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