Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-09 Support Documentation Town Council Work SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1988 2:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Planning and Environmental Commission/Design Review Board/Town Council Joint Meeting 2. Discussion of Bravo Colorado 3. Appointment of Election Judges for Special Municipal Election 4. Discussion of a Special Events Banner Program for the Town of Vail 5. Discussion of Time Limits for Meetings 6. Discussion of Definition of Conflict of Interest 7. Planning and. Environmental Commission Report 8. Information Update 9. Other VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1988 2:00 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 2:00 1 Planning and Environmental Commission/Design Review Board/Town Council Joint Meeting 4:00 Brad Quayle 4:20 Pam Brandmeyer 4:25 Kristan Pritz Pete Burnett Cell Folz 4:45 Ron Phillips Action Requested of Council: Provide comments and direction on the items presented. Background Rationale: The issue of Primary/Secondary connections has prompted the need for this joint session. Other items of discussion include an update on the Town's Recreational Trails Master Plan, restaurant menu boards, State legislation on vested rights, and the issue of bed and breakfasts (the latter two items will be discussed if time allows). 2. Discussion of Bravo Colorado Action Requested of Council: Hear presentation by Brad Quayle. 3. Appointment of Election Judges for Special Municipal Election Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the following proposed judges: Mary Jo Allen 1956 Circle Drive Cathy Rossi 5137 Black Gore Drive Marilyn Klein 2655 Larkspur Lane Celine Krueger 1628 Vail Valley Drive Laura Swetish 2945 Booth Creek Drive 4. Discussion of a Special Events Banner Program for the Town of Uail Action Requested of Council: Determine if the staff should proceed with a special events banner program for the Town. Background Rationale: The question of whether or not the Town of Vail should have a system for special events banners has been raised by Council and community members. In addition, the Vail Valley Foundation also expressed a desire to work with the Town on a banner program for the World Alpine Championships. Staff has completed some preliminary research on the banner program in response to these comments. 5. Discussion of Time Limits for Meetings Action Requested of Council: Discuss whether or not the Council wants to adopt time limits for presentations and speakers at meetings. Background Rationale: The Council has discussed previously the idea of establishing some time limits for Council meetings. A suggested out line is enclosed for your consideration. 5:00 6. Discussion of Definition of Conflict of Interest Merv Lapin 5:15 7. Planning and Environmental Commission Report Tom Braun 5:20 8. Information Update 5:25 9. Other -2- TO: Town Council, Planning Commission and Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 9, 1988 RE: Joint Session A joint session between these boards has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 9th at 2:00 PM. While a number of items are scheduled for discussion, an informal exchange of other issues and ideas may take place if time allows.. The meeting is scheduled to last until approximately 4:00 PM. The items scheduled for discussion include the following: 1. Primary/Secondary Connections. At one time or another, this issue has appeared before all three of these boards. This discussion is an attempt to provide direction to the staff on how to proceed with the issue. Memos summarizing previous dialogue that has taken place concerning this topic have been included for your consideration. 2. Update on Vail's Recreational Trail System Master Plan. Staff has been working with consultants for some time on the development of this plan. To date, input has been received at one public meeting. This. item is presented as an informational update on the progress of this plan. 3. Menu Boards A request has been made to discuss the issues surrounding restaurant menu boards. If there is a desire to re- evaluate this topic, direction should be provided at this meeting. 4. Vested Rights. Legislation has been adopted at the State level that requires local municipalities to establish a process for vested rights. Larry Eskwith has prepared a memorandum outlining in brief this issue.. 5. Bed and Breakfasts. The staff has received increasing numbers of requests for bed and breakfast operations within the Town. Existing regulations create difficulties in allowing these operations. Staff is desirous of direction from the boards as to how to proceed with this issue. A brief memorandum and background material on bed and breakfasts has been included for your review. TO: Ron Phillips, Town Manager FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 9, 1988 SUBJECT: Primary/Secondary Duplex Connection--Joint Meeting, Town Council, PEC, DRB Over a year ago, the Community Development Department, the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and Town Council were involved in discussions regarding the required connection of dwelling units in the Primary/Secondary and Duplex zone districts as stated in the Design Guidelines. Section 18.54.050 C.13 of the Municipal Code requires that Duplex and Primary/Secondary residential dwelling units shall be designed in a manner that contains the two dwelling units and garages within one single structure. The planning staff, at the direction of the Town Council, investigated options for amending this section of the Design Guidelines. Under the direction of the Town Council, we chose an option and worked within that option to create and propose legislative language that would replace this section of the Design Guidelines. Through the approval process for this proposed Guideline change, the staff received conflicting direction from the various boards involved in the review process. We feel that, in order to resolve this issue, a joint meeting of the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board is necessary so that this issue can be discussed and that direction, which all the boards agree to and have ownership in, is given to the staff so that we may proceed toward resolution of this issue. Enclosed in your packet is the history of the work that has taken place to date. TO: Ron Phillips FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 12, 1988 SUBJECT: Primary/Secondary .Duplex Connection For over a year now, the Community Development Department, the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission and the Town Council have been involved in discussions regarding the required connection of dwelling units in Primary/Secondary and Duplex zone districts as stated in the Design Guidelines. Section 18.54.050 C. 13 of the Municipal Code requires that Duplex and Primary/Secondary residential dwelling units shall be designed in a manner that contains the two dwelling units and garages within one single structure. This section goes on to allow a physical separation of the dwelling units in the event of the presence of significant site characteristics which necessitate this type of design. The exact wording of this section is included with this memorandum as an appendix. In the fall of 1986, the Town .Council overturned a Design Review Board denial of a primary/secondary residence. The members of the Town Council felt that the Design Review Board was technically correct in their interpretation of the Design Guidelines, however they felt that the proposed design was appropriate for the Vail community. The Town Council instructed the staff to investigate possibilities of amending Section 18.54.050. C. 13. In December of 1986, the Town Council reviewed a list of options presented by the staff. The Town Council selected an option entitled, "Option A," which entailed eliminating the requirement for a physical connection and strengthening the requirement for a visual connection through compatible design. In February of 1987, the Town Council and Design Review Board held a joint work session. The direction to the staff as a result of that meeting was to continue work on Option A. In early June of 1987, Option A was drafted as legislative language and submitted to the Planning and Environmental Commission as amendment to the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission, as a majority, felt that the existing language of Section 18.54.050.0.13 was appropriate and did not require any revision. The staff felt, however, that the Council direction at that time was to continue with the process of amending that section and therefore encouraged the Planning Commission to review the proposed language. The Planning and Environmental Commission did approve revised legislative language and passed that recommendation on to the Town Council. The Town Attorney reviewed the proposed wording of the revised section of the Design Considerations that the Planning Commission was recommending to Town Council. The Town Attorney at that point, advised the staff that the PEC language was not appropriate legislative language and recommended that the Town Council review the original revision of Option A which was presented to the Planning Commission. In late June of 1987, the Town Council at first reading of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1987, tabled the proposed legislative wording of Option A and questioned the need for changing the existing language. The Town staff at that point, ceased to continue working on this project. In December of 1987, members of Town Council requested that the issue of the required physical and Duplex residences. the Design Review Board and staff continue to research the connection of Primary/Secondary The staff is asking that the Town Council, Planning Commission and Design Review Board discuss this matter at an upcoming work session. Design Review Board Discussion of Primary Secondary Connection December 17, 1986 Agenda I. EXISTING WORDING CONCERNING THE PRIM/SEC. CONNECTION: 18.54.050 C13. Duplex and Primary/Secondary Residential dwelling units shall be designed in a manner that contains the two dwelling units and garages within one single structure. However, in the event that the presence of significant site characteristics necessitate a site design which includes a physical separation of the two dwelling units and/or garages into separate structures, the DRB may approve the design. Such a design may be approved only when the separate structures are visually attached by means of the use of similar and compatible architectural design, colors, and materials and/or physically connected with fences, walls, decks or other similar architectural features. II. DISCUSS OPTIONS FOR AMENDING SECTION 18.54.050 C13: A. Leave the wording as is B. Exclude the connection requirement C. Define clearly. physical connection & desian criteria and require compliance with all the criteria. 1. Unified landscape plan 2. .Walls where appropriate 3. Materials: siding, roofing, trim, stone, etc. 4. Roof forms 5. Architectural style 6. Grading 7. Balcony style 8. Railings on decks, patios, and balconies 9. Window treatments D. 10% perimeter of Existing Unit Connection. III. DISCUSS CRITERIA FOR CONNECTION BETWEEN AN EXISTING UNIT AND PROPOSED UNIT. .~ " ~ ;~ ~` TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 22, 1987 SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 18.54.050 C.13, Section 18.12.090 .and Section 18.13.080 of the Municipal Code (Primary/Secondary Connection) Earlier this year, the Town Council, the Design Review Board and the Town staff met in a work session to discuss the existing wording of Section 18.54.050 C. 13 of the Vail Municipal Code, which concerns the requirement for physical connection in the design of primary/secondary and duplex units. That existing wording concerning the primary/secondary and duplex connection in the Design Review Guidelines currently reads as follows: Section 18.54.050 C. 13. Duplex and Primary/Secondary Residential dwelling units shall be designed in a manner that contains the two dwelling units and garages within one single structure. However, in the event that the presence of significant site characteristics necessitate a site design which includes a physical separation of the two dwelling units and/or garages into separate structures, the DRB may approve the design. Such a design may be approved only when the separate structures are visually attached by means of the use of similar and compatible architectural design, colors, and materials and/or physically connected with fences, walls, decks or other similar architectural features. At the first work session in December, the staff presented several possible options for rewriting and amending this section of the Design Review Guidelines. After much discussion of the pros and cons of both options and discussion relating to what specifically the guidelines were trying to accomplish, the Council gave direction to the staff to refine and re-present the basic concept that was presented under the Option A. That Option A as presented at the work session read as follows: Option.A. Rewrite Section 18.54.050 C.1 to eliminate the requirement for a physical connection of the units, and at the same time strengthen and clarify the design criteria which would be required in order to create a visual connection. This criteria could include a unified landscape plan for the entire lot, utilization of one road cut, compatible L a~ materials such as siding, roofing, trim, stonework, roof forms, color schemes, balcony styles, window treatments, etc. This option would have completely eliminated requirements for a physical connection, thus allowing maximum flexibility in siting the units, in creating the scale of the units, and in creating spaces between the units. The design criteria would serve to unify the development on the site. There is concern on the part of the staff that this option could allow for development that would create the appearance of two separate single family dwellings on separate pieces of property, especially on less vegetated sites. This creates the visual appearance of density over and above that of the low density zoning. The staff rewrote this section of the Design Review regulations in the spirit and concept of the above option. This wording was reviewed with the Council at a work session in April and basically agreed upon. This wording would read as follows: 18.54.050. C. 13 (New draft) Duplex and primary/secondary residential dwelling-units shall be designed in such a manner to create a unified site development. Unified site development shall require the ~ use of similar and compatible architectural design. This ~ includes materials (siding, roofing, trim, stone), roof forms, architectural style, balcony and window treatments, railings and other design elements. The unified site development shall include a coordinated landscape and grading plan that creates a visual appearance of a single development project. Common areas such as courtyards are encouraged to unify site development. The intent of this section is to avoid the appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or primary/secondary lot. The design of units as a single structure, and the utilization of a single road cut is encouraged. The amendment to Section 18.54.050 C 13 of the Municipal Code will require an amendment to two other related sections of the code. The Density Control sections of both the Two Family Residential and Residential Primary/Secondary Zone Districts state that: "Not more than a total of two dwelling units in a single structure shall be permitted on each site..." Section 18.12.090 and Section 18.13.080 of the Municipal Code should be amended by deleting the phrase "in a single structure." i i ~ . ..Y ~.. ,~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The intent of the Council, Design Review Board and the staff is to create this guideline in such a manner that it will enable more freedom of design and siting of structures in development of primary/secondary and duplex residences. The concern of the parties involved is to maintain the ability to ensure that development is occuring in the spirit of the primary/secondary and duplex nature and is not an abuse of the zoning and subdivision regulations by creating separate and unrelated single family structures on duplex lots. The staff feels that this proposed amendment satisfies our intent while recognizing the concerns. We recommend approval of this request as written. The Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed wording and is in substantial agreement. They did request the staff to investigate the possibility of addressing the issue of adding a unit. to existing development. Our attempts at addressing this issue have created awkward wording. The staff feels this issue is best addressed by applying the design criteria proposed in the amendment. ~.,. lowo of uai '~ 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-7000 office of community development T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE June 24, 1987 Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Primary/Secondary Connection The following paragraph is a transcript of the final legisla- tive wording as devised during our 6/22 meeting. This wording will replace the existing Section 18.54.050.0.13 of the Duplex and primary/secondary structures are encouraged to be in one structure. However, if the relationship of mass of the building to the size of the site is within appro- priate scale and a unified site plan for the entire lot is proposed, the DRB may consider the separation of structures. The intent of this section is to avoid the appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or primary/secondary lot.. Unified site development shall require the use of similar and compatible architectural design. This includes materials (siding, roofing, trim, stone), roof forms, architectural style, balcony and window treatments, railings and other design elements. The unified site development shall include a coordinated landscape and grading plan that creates a visual appearance of a single development project. Common elements of linkage such as .courtyards, common entries and walkways are encouraged to unify site development. The design of units as a single structure and the utilization of a single road cut is encouraged. If there are concerns regarding this language, please contact Rick Pylman at your earliest convenience. . ~ ~• ~- ORDINANCE N0. 22 Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.54.050 C.13, SECTION 18.12,090, AND SECTION 18.13.180 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT DUPLEX AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS BE ATTACHED; PROVIDING FOR UNIFIED SITE DEVELOPMENT OF DUPLEX AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that requiring duplex and primary/secondary residential units to be attached does not always result in the best use of a given site, and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that duplex and primary/secondary residential units may be developed on a given site in a more imaginative and more attractive fashion as separate units so long as there is unified site development with similar and compatible architectural design and coordinated landscaping and grading, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended such amendment to the Vail Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 18.54.050 C.13 is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: 18.54.050 C.13 Duplex and primary/secondary residential dwelling units shall be designed in such a manner as to create a unified site development. The intent of this section is to avoid the appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or primary/secondary lot. Unified site development shall require the use of similar and compatible architectural design. This includes materials (siding, roofing, trim, stone), roof forms, architectural style, balcony and window treatments, railings and other design elements. The unified site development shall include a coordinated landscape and grading plan that creates a visual appearance of a single development project. Common elements of linkage such as courtyards are encouraged to unify site development. The design of units as a single structure, and the utilization of a single road cut is encouraged. Section 18.12.090 A. is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: 18.12.090 A. A. Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than fifteen thousand square feet, and not more than twenty-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet for the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than ten square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area over fifteen thousand square feet, not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross residential floor area for each one .hundred square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand square feet. No two-family residential lot except those totally in the red hazard avalanche zone, or the floodplain, or those of less than fifteen thousand square feet shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by a two-family dwelling. ~~~~;~~ Section 18.13.080 A. is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: 18.13.080 A Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each site, with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than fifteen thousand square feet, and not more than twenty-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet for the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than ten square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area over fifteen thousand square feet, not to exceed thirty thouand square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross residential floor area for each one hundred square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand square feet. On any site containing two dwelling -~ .~ units, one of the units shall not exceed forty percent of the total allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). No two-family residential lot except those totally in the red hazard avalanche zone, or the floodplain, or those of less than fifteen thousand square feet shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by a two-family primary/secondary residential dwelling. c~~~;~~ n 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 iNiS 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 C^anoers of the Vail f~unicipal Building, Uail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1987. Paul ~. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCEC, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READIir'G AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of ATTEST: 1987. Paul R. Johnston, Mayor Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk TO: Ron Phillips, Town Manager FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 9, 1988 SUBJECT: Recreational Trails Plan Update--Town Council, PEC, DRB Joint Meeting The Community Development Department, Recreation Department, and the consulting firm, Winston Associates, have been working on the Vail Recreational Trails Plan for several months. We have held an initial public meeting to gather input and have conducted a public survey through the local newspaper. Several plans and cost estimates have been developed and we feel that this joint meeting is an appropriate time to update various boards on the work that has progressed to date. ORDINANCE N0. 3 Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 18.62 VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is amended by adding thereto a new Chapter 18.62 to read as follows: VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS 18.62.010 Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to provide the procedures necessary to implement the provisions of Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., as amended. 18.62.020 Definitions As used in this Chapter: A. Site specific development plan means a plan describing with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use proposed for a specific parcel or parcels of property. For uses permitted by right in any zoning district, the annexation map or final subdivision plat shall constitute the site specific development plan. For conditional use permits, the site plan and preliminary building plans as set forth in paragraph 18.60.020 D and E shall constitute the site specific development plan. For special development districts, the development plan as set forth in Section 18.40.050 shall constitute the site specific development plan. 18.62.030 Notice and Nearing For those developments for which the landowner wishes the creation of vested rights, the approval by the Town of-the project at a hearing conducted at the request of the landowner shall be required. Such hearing follows the successful approval of the development at all other required stages of the development review process. Failure of the landowner to request such a hearing shall mean no vested rights shall be deemed to have been created. For the purposes of this Section, successful approval of the development at all other required stages of the development review process shall not occur until such time that any given appeal period has passed or any appeal which has been brought during said period has been concluded in the landowner's favor. 18.62.040 Notice of Approval Each map, plat or site plan or other document constituting a site specific development plan shall contain the following language: "Approval of this plan may create a vested right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24 C.R.S., as amended." Failure to contain this statement shall invalidate the creation of the vested property right. In addition, a notice describing generally the type and intensity of use approved, the specific parcel or parcels of property affected and stating that a vested property right has been created shall be published once not more than fourteen (14) days after approval of the site specific development plan, in a newspaper of general circulation within the Town of Vail. 18.62.050 Payment of Costs In addition to any and all other fees and charges imposed by this Code, the applicant for approval of a site specific development plan shall pay all costs resulting to the Town of Vail because of the site specific development plan review, including publication of notices, public hearing and review costs. 18.62.060 Other Provisions Unaffected Approval of a site specific development plan shall not constitute an exemption from or waiver of any other provision of this Code pertaining to the development and use of property. 18.62.070 Limitations Nothing in this Chapter is intended to create any vested property right, but only to implement the provisions of Article 68 of Title 24 C.R.S., as amended. In the event of the repeal of said Article or a judicial determination that said Article is invalid or unconstitutional, this Chapter shall be deemed to be repealed and the provisions hereof no longer effective. 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. -2- 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day of , 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1988. ATTEST: Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -3- TO: Mr. Ron Phillips, Town Manager FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 9, 1988 SUBJECT: Bed and Breakfast Operations: Joint Meeting--Town Council, PEC and DRB Presently, the zoning code does not allow bed and breakfast operations in the Town of Vail. The staff is aware that bed and breakfasts exist in Vail. Ordinance #23, Series of 1982 was written for the purpose of prohibiting bed and breakfast uses in single and two-family dwellings. The code states in Section 18.58.310: "Short term accommodation unit. No rooms in any structure or building located in any Single Family, Two Family or Primary/Secondary zone district within the Town shall be short-term rented, separately as accommodation units." The reason for the ordinance was that: "Lower density neighborhoods within the Town of Vail need to be protected from the noise, traffic and overcrowding which which would result from permitting the short term rental of separate accommodation units a.n such neighborhoods." The Community Development .Department has received recent requests to set up bed and breakfast operations within the Town of Vail. The staff is interested in finding out if the Council, Planning Commission and Design Review Board would like to have the staff investigate the possibility of allowing bed and breakfasts as long as certain criteria are met. Many municipalities review bed and breakfast requests as a conditional use. Appropriate review criteria would also address parking concerns, noise, amount of square footage for rental units, number of units, and signage. Attached to this memo is a brief discussion of bed and breakfasts from the Planning Advisory Service as well as an article on bed and breakfasts. from "Planning Magazine." The articles provide information on how bed and breakfasts have been handled in other communities. Due to the occasional requests for bed and breakfasts, staff thought it would be appropriate to discuss this issue to determine if the ordinance should be amended to allow for bed and breakfasts with special restrictions. tension lines, gas and oil pipelines, and sewer lines), with widths varying from SO feet in urban areas to 350 feet in rural areas. In The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, right-of--way is defined as a strip of land acquired by reservation, dedication, prescription, or condemnation and intended to be occupied by a road, crosswalk, railroad, electric transmission lines, pipelines, sanitary sewer, or other similar uses. Directional signs are almost always permitted in the right-of-way. The common concerns in most ordinances are size, size of lettering, and absence of advertising on such signs. Aside from directional signs, signs are generally not permitted in the right-of--way. Most ordinances we reviewed said that the closest that signs may get to the right-of--way is five feet (although some ordinances allow as little as two feet of setback). Lafayette, Indiana, uses a "sliding scale" approach to determine appropriate separation distances for signs in the right-of--way. The distance is determined by the area of the sign face. rr Q. There'~,_progosal here for so_m_e bed and breakfast establishments (B&Bs) tto be located in one of our historic districts. This di-' t ctis current ed+for single-family r_esidentiat uses. We wou dTi~ some ---- definitions of B&Bs an~wouId~also~like to mow what pro Tems cou d arise if we changed some zonmQ A. The community of Petoskey, Michigan, defines B&Bs generally as a use that is subordinate to the principal use of asingle-family dwelling unit, in which transient guests are provided a sleeping room and board in return for payment.. Placer County, California, defines them as single-family dwellings containing rooms or suites that are maintained and operated by the property owner for the purpose of providing overnight sleeping accommodations for paying guests. To maintain. the residential character of your district, you may wish to consider setting low limits on the number of rooms available in a B&B. Since the average B&B operator should expect to make only around $1,000 to $2,000 annually as a result of room rentals, allowing only two or three rooms per establishment would not appear too strict. While some ordinances allow five or more rooms per facility, this usually means establishing other requirements, including extra parking, structural alteration, etc. Setting a limit of two or three rooms might help to avoid parking problems. In a historic district, structural alterations to a designated building would be in violation of the district code. All in all, the best way to preserve the area in question is not to allow B&Bs to become commercial establishments. The simple regulations presented above would help to ensure this would not happen. Q. Could you define a "flag lot" and tell how it differs from a pipestem lot or a pork chop lot? A. According to The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, a flag tot is a lot not fronting on or abutting a public road; access to the public road is by a narrow, private, right-of--way. In reviewing other zoning ordinances, we found that flag lot, pipestem lot, pork chop lot, and dogleg lot were all synonymous. The names describe the shape of the lot. Flag lots are generally permitted in a rural and developing area to allow development while still maintaining a rural character. Flag lots generally require a minimum lot size at least twice the area typically required in the zone they're located in. This lot size must not include the right-of-way. Most ordinances allow only one flag lot for each right-of--way, with rights-of--way a minimum distance apart. Front-, side-, and rear-yard minimum requirements aze usually set. Q. What is a fly-in subdivision? A. A fly-in subdivision is a residential development that integrates airport facilities for recreational or commuter flyers. One of the first fly-in developments was Sierra Sky Park near Fresno, California. The sky park was begun in 1946, developed, and sold to new owners in 1978. The sky park encompasses around 158 acres, with over 105 residential lots, three runways, and streets designed to accommodate two planes and two cars simultaneously, Sierra Sky Park deed restrictions have always required at least one plane port to be built for each residence. A newer fly-in subdivision is Wellington Aero Club, neaz West Palm Beach, Florida. Wellington was planned as a new town in the eazly 1970s. Currently, there are over 9,000 residents in Wellington. The 10,300-acre development has approximately 251 available lots; commercial, recreational, educational, and community services; and a 150-acre lake. There are currently over 55 fly-in subdivisions (or airparks) nationwide. All fly-in subdivisions have one thing in common-at least one landing strip. Developers of fly-in subdivisions say that the only real limiting factors for future developments are rising fuel and airplane costs. Proper zoning and regulatory mechanisms must also be addressed when planning afly-in subdivision. The PAS ~I.lerno is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Advisory Service. a subscription research service of the American Planning Association: Israel Stollman, Executive Director; Frank S. So, Deputy Executive Directs; Judith Getzels. Director of Research; Sylvia Lewis, Publications Director. The PAS Memo is produced at APA: James Hecimovich. Editor, Adete Rothblatt. Assistant Editor. Copyright 1987 by American Planning Association, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637. The American Planning Association has headquarters offices a[ i 776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced ar utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. ~A5 f~ ~ ~- ~6 Y!,anning August 1987 P L A N N P R A C T By Chuck Myer, AICP Keeping Tabs on Bed and Breakfasts An updated-version of the old tourist home offers new challenges to local planners. ,~ ~ ,~ 1111 l i j~~~~ ~ :~ ~~~~ i ~" ~ .li :~ ~~~ C, ~~ j ~ _, ~,, ~..: ;,~ w h rF~. ~~ '~ :~ ~ _ "nA ~~ Z, he resurgence of an old tradition has caused some new headaches in public plan- ning agencies around the na- tion. The bed-and-breakfast inn, the classy yet homey way to travel, has become popular among sophisticated travelers. It has also raised some tough. new questions about regulating land use and commercial enter- prise, and where to draw the line. between residential and commercial development. Continental drift The bed-and-breakfast idea is nothing ne~~. Its roots go back to medieval Europe and be- - yond, when, in exchange for a few coins, peasants began open- ing their homes to travelers. And, in Europe, private homes are still commonly opened to travelers when hotels are scarce or full. In the tiny Bavar- ian village of Oberammergau, for example, every home be- comes abed and breakfast when the world-famous Pas- sion Play is being performed. irac- - - - f' ^'t .~ --v ~ ~~~ ~ <:~ ,,,.~ < ,~ .: ~ ~ ; , ~v~1TE CoV~' INN !_L~ED ~L,~vREAKF,AST O In the United States, some- thing resembling the modern tourist home has been a com- mon form of lodging since colonial times. In this century, however, changing urban forms took travelers off coun- try roads and onto highways, and motels sprouted up to re- place the tourist homes. Today, we're seeing a revival. Bed and breakfasts have proven to be an especially via- ble alternative to motels in communities hosting major fairs, festivals, or sporting events. Over 200 referral serv- ices now direct travelers to their doors. For the most part, small bed and breakfasts do not present a problem from a plan- I N G I C E Wing standpoint. Many are not even registered with municipal agencies perhaps explaining why many hosts prefer to be addressed by their first names. - In the last ZO years, how- ever, the country has also seen an influx of larger bed-and- breakfast inns designed as commercial establishments, and including up to a dozen or more rooms. Although the dis- tinction between the two is hazy, one can safely say that the bed-and-breakfast inn is primarily a business, while the traditional bed-and-breakfast home is a residence first. An early example of the former is the "Bed and Break- fast Inn;' opened in San Fran- cisco in 1967 by Bob and Marily ~~1HE~~ ~~~G ~_ e~. _ ~' " `nl 1 1~~ A VICTORIAN BED & BREAKFAST ~ra¢c+~e. Kavanaugh. The owners pat- terned their inn after the bed- and-breakfast inns they had seen in Wales and Scotland. Similar establishments pro- liferated in California and other states in the 1970s. Coastal areas have proved to be major spawning grounds, with the largest number of inns along the Pacific Coast and the eastern seaboard, particularly in the Maine/Cape Cod region. Numbers are also growing along the Great Lakes and on the Gulf of Mexico. Bernice Tiuo clau~(oot tubs area (eah~re o(dte Gingerbread Mansimi Inn in Ferndale, California. 17 P L A P R A Chesler, author of Bed and Breakfast in the Northeast (Globe Pequot Press, Chester, Connecticut, 1983, estimates that the total number of bed- and-breakfast accommoda- tions in America jumped from 2,500 to 10,000 between 1980 and 1985. Now, however, there are signs of a slowdown in the growth rate. Ken Torbert, comanager of the Gingerbread House in Ferndale, California, suggests that burnout is a cause. One reason may be the frustration that bed-and- breakfastpioneers experienced in breaking new bureaucratic ground in communities that had misconceptions about this new type of business. Allaying fears "When we first came to town in 1983, few Midwesterners knew what a bed-and- breakfast inn was;' sighs Jean Lawrence, proprietor of the Pebble House in Lakeside, a re- sort town in southwestern Michigan. "There were only about six in the state. We had to educate the local people and reassure them about our inten- tions :' Lawrence got an informal, verbal okay to open her inn in a residential zone. But then, after she had begun remodeling, a nervous zoning board ordered her to stop; the neighbors, they ~lE.~lxnr cRrI:I: R_1~CII .\ fricndl~• Bed do Bre:tl:tatit Inn N 1\T C T I N ~ I C E said, were. worried about noise, traffic, and "undesirable activi- ties:' Their primary fear was that the inn would be a com- mercial resort hotel, which would have destroyed the residential character of the area-a quiet road fronting Lake Michigan. After appearing at a zoning ~liilGiirul[ tf~ul~jr T r ,~ ;. cir-n a [tREnransr board meeting and patiently explaining the bed-and- breakfast concept, Lawrence finally won the variance she needed. She was then able to complete remodeling the 1912 house and coachhouse and cot- tage that constitute the inn; she has spent some $300,000 to date. Convinced by this ex- perience ofthe need to educate local officials, Lawrence has become active in a four-year- old group called the Lake to Lake Bed-and-Breakfast As- sociation, whose membership includes many of Michigans approximately 200 inns. Lake to Lake has been a dominant force behind proposed new state legislation that would clarify the distinction between bed and breakfasts and conven- tional motels and hotels. In particular, the law would liberalize fire code require- ments applying to small inns and would allow meals to be prepared in -kitchens that do not meet commercial specifica- tions. Other innkeepers have taken education to a more grass-roots level. Paula Williams, owner of the Whistling Swan in Stan- hope, New Jersey, knocked on .-~ .`.~ Jew the doors of 27 skeptical neigh- bors to explain the bed-and- breakfast idea. Innkeepers across the country agree that it's up to the bed-and-breakfast entrepreneurs to make sure the local zoning board understands the concept. A new animal From a public planning stand- point, the major concerns about bed-and-breakfast inns are location, impact, and num- bers. Problems often arise when the structure proposed for an inn is in a residential zon- ingdistrict. Some communities are prepared to deal with these issues, but many are not. One of the first specific bed- and-breakfast ordinances was adopted by Santa Cruz, Califor- nia, in 1984. It was spurred by a proposal for an inn in a residential zone. Eventually, af- ter 12 public hearings in front of the planning commission and the city council, the Dar- ling House was approved and the ordinance adopted. . The catch is that the law so restricts the number of inns al- lowed in residential areas that no other bed-and-breakfast inn has since been approved in Santa Cruz. The ordinance limits bed-and-breakfast inns in residential areas to one every 1,5b0 feet (or three blocks, whichever is greaten; it also re- quiresthem to be onlarge lots, Mai~te's Isle au Haut lighthouse has been converted into a B & B. 18' Planning August 1987 ~ ~ ~, PJ P R A C %~" ~ ~~ fornia. Awell-regarded ordi- nance developed by Petoskey, Michigan, distinguishes clear- ly between small bed and breakfasts (a use subordinate to the principal use of a single- family dwelling) and larger inns. On the state level, Maine's regulations-which are re- spected among the owners of bed-and-breakfast inns-pro- ;~ vide uniform criteria for decid- '' 6ED$ ' BF~AF~FA~7' listed on the city's historic building survey, on arterial or collector streets, within 300 feet of the boundary of the zon- ingdistrict, and guaranteed not to result in a net loss of multi- family units. Santa Cruz planner Joe Hall tells other planners looking for a model ordinance, "Don't use ours:' Other tourist areas in Califor- nia began to produce their own ordinances at about the same time: the Napa/Sonoma wine country, the Mother Lode/Lake Tahoe area, and greater San Diego. Provisions covered land use and parking, food service, length of stay, safety, and even fees and check-out times. Planners and public officials in other states have adopted policies relating to bed and breakfast lodgings based loosely on those used in Cali- The Grey Whale Inn was the first B & B in Fort Bragg about 140 miles north ojSan Francisco. ~~ I ~~ ~ T I C E ing on the merits of individual laws. Typically, ordinances allow- ing bed-and-breakfast inns in residential districts some with an overlay zoned require that an owner/manager live on-site ' and that inn design be compat- ible with the neighborhood. Most ordinances set amaxi- mumnumber of rooms and re- quire aspecific number of parking spaces. Some require special licensing. Rural Calvert County, Maryland, allows bed and breakfasts with no more than two rooms in all zoning areas except wetlands-so long as they are part of a "dwelling unit" with a resident owner or manager; provide off-street parking; operate through an ap- proved bed-and-breakfast registry; and are inspected by fire and health departments. Larger inns must request spe- cialexceptions from the zoning commission. Bed-and-breakfast lobbyists say that great strides have been made in the last few years in convincing government agen- cies to recognize bed-and- breakfastinns as aspecial land- dsecategory, rather than lump- ing them in with rooming houses and hotels. i i f f 1 "Oh, for heaven's sake, George . .200 years from now, what difference will it make where we slept?" 19 A P R A The frequency issue The most controversial or- dinances are those that regu- latethe number of inns that can exist in a given area. For exam- ple, a 1983 Napa County, Cali- fornia, ordinance allowing inns in residential neighborhoods required them to be 1,500 feet apart. The law also required the 188 inns in business at the time to apply for use permits. Many, finding that they didn't qualify under those rules, brought suit; others tried to get around the rules by eliminating breakfast and qualifying as 'guesthouses" instead. In response, says James Hickey, director of the conser- vation, development, and plan- ning department, the county has now decided to rescind the entire ordinance, effectively closing the door to any addi- tional bed and breakfasts. Some innkeepers allege that frequency regulations are the work of hotel/motet lobbyists who fear that bed-and- breakfastinns will cut into the action of the larger lodging fa- cilities.But Eileen Layne of the California Hotel and Motel As- sociation staff notes that her membership includes many bed-and-breakfast innkeepers, TE, ~E~i.7~ ~~~ A BEll & BREAKFAST 1NN so lobbying against them "would be like slapping our- selves in the face:' As time goes by and the bed- and-breakfast market becomes more of a known quantity, con- cerns about proliferation are declining. In fact, innkeepers and big hotel owners are learn- ~ ~ I ITT ~ C T I C E ing they aren't even competing for the same market. Bed-and- breakfast proprietors fre- quently refer calls to nearby hotels and motels if a prospec- tive guest is seeking more privacy or more amenities phone, television, room serv- ice~ than typical inns provide. Meeting codes Most bed-and-breakfast or- dinances specify one parking space per guestroom, plus one or two spaces for the inn- keeper-a requirement that many of the inns find difficult to meet. Ken Torbert and Wendy Hat- field of Fernclale's Gingerbread House had to yank out a historic garden to put in their parking lot. 'And now nobody parks there;' says Torbert. Todd Cleave. of Bed and Breakfast San Juan Bautista and Jim Beaver of the Chan- ticleer Inn in Ashland, Oregon, have had similar experiences. "I put in seven new parking spaces, but everyone still parks on the street;' says Cleave. To avoid such problems, Placerville, California, allows for exceptions if yards or land- ~~k~Street eSt~ f~o,~ ~, ~ s, a~ `~ -. Bed C4 Breakfast "'.9 (MI .W rcct..lnhlnnd or~8o~ vrszo ~w3~ as: trw ~ scaping around inns must be removed- to meet the require- ments. Meeting modern building and safety code standards is also difficult for older struc- tures, although houses built be- fore 1930 may qualify for exemptions to the Uniform Building Code. Specific require- ments for installing kitchens and spas have proved espe- cially tricky for innkeepers. In Oregon, for example, a statewide "traveler accommo- dation law" requires separate kitchens and bathrooms for inn employees. And in Sacramento, California, after having received approval under residential codes for his inn, the Amber House, Bill McOm- berwas told that he would have to meet commercial require- ments instead. McOmber fought the revocation for two years, winning in the end, al- though he eventually sold the inn. Ferndale's Gingerbread ,L1a~isiwt is a stady in Victorian. ?0 planning August 1987 L 1' R The food issue This January, after years of re- search and public meetings, McOmber succeeded in getting bed and breakfasts exempted from state commercial kitchen requirements. California Sen- ate Bill 1981 defines "restricted food service transient oc- cupancy establishments" (in- cluding bed-and-breakfast inns and excuses them from many of the tough standards previously imposed by the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. However, local ordinances still apply, includ- ingthe Santa Cruz County bed- and-breakfast ordinance, which limits food service to, among other things, "non-potentially hazardous pastries:' A strict ordinance has sty- miedthe sale of an eight-room inn in North Beach, Maryland, on Chesapeake Bay. Only a continental breakfast may be served, according to the law. 'A bed and breakfast is not a res- taurant;' says county clerk Betty Freesland. Other conflicts Fire codes are another area of contention. "Our inns are full of antiques. We don't want sprinkler sys- tems;' says Jean Lawrence in Michigan. Even lit red exit signs destroy an inn's ambi- ence, adds Paula Williams, proprietor of the Whistling Swan in New Jersey. An innkeeper in California's wine country spent months refurbishing athree-story man- sion, only to learn at the last minute that the state fire mar- shal wouldrit allow its use un- less ahuge, exterior fire escape was installed. Innkeepers report differ- ences in the level of enforce- ment of local ordinances. Williams says even her exter- nal improvements have never been checked by Stanhope officials, while innkeepers in Ashland, Oregon and Kenne- bunkport, Maine, report unan- nouncedinspections and even Bed and Breakfast plainclothes police posing as guests to enforce ordinances. Ironically, one of California's most notorious bureaucratic layers hasn't caused bed-and- breakfast inns much distress. The Coastal Commission, which oversees development within 1,000 yards of the shore- line, has supported the de- velopment ofinns that give the public access to the coastline. "We had to follow their guide- lines on erosion control, vege- tation, etc.;'says the proprietor of the Darling House in Santa Cruz, "but basically they didn't pose a problem. Their goal is to use existing structures to pro- A N N A C T mote tourist-serving activity, which is exactly what we do:' History in the making The history of bed-and- breakfast inns is replete with tales of their early owners: land barons, renowned architects, and even Russian counts. On the West Coast, Ambrose Bierce's home is now an inn, and the Stonehouse Inn in Car- mel boasts of having lodged Jack London and Sinclair Lewis. In the East, the old chestnut, "George Washington slept here;' may often be true. Several California bed-and- breakfast inns are the work of noted architects. William Weeks designed the Darling House (formerly the Iliff Housed on the West Cliff in Santa Cruz. The Benbow Inn in Garberville was designed by Albert Farr. A room in the May- field House near the Lake Ta- hoe area is named for architect Julia Morgan, who was a fre- quentguest there. ~~.t1 ~l1 ~.t1 r ~~~ A National Nislorieal landmark In many cases, the structures have been used for activities other than lodgings. San Fran- cisco's Nob Hill Inn was oper- ated as abrothel during World War II by infamous madam Sally Stanford (later mayor of Sausalito). Ferndale's Ginger- bread House and the Grey Whale Inn in Fort Bragg are both former hospitals. The fact that these historic I N G I C E structures are being put to re- use is acommunity benefit that must be weighed by commu- nityleaders and planners when they consider inn applications. Some localities even require prospective bed-and-breakfast owners to document a build- ing's history. Insights Many innkeepers sit on local boards and commissions. Todd Cleave was a planning commis- sioner in San Juan Bautista before becoming its only bed- and-breakfast innkeeper in 1980. He ended up writing the bed-and-breakfast ordinance for the town when he applied for use permits for his inn. So did Bill McOmber of Sacra- mento, whose subsequent ef- forts on behalf of Bed and Breakfast Innkeepers of North- ern California has led to a whole new career in trade as- sociation management. Simi- larly, Paula Williams serves on the planning board of Stan- hope, New Jersey. Innkeepers advise planners and other local officials to es- tablish clear procedures for bed-and-breakfast inns before the first application is processed. If no such process exists, potential innkeepers may well pass a town by, says Williams, who searched in several locations for the best spot for the Whistling Swan. In sum, if planners and innkeepers continue to work together, the potential benefits of bed-and-breakfast inns will be shared by their communi- ties, as well as by countless grateful travelers. Copyright 1987 by Chuck Myer, AICP. Myer is a senior planner for Gilroy, California. C-ui~t C~LTPEn .~lltltP K t t .~ - ! ~ i . - 111 Y -. 1 ~} ~~ 1 i ~ ~ 4 ' T ~ ~ ~ ` ,T \~ ~ ~; ~. 1 ~ ~ R.-~ ;+~ 1 ~J~~ ~~1 f~ ,t'L KSS 3 ~ 1. 1,.` 5 ./ 1 ~~t~ sR~ = trek{ M~! • 4 ~ F 1 ,.~- Y`;'~t,~*yi~~{~`Y`gr=~ L " ~ ' 1 ~ L ~C VL LW vY t. .Y7 -k fF y L Jy~ ` ,. _. , ~~ r~'~",; TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATIONS _ ~ "~.`~~ ~- ZR ~t 5 1 c Y. st .. ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ight r~,-~'`, Ls~ not allowed as an oufir s Accommodations are Trave ler ' ' ,4 ~~ • permitted use in any .zone . : _ They are allowed as a Cond i- ,' ~~~ tikes `- R-~3, C-1 .and E-1 zones pursuant ta~ ,<,-~~ ~tional Use in the R-2 , the following provisions of Chapter 18.24 .040 (K) : ~ ~ ~ ,~.~"``'*~FF~~~( ~ ' - ~ y: ~ ~ ~ S ~ r ~ - 11 ~.~rl . ~~ ~ ..:. ~ . , _ t ..: 1 .: ,; ~c:.,: - `;., E yeah . 1}`?y; ~'~fY ~-f '., -~:~_ : `_ r ~,~~ ,. .!~~ ~< r~F. ~i ~ ~ Traveler's Accommodations are allowed subject to an ~,~xr; ~.r~»•. z .`~ ~, • annual Type I review for at least the first three (3) ,~,~ ~~ yt rsi~ "~~+,~d~r ~' ~s~'~'`' ; ~` =years after -which time the Planning Commission may ~y `~ "'.~~~' under a Type I I procedure , a permanent Con ':~~L' <'~~L A~ ~~' ' ; , approve '' ~ "r , , ditional Use Permit for the facility. Also: - ~, , " ~ ' ` s Accommoda- a' ~~~~ ~ ~ residences used -for Traveler ~~ That all ' `•` tions be applicant-occupied. _ " ~,~ _ "^ ~r~. -,, ~ ,,, B:~ That ~ each rental unit have one off-street parking .3 > - - ; i4 ~ : '~ ` space, and the owner's unit have two parking.• spaces. ~ ~~' 1 `_~ _ ~ ~ ' `~ ` one ground or wall non-illuminated wooa (C ,: That only c~ . . ~. si n of 6 s ft. maximum size be allowed t , q• g - ~~ _ _ . r -~~ That the number of rental units allowed, including Ryr~ °""'~ the manager's unit, is determined by 'the following ~_ criteria : _,: > (n' That t of al number ~of units allowed , including . --the manager's unit, is determined by dividing ~ . ~~ 'the total square footage of the lot by 1800 : manager's apartment, there must be ~ >' - 2) 'Excluding the ~ ~.~ ~ • ~ , ~• ~~ ~ ` .; . , ~ ~ at least 400 sq. ft. of gross interior floor space _ _ , , ~ ,~ y• ;R - a ~ ~~ ~: ~;~ ~ .. ~ ' ~> "_~per rental unit ,~~~ , ~ Y - ` . _ be 'subject to issuance ll h h f ~ ;: ~ ~ ,x• . ip s a owners Transfer o -,f _ " ~ :. Iti of a separate Conditional Use Permit. _ _ - . . `~ • _ by the County Health Department ~F~ An annual inspection ,~:,__ - shall be required for all Traveler's Accommodations ~; ~.Y . regardless of the number of guest rooms. x .:~r ~`= -- ~~ -;.. ,~ That the Traveler's Accommodation must be located 1,'; , ~ ; within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street r% E~ ' : . designated on the City's adcpted Transportation Plan ~:: :: _ , . <r : , -- ~ - ~ ~_; `~ ~ - .l ti ~~ `. .i ~ - ~r .- ;~~ J '_ - , ! H., a .~`L - • ~ f .., ir~:~``'.• .. ...-.. , t r 7 -~r, ti-• _ x,,, r ,.. ... y R _ .~?_ r _ `• ~`. - - _ .. _ ~ _ .__ •v.r ~M ~.- ~ TL'C'-.> TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development/Public Works Departments DATE: February 2, 1988 RE: Special Event Banner Program The question of whether or not the Town of system for special events banners has been community members and Town Council members The Vail Valley Foundation also expressed the Town on a banner program for the World Championships. Vail should have a brought up by over the past year. ~ desire to work with Alpine In response to these comments, the Public Works/ :~ Transportation Department looked~at several possibilities for a ~' special events banner program along the parade route. .(Please ~_.' see attached map of parade route.) Three options were investigated. Please note these costs only relate to the poles ~~ and do not include the costs for banners: 1. Utilize Existing Street Light Poles This option is not feasible because of damage which would be caused to the poles and lights by wind blowing the banner. In discussions with flag and flagpole vendors, the proposed banner will act as a "sail" Our existing street light poles are not structurally sound enough to support a banner of the size proposed. 2. Purchase Flagpoles and have Town Personnel Install Cost: 68 19-ft anodized bronze aluminium flagpoles $50,000 Labor cost - installation 15,000 TOTAL $65,000 Pros: Banners would be mounted at equal height (16 ft) on poles spaced. at 100 ft intervals on one side of the entire parade route. Cons: 1. Flagpoles would have to be permanently mounted because of the base configuration. 2. High replacement costs from vehicles, etc. hitting the flagpoles. 3. Town Fabricate and Install Flagpoles Cost: 68 16 ft fabricated steel poles $20,400 Labor cost - installation (removable base) 34,680 TOTAL $55,080. Pros: 1. Banners would be mounted at equal height (16 ft) on poles spaced at 100 foot intervals on one side of the entire parade route. 2. Poles would be fabricated out of 3" x 3" box steel and could be painted any color. The square pole design is in keeping with the design concepts outlined in the Town's Signage Improvement Program. 3. More flexibility of design, a Vail logo, swirl, etc.-can be fabricated to go near the top of the pole. 4. The poles can be fabricated to be removable. 5. Lower initial cost 6. Town replacement costs are lower than if poles were purchased from a catalog. 7. Poles can be fabricated this winter for installation next summer. Public Works fabricated an example of a prototype banner pole which will be shown to the Council at the meeting. If the Town Council would like the staff to proceed with the banner program, the staff would recommend that we work with Jeff Winston to refine the design ideas of the proposal. We feel that much of the work can be accomplished by Town staff. However, Jeff Winston's input on design and location will be helpful. The staff would also follow recommendations in the Vail Signage Improvement Program that suggest:.: "The design of Vail signs should be adaptable to special events Signage. Signposts should have space whereby banners and special signage can be temporarily added without negating the primary purpose of the sign. Colors and typefaces of permanent signs should be carefully selected so that unique special events signage can complement the permanent signage. The consultant's tasks would include: 1. Review existing conditions that will influence the location and design of the banners in Vail. 2. Determine types of banners and locations. This includes the mounting and support systems for the banners, preliminary graphics, and general fabrication and installation costs. _ 3. The actual cost for the implementation of the project will depend on the direction the Council gives the staff in respect to the following questions: ._; a. Where should the banners be located? Should they be concentrated in the Village or should they also - extend along Meadow Drive? b. Is the intent to have street banners up throughout the year, or only for special events? If the banners are to be used only for special events, which special events should have banners? c. Should the World Alpine Ski Championships participate in the funding of the banner program? d. Should original designs be used for the banners, or should the staff try to work from catalog banners? Once the staff has received further direction from the Council, more accurate cost estimates will be possible. At this time, the staff would like to know if the Council is interested in the project and if so, what is the scope of the banner program? i 1 ~ . )~~ n i ..• n » _ • ~ ~ ~ WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST ~ W 2 W ~ Uz'iS F q ~~ W . w ~ ~u~K ~, VaL POTATO Pf4TCN ~ ~ "' "' "' N ,1ULi ~ ~ VAI POTATO FAT H •°° r rr `• SECOND FILING TOWN [~ VAIL BOUNDARY I :4[ p • M •K f004. • I41RA•Ir •(11 R t[•RR•r• 7RR O 0 °' '"°. ~~ INTERSTATE TD . R•aor • ~ .....a..... U NTY EAGLE CO ,.,[ ~~ ... Isi IN • [m "' ~ rR[[ V sK s root • J ~~ W ~ ~ 1 / Rz .R[.. 2nd FLNG [ a i w • ~ooc[ •r a ••.w • r arR.il Q [r..T. vrs. co ~ ~ ~ IDe~.) J • • nr ~ w - • p 1 rti T 4it r[ RRr[N r o ,'^ Icalow w . • su•a r4s[ u • wonrr •ro• ••ao [•• t • • w .[s7 .rs , t# ~ D•. via YllROt ••• w L•[7 ~- ~ A•Cf • • • • • W s• [ r N 1r$ • '°• Crrp•.••p•p• r• fll•Mlrp ~• -~~ ...cr • ss r •" 1•f LOI y • ~ ~ •~ ~ O • K• MO•( e 3 L [ r a s• s• A • n t• rw ® i u u RRT w ~ 70M'•' K w c r••r tNntt e r• s [ 1 ' M M o •uw Rurp• ^ ~ N "w• •rK[iK •IOLlO I•M >o [ •q p• M• N r• Ipop[ Clu• "[ • s ...c) , " [ rR• AIL Vl-L wt• ~ m W !r• •M W J•• IN I .N • • • • • 1 R. © i • f•• •» p ~ i i• p L N ~ 1 ~ • •• N •s r[ N •• ,•r Is ~ ~ •yf • r • 1 • N •,• •f• rN W ! „• ~ tR RO[ •- 11 • • • ~• w • 7 • ! J ) o ~ Kt M [ w• ••• T••Ci • 1 • ' • • 7 t A N YI M • N• • v • ~ s •.•C M ICOt H fIFJ'1 n.C[r [ + .w r Rwf rORR SL•s° 3 f N O r •,• w• ••• •r• /•• 1 N NI ^ r ••• NI 1•/ •. •• r•7 M7 1 r1 ~ • w A 1 rr• 1 s u C )s• y / Q )'• lil•C7 7 .1 ' •'• VAILVILLA tr• 3 • , 1•Rf C ill•GT • „• ,p W - --• -- - ' WHIT E RIV r.rs +~r:Rro •r [•0.[ vain [NGwE[NNN . ft/lKrM MC. • )r'• w ~ maw va. 001oR.E0' •1F ••7• ! TIYCi / w \ . , a sia n r0 s •w • ~n so a w U• ~ ~ .. w• N •MIL •N~{.f\VG 111\fl[.NiN .. ';.yl ; ' ~i ~: // Parade' Route .. • - ~ - ~ :: L »[ K~:.;. . [ /i/i .. i•K. RULES OF ORDER 1. MAYOR INTRODUCES AGENDA ITEM A. Staff Presentation - 20 minutes? or less B. Applicant Presentation - 20 minutes? or less, new materials not reviewed previously by Staff should not be presented C. Audience Comments in Favor - 5 minutes? each (state. name and address, when recognized by Mayor) D. Audience Comments in Opposition - 5 minutes? each (state name and address, when recognized by Mayor) E. Final Applicant Comments - 5 minutes? or less - Applicant returns to seat afterward F. Final Staff Comments - 5 minutes? or less 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION 3. COUNCIL ACTION The above is a sample taken from Breckenridge's Rules of Order. Planning and Environmental Commission February 8, 1988 2:30 PM Work Session on Gateway Building (Amoco) 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. A request for an exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, and a rezoning to a Special Development District for the Golden Peak House. Applicants: Catacombs, Ltd.; Golden Peak House Association; Vail Associates, Inc. 2. Appeal of a staff decision concerning a home occupation permit for Bowling Alley Pizza at 2754 South Frontage Road. Appellants: Darlene and Steve Schweinsberg 3. A request for an amendment to a development plan in the Ski Base/Recreation zone district in order to construct a children's center in the area of the temporary children's center at Golden Peak ski base. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. 4. Presentation of the final plat for the Victorians at 4415 Bighorn Road. Applicant: WSN Partnership DATE: 2/5/88 ACTION LIST ITEM 1. Rewire Council microphones - scheduled for last week of Feb. 2. West Vail Texaco - cars on ROW 3. Restaurant menu boards - Discussion on Feb. 9 4. Develop figures on lost revenue and costs of Ice Arena shut-down 5. Record SID Ordinance for West Vail 6. Arrange Denver Chamber of Commerce meeting 7. Revise street cut ordinance ASSIGNED T0: Public Works Community Development Community Development Recreation/Finance Town Clerk Ron/John Slevin Larry COMPLETED "Well, they come and they go." Tom Braun 2/1/88 o ....u L'J1t1A TOWN OF VAIL SALES TAX ESTIMATION WORKSHEET MONTH ---- 1980 ----------- 1981 ----------- 1982 ----------- 1983 ----------- 1984 ----------- 1985 ------ 1986 1987 1988 ; BUDGET 1988 ACTCIAL -. Variance December 549,000 -- 590,242 ----------- 820,762 ----------- 737,506 ----------- 853,100 ----------- ----- 906,758 ----------- ----------- 905,955 -- ------------ 1,167,280 ------- 1,225,000 --------------------- 1,245,612 20,612 SUBTOTAL 549,000 -- 590,242 ----------- 820,762 ----------- 737,506 ----------- 853,100 ----------- 906,758 ----------- --------- 905,955 - ------------ 1,167,280 -------------- 1,225,000 --------------------- 1,245,612 20,612 January 626,448 514,102 675,186 696,752 742,262 881,304 ---------- 890,585 ------------ 1,063,196 -------------- 1,075 000 --------------------- February 624,040 594,292 687,792 751,856 824,650 918,154 946,552 1,135,786 , ; 1,135 000 March 683,000 697,464 853,648 977,828 1,084,814 1,187,520 1,316,652 1,378,782 , ; 1,350,000 April 246,820 308,436 355,300 319,546 481,204 531,668 430,877 425,961 590 000 May 89,180 135,774 147,378 156,588 166,200 162,912 244,987 245,518 , 240 000 June 176,044 245,204 247,326 257,744 262,696 280,828 361,627 331,581 , 363,000 July 281,846 339,418 349,116 407,474 406,462 447,815 479,507 479,201 ; 490 000 August 268,052 332,724 348,756 384,338 402,792 386,985 512,513 536,904 , ; 559 000 September 176,090 285,918 268,598 324,670 384,864 340,102 374,060 442,402 , ; 460 000 October 137,376 225,024 223,830 198,614 206,248 209,282 237,504 273,951 , ; 285,000 November 140,630 210,254 245,894 281,704 310,588 229,083 376,657 386,270 398,000 December ' 1,225,000 TOTAL 3,998,526 4,478,852 5,223,586 5,494,620 6,125,880 6,482,411 7,077,476 7,866,832 ; 9,395,000 1,245,612 20,612 ~~c. ~OuNC~c. 'l~l~~~es : REC'~ FE8 - 3 1988 ~'ou Ire Cordially Invited To Tfie OPEN HOUSE of Colorado Wesf Reconery,Cenfer Februac~ 12, 1988 4 ~.m. - 7.~.m. 711 Grand 1-avenue, Glenwood springs, Colorado `Hors d'oeuvres will be serned REC'r FEB - g ~ ~nV~~ NORTHWEST COLORADO 1V ~~-: COUNCIL Of GOVERNMENTS Post Office Box 739 Frisco, Colorado 80443 Frisco 303 668-5445 Denver Direct 303 573-7611 February 3, 1988 Mayor and Council Members Town of Vail Vail, CO- 81657 Greetings: Allow me to introduce myself. I am Rick Marcus, the new Executive Director of our Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. I am excited about the opportunities and challenges which lay for NWCCOG and firmly believe that we will continue to provide the region with quality programs and services and provide assistance to those communities who are having difficulties meeting their own needs. Are COG's becoming obsolete? Certainly not! However, there is a definite shift in direction and emphasis. Gone are the days of the huge federal grants and the tedious review process some have termed as "another layer of government". The direction and the role taken by a COG today, particularly NWCCOG, is to administer scaled down Federal Programs at the regional level and provide a variety of specialty services to counties and communities, who, individually, may not have the expertise on staff or who can not afford the cost on their own. (See our enclosed services brochure.) In addition, we are continually called upon to provide information and planning services and represent the concerns of member communities to the State legislature, State boards and agencies and other State and Federal organizations. We have a highly qualified high-energy level staff who are willing and able to assist you in any way possible. In the next three or four months I am going to make every possible effort to meet with you and your staff over lunch, coffee, council or staff .meeting to solicit your ideas and concerns and hopefully be of further help to you and your community. Eaflle County:A~n, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum, Minhm, fwd Cliff, Vail, +~ Grand County:Fraser, Granby, Grand Lake, Hot SulpFxr Springs, i<remmling, Winter F'cak, *Jackaon Couniy:Walden, * Ptfldn Couniyr.Aspen, Srx7wrrioss Village, * Rouft Couny:Hayden, C1ak Creek, Steamboat Springs, Yampa, * Summit Counly.Blue Rimer, Breckenridge, Dillon, Fusco, Montezuma, Sitv~itiorne. If you have any questions or just want to rap, please do not hesitate to call me. Again, I look forward to meeting you in the near future. Sinc rely, Rick Marcus Executive Director RM:s Enclosure ~~:.-~. - Aging and Nutrition ,. *~~ ~ ~~ JTPA ~ ,. Legislative Advocacy ~ , ~ .~~ ; . Skyline Six Area Agency on Aging serves the Re- The Jobr Training Partnership Act (JTPA) pro- NWCCOG represents the concerns of its 'gion's senior citizens with: ' vides employment and training services to resi- member Towns and Counties to State legis- = * Transportation ' _ dents who are: lators, State boards and committees and other * In-home care and health services * Low"income 'High risk youth ~ , Federal, State and local organizations~nd agen- *Legal assistance Dislocated * Older workers cies. * Information and referral * Suffering barriers to employment , * Coordination and outreach The JTPA provides services to employers Senior nutrition sites and home delivered meals through: are available at the following locations: * * On the job training * " Revolving Loan Fund ` Kremmling • Basalt Work experience :Eagle Aspen * Customized training NWCCOG provides .low interest loans to * Minturn Hayden 'Classroom tuition businesses which will:... * ~ Granby * Oak Creek * Help in training qualified employees * Create new jobs * Frisco * Steamboat Springs . Retain existing jobs ~ '~ Diversify the economy High priority is given to the expansion of exist- Eeono1Y11C Development Larid USe and ~dter Fund ing business and businesses in the wholesale, NWCCOG provides businesses and local govern- Defends local government land use author- ~ manufacturing or necessary services areas. ' ment with: ity in litigation brought by front range water * Organizational assistance _a diverters * Economic'.. data * Represents interests of headwater Counties - • Assistance with grants { -" ~ and Towns in State and Federal water diversion TeleWeSt * Planning and strategy assistance permit decisions * NWCCOG maintains sophisticated video equip- * Liaison with State and Federal programs Provides legal counsel to jurisdictions at- ment, providing the Region with the capability . tempting to exercise local permit authority of water diversion projects to produce and utilize high quality videotapes Energy Management.. ~ on a variety of informational,. educational and NWCCOG helps low-income residents reduce public interest topics: their home fuel consumption by providing: Economic development 'Caulking weatherstripping and insulation Legal * .Energy conservation.. , * Furnace tune-ups _ Member governments receive free legal consul- * Regional events The elderly and handicapped receive the high- tation ".and inquiry services by telephone. Job training est ,priority for these services.: NWCCOG ,also provides general legal services * Aging * Free energy conservation information and at reduced costs to members on a variety.: of Political issues advice available to Towns and Counties local government issues.. 'Environmental concerns ~, ( - - , ,F ~ , :"~ ~ I - .. What Is-NWCCOG? J . , The .Northwest Colorado Council of Govern- i ~ ~a C ments (NWCCOG) was formed in 1972 as a i ~' ' voluntary association of local governments in j d ` ~ - ~' ' the, six County. area known as Region XII. The ! ~ ~ ~ c o ,~~ purpose of NWCCOG is to provide elected offs- ' ~, ~ ~ ~ ~' o o ~' Northwest ' cials and citizens with: i ' w ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~, z ~ ~ ~ _' Increased political clout with State Wand. ~ ~ ~' ~ r W o . ,' Colora,d,Q - Federal government I . * r ~ ., n ~ ; ~ ~~ -Council Efficient delivery of Regionwide services o 'Better information exchange among local ~~~ ~~ of `' ` overnments g w z , . * Enhanced intergovernmental cooperation - N , ~ ;: ~ Governments on programs of mutual interest ' Access to technical assistance. otherwise ' , , ` ~ Serving Region XII ~ ` ' . unavailable to rural entities. , , , ~ . _; -The 32 person NWCCOG Board of Directors is ~ '.~.' COLlIltleS '~ comprised of an elected representative of each Eagle ~ ~ ~ Pitkin member government. The Board meets on the Grand Routt fourth Thursday of every month. NWCCOG has ' _ Jackson ~ Summit a professional staff of 20 and an annual budget ~ . . of approximately $1.4 million -comprised ~ ` primarily of grant funds, supplemented with TOWr1S dues. from member governments and fees for ~ ~ Aspen Hot Sulphur Spgs. services. Avon Kremmling Basalt Minturn Blue River Montezuma " Breckenridge Oak Creek Dillon Red Cliff Eagle Silverthorne `.Fraser - Snowmass Frisco ~~ ,Steamboat Spgs. .Granby Vail ~ ~ Grand Lake _ Walden ~~,o ., ~~ ~ {~, ~ - ~ Gypsum ~ ~ Winter Park - ~ ~ ~° - ~ k , Yamp ;' ~ Hayden ,. - - .. , u ~ ,~; t _~ R~ ~ ~ LOCKEWILL, INC. 1226 AMBASSADOR BLVD. SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 63132 W. GRANT WILLIAMS 11 PRESIDENT February 2, 1988 Town Council Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Members: RECD F E B - 3 1988 As long-time homeowners on Mill Creek Circle, we have avidly supported the many good things that have happened to Vail. However, the proposed development and addition to the Golden Peak House, the deck expansion on the Green Belt--designated open space--land, and the V.A. permit to build underground facilities are clearly not in Vail's best interests. The encroachment and development of the open tracts presently estab- lished in Vail Village, no matter how completed, would be a fatal blow to Vail. The proposed changes would turn a charming, beautiful area into a junky, over-commercialized hodgepodge. It would be tragic, short-sighted, and inexcusable to allow this to happen. Please help us stop this development. to ruin our town. Please don't allow "progress" Cordially, /` ~~ W. rant Williams 302 Mill Creek Circle Vail, CO 81657 +~ . C'0 FEB - 4 19~~ Olson Industries Inc. 4550 Jackson Street Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone (303) 399-4623 February 2, 1988 Town Council Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Council Member: I have just become aware of the proposal to create Special Development District #20 and all of the plans related to it. Rather than repeat my concerns about this proposal, I am attaching a copy of a copy of Keith Brown's letter which he had kindly forwarded to me. I completely support his point of view. I was in the original limited partnership and built a house on Mill Creek Circle in 1963. I was also a member of the first Board of Directors of Vail Associates Inc. I clearly remember the battles that went on between developers and citizens concerned about enviromental amenities. Fortunately, we did preserve some open space and green belt areas which contribute to the ambaince of Vail. I strongly urge that you reject this proposal, and that you resist all attempts to destroy the limited and irreplaceable open spaces that many of us fought so hard to preserve years ago. Yours Sincerely, %~ ~~'~~. Richard H. Olson Divisions Roberts^PerfectionTip^Partrade ,.v _ ,~ a KEITH L. BROWN 2100 COLO RA00 STATE BANK BUILDING 1600 BROADWAY DENVER, COLORADO 80202 January 29, 1988 Town Council Town. of Vail Vail, Colorado .; r! % .r F. Dear Council Members: I am enclosing a copy of my letter to the Planning and Environmental Committee with regard to the proposal for a Special Development, District ~~20. It is my understanding that if approved, this matter will come to the Town Council for a deci- sion to change the present zoning. I urge you to reject any such change. I'm certain that one of the toughest decisions that faces Council members is a matter such as this.. Good friends and associates can bring seemingly valid arguments and great pressure to grant this "one little exception" and the tendency may very well be to go along in this special case. The problem is that it is not an isolated situation. It will open a Pandora's Box to more and more re- quests for exceptions. It will be used as a pre- cedent with future Planning Commissions and future Town Councils and most certainly will be cited in Court cases in support of future encroachments of our limited open greenbelt areas. Apparently a great deal of time, money and study has already gone into this particular request, which is regrettable. This is still not a valid argument for granting the request. For the future, I urge the Town Council to notify the Planning Commission and its staff to refuse to entertain proposals that commercialize our open areas. It is naive to think that these cases will not 'end up in long, drawnout, expensive lawsuits in almost every case, and it is unfair to the tax- payers to force this kind of action. .. ., s TOWN COUNCIL January 29, 1988 Page 2, Continued My hope is that you would "just say no" to this and similar requests. Respectfully,~Submi tted, =~ ~ ~~ .L` ;;°, . , Keith L. Brown cmm Enclosure HIGBIE F ~D LTD. RAREFY G. HIGBIE, JR. GENERAL PARTNER February 1, 1488 Town Council TOWN OF VAIL, Vail, Colo. 81657 Dear Members of the Council: Enclosed is a copy of my letter to the Planning Commission objecting to the proposal for a Special Development Dis- trict ~~20. Basically, I am concerned about the encroach- ment on land that has been designated open space. There was good reason for assigning that designation in the first place and the reasons have not changed.. I urge that you reject this proposal. Sincerely, 'Harley G. Hi ie, Jr. cmm 2100 COLORADO STATE BANK BUILDING DENVER, COLORADO 80202 (303) 861.-4230 I HIGBIE FUND, LTD. HARIEY G. HIGBIE, JR. GENERAL PARTNER February 1, 1988 Planning & Environmental Commission TOWN OF VAIL, Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Commission Members: With regard to the proposal to create Special Develop- ment Bistrict ;~20, I wish to express my opposition to same. I am concerned since I have owned a home on Mill Creek Circle and I was one of the group that started Vail. Basically, I object to building on "open space." It is a violation of the planning process and should not be subjected to the special desires of individual interests. Thank you for your consideration. Sin erely, ~ ' arle G. H Y ie, Jr. cmm 2100 COLORADO STATE BANK BUILDING DENVER, COLORADO 80202 (303) 861-4230 Fitzhugh Scott Box 1773 Vail, Colorado 81658 February 4 , 19 8 8 Planning Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Golden Peak Building Expansion Dear Commissioners: ~~ FE8 - 5 1988 My first reaction to the proposed addition to the Golden Peak House was favorable. I believe that the additions to the existing building and the basic architectural changes are well-conceived and will result in an aesthetic improvement, more compatible with the rest of Bridge Street. Also, my first reaction to Vail Associates' ski-related facilities below grade on the south side of the building was also favorable. I believe that what is good for V.A. is good for all Vail, and I recognize the financial advantage of building on land owned by V.A. as opposed to negotiating with the U.S.F.S. for use of the land just west of Chair ~l. However, I no,.~ believe that any encroachment on the land which the "Founders" of Vail reserved as open space sets a very dangerous precedent. When Caulkins and Higbie and Brown, Peter Seibert, Tweedy and Fowler, Dick Hauserman and myself approved the construction of the Golden Peak building, we, at the same time, established Tract E as permanent open space. We did it to create a park- like environment between the primarily commercial village and the residential area around Mill Creek Circle. To violate this concept is, in my opinion, not only a grave planning errox, but an unpardonable breach of faith and a precedent for further violations in the future. I therefore respectfully urge you to reject any and all proposed construction on Tract E, including areaways, stairs, decks, etc. S~nc r v ~ rs, .., ~ Fi z u h Scott cc: /Vail Tom Council i REC'~ FEB - ~ 1988 Charles A. Meyer 375 Mill Creek Circle Vail, CO 81657 February 5, 1988 The Town Council TOWN OF VAIL Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Members: By way of introduction, we Meyer's were original Limited Partners of Vail Associates and have been home-owners on Mill Creek Circle since Vail's beginning. We arrived shortly ago and were soon advised of the proposal to create a Special Development District #20 by the scary process of eroding at least one of the fundamental zoning controls established when Vail was established. Should this occur, there may well be set in motion a cynical disregard for any qualities in Vail land use except expansion - principally commercial. The proposed encroachment on Tract E is in short a dangerous step to take. I am taking the liberty of writing to you and Ron Phillips and the Planning Commission. It may seem that three identical letters are a redundancy. Yet, you and Ron Phillips and the Planning Commission surely have the same basic vision for Vail and, in fact, the common responsibility of preventing gradual and successive erosion of the zoning principles that your predecessors - with great foresight - have established as long as 25 years ago. Recognizing that there will always be petitions reflecting special weeks and special interests in any viable community with which I am familiar, I hope that you will continue to ask yourselves, now and in the future, this tough question: "adhere will we draw the line?" Most sincerely, ~, Charles A. Meyer ~ RETT Revised: 2/ Z/88 TOWN OF VAIL REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX. History and Budget 1988 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1988 BUDGET MONTH ------------ ACTUAL ----------- ACTUAL ------------ ACTUAL ---------- ACTUAL ----- = ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE January ------------ 63,999 ----------- 98,089 ------------ 106,981 ---------- -- --- 119,972 ----------- ----------- 78,053 ----------- ----------- 80,733 --- ----------- 101,374 ----------- 131,916 -- ------------ 88,320 -------------------- 96,119 7,79 9 Subtotal ------------ 63,999 ----------- 98,089 ------------ 106,981 ---------- 119,972 ----------- 78,053 ----------- -------- 80,733 --- ----------- 101,374 ----------- 131,916 -- ; ------------ 88,320 -------------------- 96,119 7,799 February 40,595 69,018 105,024 132,220 86,289 -------- 170,052 ----------- 64,906 ----------- 44,040 -- ; ------------ 75,687 -------------------- March 69,886 126,935 109,533 137,820 62,693 63,831 92,557 38,791 79,300 April T6,855 94,653 65,900 103,526 173,321 90,396 182,743 95,554 ; 95,731 May 42,738 84,324 54,663 90,599 96,006 228,673 98,651 120,984 82,287 June 62,239 125,433 54,488 140,638 76,467 49,513 ?9,915 73,509 ; 71,243 July 49,367 186,110 104,262 68,539 157,598 88,528 70,441 47,949 ; 81,307 August 79,859 115,499 71,282 97,806 58,937 32,860 100,182 61,137 70,813 September 59,800 113,992 49,332 96,746 64,671 48,516 108,167 78,819 ; 69,052 October 108,510 154,000 42,498 122,546 88,732 109,633 93,860 124,291 ; 97,733 November 102,623 107,768 81,698 91,385 105,109 74,909 89,047 114,839 87,177 December ------------- 142,662 ---------- 133,867 ------------ 110,911 ---------- 56,533 ----------- 81,890 ----------- 333,139 -- 106,695 95,495 ; 101,348 TOTAL 899,133 1,409,688 956,572 1,258,330 1,129,766 --------- 1,370,783 ----------- 1,188,538 ----------- 1,027,324 --- ----------- 1,000,000 -------------------- 96,119 7,799 `~ ~ ~• • 'i ~~ ~ : >> i ~„ , FEB - 1 1988 KEITH L. BROWN 2100 COLORADO STATE BANK BUILDING 1600 BROADWAY DENVER, COLORADO 80202 January 29, 1988 Town Council Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Dear Council Members: I am enclosing a copy of my letter to the Planning and Environmental Committee with regard to the proposal for a Special Development, District 420. It is my understanding that if approved, this matter will come to the Town Council for a deci- sion to change the present zoning. I urge you to reject any such change. I'm certain that one of the toughest decisions that faces Council members is a matter such as this. Good friends and associates can bring seemingly valid arguments and great pressure to grant this "one little exception" and the tendency may very well be to go along in this special case. The problem is that it is not an isolated situation. It will open a Pandora's Box to more and more re- quests for exceptions. It will be used as a pre- cedent with future Planning Commissions and future Town Councils and most certainly will be cited in Court cases in support of future encroachments of our limited open greenbelt areas. Apparently a great deal of time, money and study has already gone into this particular request, which is regrettable. This is still not a valid argument for granting the request. For the future, I urge the Town Council to notify the Planning Commission and its staff to refuse to entertain proposals that commercialize our open areas. It is naive to think that these cases will not end up in long, drawnout, expensive lawsuits in almost every case, and it is unfair to the tax- payers to force this kind of action. TOWN COUNCIL January 29, 1988 Page 2, Continued My hope is that you would "just say no" to this and similar requests. Respectfully.Submitted, / i" Keii~th L. `Brown cmm Enclosure . a KEITH L. BROWN 2100 COLORADO STATE BANK BUILDING 1600 BROAD WAV DENVER.COLORADO 80202 January 29, 1988 Planning & Environmental Commission down of Vail, Vail, Colorado Dear Members: I have just learned of the proposal to create Special Development District ~~20 and all of the plans that are related to it. As an original founder of Vail Associates and a homeowner on Millcreek Circle since the beginning, I would like to give you my thoughts and concerns.. Quite simply, I am concerned and strongly object to any encroachment or development on the open tracts presently established in Vail Village. Tract E is a particularly valuable open space, used as a children~s play area, bicycle path, and general-park type environment, and I think any commercialization of the tract would be a terrible breach of faith with the people of Vail. Once the process of making exceptions starts, it is almost impossible to stop. Developers look at open areas with great yearn- ing and are very adept at developing plans tha t for one reason or another, have great attraction. This present plan which combines a much-needed ski base/recreation facility with a blatent commercialization of Tract E, is an excellent example. It has obvious financial attraction to both Vail Associates and the owners of Golden Peak House, but it is unfair to adjacent property owners. I see no problem in permitting the Golden Peak House to remodel in accordance with the present zoning and that is certainly not anything that ~ . PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 29, 1988 . Page 2, Continued concerns me. I also have no problem with per- mitting an underground development of Tract E for the ski base/recreational facility. These ~-developments can both take place without the necessity of destroying part of Tract E by per- mitting commercial use. I would urge the Planning Commission to reject this proposal and not go down the path of com- mercializing our open space. This is an exam- ple of "the camel's nose under the tent" and will make it difficult, if not impossible, for future Planning Commissions to reject other "worthwhile" developments. Yours very truly, r' ~~ Ifs th L. Brown cmm Shy ~,~t/t5E'b f/~q ORDINANCE NO. 2 SERIES OF 1988 AN ORDINANCE INCLUDING ALL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE TOWN WITHIN TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, WEST VAIL LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, ACCEPTING CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED AND INSTALLED IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT, DETERMINING THE TOTAL COST THEREOF, DECLARING THAT THE COST OF THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE ASSESSED .AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THE TOWN AND THAT THE COST OF THE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES SPECIALLY BENEFITTED THEREBY, RECEIVING, ACCEPTING AND MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL APPORTIONING THE COST TO BE PAID BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AS AMONG AFFECTED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT, ASSESSING THE COST AS APPORTIONED THEREIN AGAINST ASSESSABLE LOTS OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT SPECIALLY BENEFITTED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS, PRESCRIBING THE METHOD OF PAYING AND COLLECTING THE ASSESSMENTS, DESCRIBING THE LIEN SECURING PAYMENT THEREOF, MAKING NECESSARY FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE SATISFACTION OF ALL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE FOREGOING, LIMITING ACTIONS CHALLENGING THE PROCEEDINGS, AND AUTHORIZING MAILING OF NOTICE OF REDEMPTION OF CERTAIN TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, WEST VAIL LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS DATED JUNE 1, 1987. WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado (the "Town") has heretofore by Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1987, authorized and ordered the construction and installation of improvements therein described (the "Improvements") for Town of Vail, Colorado, West Vail Local Improvement District No. 1 (the "District") and determined thereafter to levy special assessments against the affected properties in the District, according to the method and within the limitations therein described; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has heretofore by Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1987, issued special assessment bonds designated Town of Vail, Colorado, West Vail Local Improvement District No. 1 Special Assessment Bonds, dated June 1, 1987, in the aggregate principal amount of $525,000 (the "Bonds"), to pay a portion of the cost of constructing and installing the Improvements and covenanted thereafter to apportion, levy and assess said cost, less any portion thereof to be paid by the Town, upon the assessable lots and tracts of land within the District; and BD534 18 01/25/88 WHEREAS, the Improvements are now substantially complete; and WHEREAS, the Town Manager has ascertained the total cost of the Improvements, less that portion thereof to be paid by the Town and has brought the matter of levying assessments therefor before the Town Council; and WHEREAS, an assessment roll for the District, showing the amount of each assessment, has been prepared by the Town"s Department of Public Works & Transportation; and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has heretofore caused a notice in the form prescribed by Section 20.04.180 of the Code of the Town (Section 1-11(a) of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1976) to be mailed by first class postage prepaid mail to the record owners of the affected properties on December 17, 1987 and to be published in The Vail Trail, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town, in its issues of December 18, 24, and 31, 1987; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing upon proposed special assessments against properties within the District and upon the ordinance by which the same shall be levied, all as required by Chapter 20.04 of the Code and the Charter of the Town, at its regular meetings on January 5, 1988, and February 2, 1988; and WHEREAS, after further deliberation the Town Council has determined that all property owned by the Town, being specially benefitted by the construction and installation of the nImprovements, should be included within the District and that the cost of the street Improvements, to the extent not previously paid by the Town, and a portion of the sanitary sewer Improvements, should be assessed against the property owned by the Town so included within the District. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: 1. The Town proposed assessments an given and a public he therefore that the not Chapter 20.04 of the C Series of 1987, have be of this Ordinance. The all other conditions an relating to the levying within the District have 2. within the Council hereby finds that notice of d of a public hearing thereon has been aring held as hereinbefore recited and ice and public hearing requirements of ode of the Town and Ordinance No. 10, en fully satisfied prior to the adoption Town Council hereby further finds that d requirements of said Code and ordinance of special assessments against properties heretofore been fully satisfied. The Town Council hereby consents to the inclusion District of all property owned by the Town, BD534 19 01/29/88 acknowledges that said property has been specially benefitted by the construction and installation of the Improvements in an amount at least equal to the amount of the assessment hereinafter made against such property, waives any and all notices and hearings required in order to include its property within the District and to levy an assessment against such property and any and all defects or irregularities in the proceedings therefor, and agrees to be bound by the assessment so levied. 3. The Town Council hereby includes all property owned by the Town within the District. 4. The Town Council hereby accepts the Improvements constructed and installed in and for the District. 5. The Town Council hereby finds that the total cost of the Improvements, including engineering, legal, and incidental costs, is $1,020,000, that of said cost the Town has previously paid $495,000 and borrowed $525,000 by issuing the Bonds, that the portion thereof to be assessed against the property owned by the Town within the District specially benefitted by the construction and installation of the street Improvements and a portion of the sanitary sewer Improvements is~$480,555.55, and that the portion thereof to be assessed against the lots or tracts of land within the District specially benefitted by the construction and installation of the sanitary sewer Improvements i s „$ 44 , 444.45 . 6. The Town Council hereby finds that the Improvements are local improvements which have conferred general benefits upon the Town and also special benefits upon the affected properties within the District. Properties proposed to be assessed abut or are in the vicinity of the Improvements and have benefited from the construction and installation thereof. Assessments are to be levied because substantial special benefits have resulted from the Improvements to all of the affected properties within the boundaries of the District, which special benefits are separate and distinct from the general benefits to the Town that will also result therefrom. Said special benefits consist of improvements that enhance the present and/or potential use, convenience, value, reduction in maintenance costs, alleviation of health and sanitation hazards or enjoyment of the property. This finding is made after considering evidence relating to the following factors: (1) The effects upon the appearance and environment of and for the properties abutting upon or in the vicinity of the Improvements; BD534 20 01/29/88 (2) The availability of the Improvements for use by the properties abutting. upon or in the vicinity of the Improvements; (3) The type of improvements made and the policy followed in making assessments or similar improvements constructed in the past; (4) The nature of the Improvements, singularly or in combination, and their influence throughout the area and as to the individual parcels of property;. (5) The ever-increasing responsibility and changing concept of what is required of the individual property owners at their own costs under the police power even though the general public also has available to it such Improvements; (6) Unique features of the particular properties; (7) The zoning, uses, and potential uses of the properties in the vicinity of the Improvements; (8) Opinions on the effects upon the fair market values from the Improvements upon properties in the vicinity of the Improvements; (9) The probable influence from the Improvements relating to the protection or preservation of the values of the properties in the vicinity of the Improvements. 7. The Town Council hereby receives, accepts and modifies the assessment roll for the District as prepared by the Town's Department of Public Works & Transportation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. The amounts specified in said assessment roll, insofar as the same relates to the sanitary sewer Improvements, have been computed according to the method described in Ordinance No. l0, Series of 1987, and as described in Exhibit B attached hereto. The Town Council has heretofore by said Ordinance determined, and by this Ordinance does again determine, that said method of assessment is a fair and equitable one, providing for a reasonable apportionment of the cost of the Improvements consistent with the benefits conferred. The determination made hereby is reached after weighing the factors specified in Section 20.04.220 of the Code of the Town (Section 1-12 of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1976) after hearing evidence relating to special benefits actually conferred upon the affected properties, including without limitation increased market value, in an amount which equals or exceeds the maximum amount of the particular BD534 21 01/25/88 assessment to be levied against each such property, and after considering all other relevant circumstances. 9. The Town Council hereby determines that as to each lot or tract of real estate assessed that said special benefits exceed in value the amounts to be assessed therefor and that said benefits are apportioned among the respective lots or tracts in rough approximation to the benefits conferred. 10. The Town Council hereby finds that the proposed assessments reflected in the assessment roll will be sufficient in the aggregate to cover the portion of the total cost of the Improvements to be defrayed by the levying of special assessments. 11. Said amounts are hereby assessed against the respective properties as set forth in said assessment roll, and the Town Clerk is hereby instructed so to notify the affected owners. 12. All assessments made in pursuance of this Ordinance shall be due and payable. without demand to the Director of Administrative Services on March 4, 1988. 13. All such assessments may at the election of the owner be paid in installments with interest. Failure to pay the whole assessment on or before March 4, 1988, shall be conclusively considered and held to be an election on the part of such owner to pay in installments the amount of the assessment then unpaid. The Town shall pay its assessment in full on March 4, 1988, from legally available funds. 14. Assessments not paid on or before March 4, 1988, shall be payable in ten (10) substantially equal annual installments, beginning August 1, 1988, and continuing thereafter on August 1 of each year until and including August 1, 1997, with interest on the unpaid principal amount at the rate of eight and one-half per cent (8.5%) per annum, payable August 1, 1988, and on principal payment dates thereafter. 15. There shall be no interest charge or penalty against any assessment, payment of which is made in full to the Director of Administrative Services on or before March 4, 1988. The Town Manager may publish a notice in at Ieast one newspaper published and of general. circulation in the Town at least ten (10) days before said date or any installment payment date, which notice shall state the place of payment and the time for it to close. The failure to publish such notice or to do any other act or thing required by Chapter 20.04 of the Code shall not affect such assessment or any installment thereof, or the lien the Town holds therefor, nor extend the time for payment thereof. BD534 22 01/25/88 16. The owner of any lot or tract of real estate herein assessed may at any time pay the whole unpaid principal due under this Ordinance with the interest accrued to the next interest payment date, together with penalties, if any. 17. An assessment or installment thereof shall be considered delinquent if not paid within thirty (30) days after the date set for payment thereof in the provisions of this Ordinance. A delinquency shall cause the whole amount of unpaid principal and accrued interest to become due and payable. Any delinquent assessment or installment shall continue drawing interest as hereinabove provided plus penalty interest at the rate of one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month. As soon as any assessment or installment thereof shall become delinquent, the Director of Administrative Services shall mark the same delinquent on the assessment roll and shall, at least once each calendar year, but not sooner than the first day of December, certify such assessments, along with interest and penalty, to the County Treasurer of Eagle County, Colorado; and the County Treasurer shall extend such assessment upon the real property tax rolls of the County and collect the same in the same manner as delinquent general taxes levied upon such property. Upon certification of the delinquent assessment or payments, the costs of such collection shall also become due and payable. However, at any time prior to the date a delinquent assessment is certified to the County Treasurer for collection, but not thereafter, the owner may pay the amount of delinquent installments, accrued interest thereon, and penalties due, and shall thereupon be restored to the right thereafter to pay in installments in the same manner as if default had not been made. 18. All assessments made in pursuance of this Ordinance shall be a lien in the several amounts assessed against each tract or parcel of land from the effective date of this Ordinance. A lien shall not, however, attach to any tract or parcel of land so assessed which is owned by the State of Colorado, or any agency,. or instrumentality thereof, or any county, municipality, school district, special or quasimunicipal district, other political subdivision, or private corporation operating a public utility. As to any subdivisions of any real estate assessed in pursuance of this Ordinance, the assessments shall in each case be a lien upon the individual lots of the subdivision in proportion to their respective shares. The liens for assessments shall be prior and superior to all other liens, claims, encumbrances and titles, whether prior in time or not, and shall constitute such a lien until paid; provided, however, such assessment lien is subordinate and junior to any lien for general taxes and is subject to extinguishment by the sale of any property on account of the nonpayment of general taxes; and provided, further, any such assessment lien on any tract or BD534 23 01/25/88 parcel of land is prior and superior to any assessment lien thereon subsequently levied. 19. After the expiration of thirty (30) days from the effective date of this Ordinance, all actions or suits attacking in any way the proceedings held, the determinations and findings made, and the assessments levied herein, shall be perpetually barred and shall_ not thereafter be questioned in any court or before any other tribunal. In order for one to have standing to challenge the proceedings in any respect, or the Ordinance adopted, or any assessment levied, he must have asserted his objections in accordance with Section 20.04.200 of the Code of the Town. Review shall be limited to the objections so asserted. If a court of competent jurisdiction sets aside any final assessment, then the Town Council may make a new assessment generally in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. Notices and procedures followed need not be in strict compliance with this Ordinance so long as the affected property owner is afforded due process of law. 20. The Town hereby exercises its option to redeem the Bonds numbered 1 through, 6, inclusive, prior to their maturity date, on April 1, 1988, at a price equal to the principal amount of each Bond so redeemed plus accrued interest thereon to the redemption date. Central Bank of Denver, the paying agent for the Bonds, is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of redemption of said Bonds by sending a copy of such notice by certified or registered first-class postage prepaid mail, at least thirty {30) days but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the redemption date, to Kirchner Moore & Company and to the registered owner of each of the Bonds being redeemed, determined. as of the close of business on the day preceding the mailing of such notice, at the address appearing on the registration books of the Town. The notice of redemption of the Bonds shall be in substantially the following form: BD534 24 01/29/88 [Form of Notice] NOTICE OF REDEMPTION OF TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO WEST VAIL LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS DATED JUNE 1, 1987 - $525,000 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town of Vail, Colorado has exercised its option to redeem the Bonds of the above-described issue numbered 1 through ~, inclusive, prior to their maturity date, on April 1, 1988, at a price equal to the principal amount of each Bond so redeemed plus accrued interest thereon to the redemption date. On the redemption date there will become due and payable at the office of Central Bank of Denver, Denver, Colorado, the principal amount of each Bond so redeemed plus accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, and from and after the. redemption date interest will cease to accrue. Each Bond will be redeemed on or after the redemption date upon presentation and surrender thereof. DATED this day of 1988. CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER, a banking corporation Authorized Officer [End of Form. of Notice] BD534 25 01/29/88 21. The officers of the Town are hereby authorized and directed to take all action necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this Ordinance. 22. All action heretofore taken by the Town and by the officers thereof not inconsistent herewith directed toward the levying of special assessments against properties within the District specially benefited by the construction and installation of the Improvements therein is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. 23. All acts, orders, ordinances, resolutions, or parts thereof, of the Town in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, except that this repealer shall not be construed so as to revive any act, order, ordinance, resolution, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. 24. If any paragraph, clause or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason judicially adjudged invalid or unenforceable, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining paragraphs, clauses or provisions hereof, the intention being that the various paragraphs, clauses or provisions hereof are severable. INTRODUCED A SECOND TIME, READ BY TITLE, AMENDED, FINALLY APPROVED AS AMENDED ON SECOND READING, ADOPTED AS AMENDED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AGAIN IN FULL this 2nd day of February, 1988. TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Mayor (TOWN) (SEAL) ATTEST: Town Clerk BD534 26 01/25/88 EXHIBIT A (Attach Final Assessment Roll) Street Improvements Town of Vail Sanitary Sewer Improvements Town of Vail King Barnhart/Miller Barnhart/Miller Barnhart/Miller Miller Barnhart W. Vail Development Corp. W. Vail Development Corp. $475,000.00 $ 5,555.55 VDS 2 10 ~ 5,555.55 VDS 2 11 5,555.55 VDS 2 12 5,555.55 VDS 2 13 5,555.55 VDS 2 14 5,555.55 VDS 2 15 5,555.55 VDS 2 17 5,555.55 VDS 2 18 5,555.55 ~ 50.000.00 $525,000.00 BD534 27 01/29/88 r.~, EXHIBIT B (Attach Description of Method of Apportioning Assessments) The cost of the street improvements shall be assessed against the Town of Vail. The cost of the sanitary sewer improvements to be assessed against the benefited properties shall be apportioned equally among such properties as described in Exhibit A hereto. BD534 28 01/29/88