with perhaps extended hours on week-ends and holidays. Assuming that we would require 3 people to cover 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon, that would total 12 man hours per day. At $6.00 per hour, that would amount to an expenditure of $72.00 a day, or approximately $10,000. for the entire winter season. Assuming that we would want that coverage again during July and August, we would add an additional $4500.00 to that expense. (continued) 100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5622 The Planning Commission July 8, q1987 The Town of Vail Page 2. It would not necessitate using policemen to fill those jobs, but rather I am thinking more of friendly hosts or hostesses such as those used by Vail Associates on the mountain. Considering that the town, according to the Vail Daily, is willing to. spend $235,000.00 to contribute towards traffic signals, "t-he proposed staffing at the 4-way stop would not only be considerably cheaper when you consider the interest on $235,000.00, but would definitely be more in keeping with what we are all about! Sincerely yours, JOSEF ST U ER I Copy to: The Town Council - Town of Vail The Vail Daily . ' The Vail Trail . ArlyWay! People can be unreasonable, illogical, and self- centered. Love them anyway! . If you do good, people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives. Do good anyway! If you are successful, you may win false friends and true enemies. Succeed anyway! The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway! , Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable. Be honest and frank anyway! The biggest men with the : biggest ideas can be ahot down by the smallest men with the smallest minds. Think big anyway! . What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight. ' ' Build anyway! People really need help but may attack you if you . help them. Help people anyway! . Give the world the best you have and you may get ' kicked in the teeth. Give the world the best ~ you've got anyway! . - Source Unknown , / ~ _ _ . ~ _ ~ ` ~ : ~ ~~c~~ ,1 D wn of uail ~ 75 south frontage road office of the town manager vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 Juiy 20, 1987 Mr. Robert E. Hill General Manager Real Estate Division Chicago Facility Service Center U.S. Postal Service 222 Riverside Plaza, Suite 2000 Chicago, Illinois 60606-6155 RE: Vail Postal Facility Dear Mr. Hill: As I discussed earlier this week with Mr. Donald Fennelly, the Vail Town Council has expressed interest in entering discussions with the Postal Service concerning the possible joint use of the present Post Office and Vail Municipal Building site by the Postal Service and the Town of Vail. We are open to discussion of any legal mechanism to allow joint ownership or a long term lease or lease purchase relationship with the Postal Service in order to accommodate both the Postal Facility and the Municipal Facilities on this common site of 2.04 acres. We will be happy to meet with you or your representatives at a mutually convenient time to begin these discussions. If you need any further information from us, please let me know. Sincerely, - ~ ~ P.ondall V. Phillips Town Manager RVP/bsc cc: Vail Town Council Mr. Donald J. Fennelly ¦ ' , . . . , . . . , a p 1. ote s_ ans r in . _ m~ ' ` . aced out when Hadid recently bought out a ballroom to 10,000 square feet, as recom- ~ o p e s to att ract ~ 1 1 I~o re b u s i n e ;unior lien-holder on the property and ex- mended by Ritz-Carleton. ~e r c i s e d t h a t l i e n h o l d e r' s r i g h t t o p a y o f f R e s p o n d i n g t o q u e s t i o n s a b o u t his a bi l- } ~ ~ Roberts' loan and take over the property. ity to finance the $70 million project, ` 0 ff ii i, _ u p.. t h e-..'s h o u I d e r s e as o n s Hadid said this week that he hopes to Hadid remarked, "The commitment from ~ .complete the first phase of the project, the Ritz-Carleton is something that is bank- s; In a relaxed interview Sunday 292-room hotel by June of 1990, and will, able," indicating that if he needed to he Hadid outlined his plans for the not embark on the second phase until after would have no .trouble securing bank I - - ~ hotel project, including a two-fold the first hotel begins operating. loans. - phasing plan that could result in In the meantime, he told reporters, Both Hadid and Ian Lloyd-Jones, senior two independent hotels on the "Right now the Continental Inn is an eye- marketing vice president of Ritz-Carleton; - ' property once owned by Aspenite sore to the area," and plans are underway spoke excitedly • about plans to go after Hans Cantrup, as well as hopes to to give the aging hotel a facelift. year-round convention and conierence bring' in much more conference He also said he plans to build an ice business for the hotel, using Rita- business during the local spring skating rink, flanked by two parks, on the Carleton's already-established contacts. • and fall off-seasons. parking lot fronting on Durant between The company, Lloyd-Jones explained, Hadid also announced that the Mill and Galena, which could be ready by owns and/or operates siic resort complexes first phase of the project, a 292- this winter. . , with three others under construction, and room hotel on land adjacent to the Attorney Alan Novak, who once was concentrates on filling these with confer- Continental Inn, will be co-', partners with Roberts but now is working ence business. ` ; Mohamed Hadid at the Meadows. developed and run by the Ritz- . with Hadid, said excavation for the first Saying, "We have people who are wait- : Carleton hotel management and develop- hotel could begin this summer, with con- ing for a R,itz-Carleton destination in ~ by John Colson , ment_corporation, the same corporation struction to begin next spring. Aspen," Lloyd-Jones explained that the The residents of Aspen may be ice skat- -that was working with Texas developer Although Hadid said he intends to basi- company hopes to attract business during ing at the corner of Durant and Galena John Roberts in his aborted attempt to cally stick with the 447-room hotel plans the "shoulder seasons" (spring and. fall) streets this winter, according to the build the same project. approved by the city for Roberts' develop- that will benefit not only their hotel but Washington, DC developer who'apparent= ` Roberts is losing the 71-acre property, ment scheme, both he and Ritz-Carleton's others in the city as well. ly is now in charge of building Aspen's which includes land in various places architects are currently studying the plans L1oyd-Tones said he hopes for coopera- most controversial hotel project. around Aspen as well as the site at the base for possible alterations such as the eli- tive agreements with other local hotels, ~ Mohamed A Hadid, the 39-year-old de- _ of Aspen Mountain; in a foreclosure pro- mination of walkways between the two such as the Jerome and the Continental, veloper, recently beat out New York super- ceeding after failing to make payments on major hotels. for rooms that can be filled from an ex- developer ponald Trump in the contest - a$42 million loan. Another possible change, but one that pected occasional overflow of conferees. over who will build a premier hotel at the Trump was in line to buy the property must be approved by the city first, would be Hadid said he already has. bought a base of Aspen Mountain: `after foreclosure was completed, but was to slightly enlarge the conference- _(continued to -page 6A) Page 6-A The Aspen Times July 16, 1987 hadid . latest venture in Aspen. (continued from page lA) According 'to the profile state- s, home in Aspen's West End and ^the US in 1964. __ment, Hadid began inveating in ' ~ real estate after building up a` plans to spend considerable He holds a BA in civil engineer- series ofsuccessful businesses, in- amounts of time in Aspen with his ing at North Carolina State Uni- cluding an export company send- family. versity and did some graduate ing construction and other goods He also said he is a"hands on studies in architecture and to clients in the Middle East. developer" who visits worksites structural engineering at MIT, He lives with his wife and two frequently and keeps a close according to a profile provided to daughters in Virginia. watch on the way his projects are reporters. : progressing. The owner of a wildlife estuary ; Hadid, who still speaks with a on the Chesapeake Bay in Mary- slight Middle Eastern accent de- land, he has been in real estate spite 23 years in the US, was born development in the Washington, in Nazareth in 1948 and came to DC area exclusively until this I