HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-16 Support Documentation Town Council Regular SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1988
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1988, first reading, an ordinance repealing and
re-enacting Section 18.39.030, Permitted Uses of Chapter 18.39, Ski
Base/Recreation District of the Vail Municipal Code.
2. Bravo! Colorado Presentation
3. Appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission decision to deny a
requested minor subdivision at Lot 8, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
4. Town Manager's Report
5. Adjournment
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1988
7:30 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 1. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1988, first reading, amending the
Rick Pylman Vail Municipal Code regarding the Ski Base/Recreation Zone
District.
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 6,
Series of 1988, on first reading.
Background Rationale: Vail Associates is requesting this
amendment in order to allow construction of a permanent free
standing building to house the Children's Ski Center.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of
1988, on first reading, with conditions.
8:10 2. Bravo! Colorado Presentation
Brad Quayle
Action Requested of Council: Reconsider the Bravo! Colorado
request for funds.
Background Rationale: A memo is enclosed explaining what
has .taken place since last Tuesday's meeting. Brad also had
a revised proposal enclosed in the packet.
Staff Recommendation: Commit the $34,000 budgeted for
street entertainment and summer programming to Bravo!
Colorado. This should be done b.y contract.
8:30 3. Appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission Decision
Tom Braun to deny a requested minor subdivision at Lot 8, Block 4,
Vail Village Third Filing
Action Requested of Council: Uphold/overturn the PEC's
decision.
Background Rationale: The lot is presently zoned Primary/
Secondary. The request would create 2 lots with zoning on
both to remain Primary/Secondary. The staff memo provides
more background and conditions of approval pertaining to
this application.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the request as per the staff
memorandum.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
9:00 4. Town Manager's Report
9:05 5. Adjournment
TO: Ron Phillips
FROM: Community Development
DATE: February 16, 1988
SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the Ski Base/Recreation
zone district for the Golden Peak Children's Center
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
Vail Associates, Inc. has submitted an application to amend
Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Ski Base/
Recreation zone district. The purpose of this requested
amendment is to allow Vail Associates to replace the existing
modular units with a permanent facility that will serve as a
children's center. The amendment to the zoning is required to
allow construction of a secondary building on the Golden Peak
site.
Staff recommendation is for approval with two conditions. The
Planning and Environmental Commission voted 5 - 0 with two
abstentions to approve the request with three conditions:
1. That Vail Associates contribute 50% of the cost of
construction of a colored concrete walkway from the
Ramshorn property to the existing Manor Vail walkway.
Town of Vail will also be a 50% partner.
2. That the Design Review Board review the concerns of the
staff that are outlined in the staff recommendation #2 in
the memo of 2/8/88.
3. That the Town of Vail and Vail Associates study the total
traffic situation from the Ramshorn to Ski Club Vail prior
to construction of the building.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 8, 1988
SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Ski Base/Recreation
zone district for Golden Peak Nursery.
Applicant: Vail Associates
I. BACKGROUND
Vail Associates, Inc. has submitted an application to
amend Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Ski
Base/Recreation zone district. Vail Associates has
submitted a revised development and master plan as
required by the zoning code of the Golden Peak Ski Base/
Recreation district. The purpose of this requested
amendment is to allow Vail Associates to replace the
existing modular units with a permanent facility that
will serve as the Children's Center. The Town of Vail
approval for use of the modular structures as a Children's
Center is expiring and Vail Associates would like to move
forward toward a permanent solution for the Children's
Center.
The proposal consists of a partially earth sheltered
building of approximately 12,000 square feet located at
the site of the existing modular buildings. The Children's
Center would have its own access and parent drop-off
parking area off of Vail Valley Drive just east of the
existing bus stop. Construction of the Children's Center
and parent drop-off area will also entail a redevelopment
of the bus stop and skier drop-off area.
The land on which the building is sited is currently
controlled by the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District
(VMRD) through a 99 year lease from Vail Associates. The
site contains three tennis courts that are managed by the
VMRD in the summer season. The proposed development will
eliminate these three tennis courts. The VMRD has agreed
to relinquish their lease on this property on condition
that Vail Associates replace two tennis courts within the
Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation district. Vail
Associates' proposal is to relocate the two tennis courts
to the south of the four existing courts that are west of
the existing Golden Peak base facility.
Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Ski Base/
Recreation zone district, is a zone district that was
tailored to the proposed and approved Golden Peak Ski Base
redevelopment plan. This plan, of course, has not been
carried out to date. Vail Associates' proposal to amend
this district represents the first phase of the total
development of the Golden Peak Ski Base district as it is
written. This application does not propose any changes to
the approved Golden Peak Base facility. It is a request
to separate one of the allowable uses in the main building
as an allowable use in a secondary building on site.
Existing zoning of the Ski Base/Recreation district allows
the following uses to be permitted within the main
building of the Ski Base/Recreation district as Section A,
permitted uses.
1. Ski lockers/employee locker rooms
2. Ski school and ski patrol facilities
3. Lift ticket sales
4. Tennis pro shop
5. Ski repair, rental, sales and accessories
6. Restaurant/bar/snack bar/candy sales
7. Winter seasonal ski school related child care and
children's ski school and appurtenant recreational
facilities and programs
8. Summer seasonal Town of Vail recreation offices
9. Meeting rooms for owner use and. community oriented
organizations
10. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities for
owner's use
11. Basket rental
12. Special community events.
Section B and C of the permitted uses discuss retail and
dwelling unit allowances. Section D of the permitted uses
addresses uses which shall be permitted outside of the
main building as shown on the approved development plan.
Without listing those uses specifically, they consist of
circulation, recreation, and other basic ski area
services.
The Vail Associates' proposal is to take permitted use #7
in category A -- winter seasonal ski school related child
care -- and create a new category under permitted uses.
This would be titled, "Permitted Uses Within the Secondary
Building." Those uses would list as follows:
1. Year-round child care and children's ski school and
appurtenant recreational facilities and programs.
2, Ski school services and programs
3. Community events and programs
4. Summer recreational programs
This amendment is the only proposed change to the existing
Ski Base/Recreation District. The permitted uses under
headings A, B, C, and D do not change. The conditional
uses do not change. The accessory uses, prohibited uses
and all the other categories will remain as they are
currently approved.
An example of the amended Chapter 18.39 Ski Base/Recrea-
tion District with the proposed amendment is included with
this memorandum for your review.
II. ISSUES AND IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL
The staff agrees with Vail Associates in the concept of
separating the Children's Center use. We feel that the
size, functional requirements and importance of the
Children's Center promote a free standing facility for
this use. We are concerned with the impacts of the
development of an additional building on this site, but we
do feel that they can be adequately addressed. The staff
is positive about the development of a Children's Center.
We feel that phasing the project is a first step toward
completion of the entire Golden Peak package.
Included in the original approval of the Golden Peak Ski
Base/Recreation district were several site improvements
that were shown on the development plan. Staff feels
strongly that if construction of this development plan is
to be phased, construction of the site improvements should
also be phased, and that some of those improvements should
be included within this Phase I construction.
The construction of the proposed Children's Center and
related parent drop-off area will require reconfiguration
and reconstruction of the existing bus stop area. Vail
Associates has submitted a design proposal for the bus
stop/skier drop-off area that has been approved by the
Public Works Department. In the original Golden Peak
development plan, Vail Associates was required to
reconstruct the bus stop/skier drop-off area including
reconfigured vehicular lanes and pedestrian walkways. The
proposal also included a contribution of $10,000 for
installation of control gates at either end of the bus
stop.
For the Phase I construction being proposed, Vail
Associates has agreed to amend and construct the skier
drop-off and bus stop area. They will provide roughed-in
conduit for the installation of control gates at each end
of the bus stop. If the Town of Vail wishes to install
control gates at this point in time, Vail Associates will
reimburse the Town up to the $10,000 agreed upon at the
commencement of Phase II construction. Otherwise, Vail
Associates will provide the $10,000 for the bus control
gates at commencement of Phase II construction.
The proposed design for Phase I construction of the bus
stop area shows an all-asphalt surface. The skier drop-
off, the bus lane, parent drop-off parking, as well as all
pedestrian circulation and sidewalk areas are all proposed
as asphalt paving. Staff feels that for aesthetic and
safety reasons, the pedestrian circulation and walkway
areas should be a different material--either a colored
concrete or a paver type of treatment.
As a part of the original development plan, Vail
Associates was committed to participate in a one-third
share in the construction of a walkway from Hanson Ranch
Road to Manor Vail. Subsequent redevelopment of the
Ramshorn has taken place, and the Ramshorn has assumed
responsibility for the construction of the walkway along
their property. This leaves a stretch from the Ramshorn
property to Manor Vail. Staff feels that as part of Phase
I requirements, Vail Associates should participate with
the Town of Vail as an equal partner in developing the
rest of that walkway.
The separation of the Children's Center into a separate
secondary building has obvious impacts upon the site.
There are additional view considerations from the
neighborhood to the north, additional traffic impacts
because of a new access and drop-off point, as well as the
recreational impacts upon the tennis and volleyball
facilities.
Vail Associates has responded to view concerns through
building design. The proposal is for a partially earth-
sheltered building. Through photo analysis and ridge line
demonstrations, Vail Associates has indicated that the
view impacts upon the neighbors appear to be sufficiently
mitigated.
The additional road cut has been reviewed and approved by
the Public Works Department. The existing zone district
parking standards are to be determined by the Planning
Commission. Vail Associates is providing 18 parent drop-
off spaces. This parking lot will be controlled manually
to assure that these parking spaces function as they are
proposed, and not as long term skier parking. Staff has
no criteria on which to base required parking for this
drop-off, pick-up type of use. We feel that 18 spaces
should be adequate and the parking represents an increase
from the original development plan.
The location of the Children's Center forces the
relocation of two tennis courts and three volleyball
courts on site with a net loss of one tennis court. The
volleyball courts will be relocated from just east of the
proposed building to the existing tennis court location
just west of the proposed building. The tennis courts are
being relocated south of the four existing courts located
west of the existing base facility. There is a
significant grade difference in the location of the
existing courts and the location of the proposed courts.
There is also an existing bicycle path that must be
relocated. Construction of the tennis courts and
relocation of the bike path will require fairly extensive
retaining wall construction. The applicant has submitted
a development plan for this and staff feels that the
relocation of the tennis courts and bike path are an
acceptable solution.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this proposal is approval. We
support the concept of the Children's Center as a free
standing structure. We believe that replacement of the
existing modulars with a permanent structure is a positive
move toward completion of the Golden Peak redevelopment.
The staff believes that the proposal meets the stated
purpose of the zone district; to provide the base
facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain, to
encourage multi-seasonal use, and to provide for efficient
use of the facilities.
The staff believes Vail Associates has adequately
mitigated the identified impacts and is very happy to see
the beginning of redevelopment of the Golden Peak base
area. We do, however, feel that there are .certain site
improvements which should be included in Phase I
construction and would include those as requested
conditions of approval. Those conditions are:
1. That Vail Associates contribute 50% of the cost of
construction of a colored concrete walkway from the
Ramshorn property to the existing Manor Vail walkway.
Town of Vail will also be a 50% partner.
2. That the pedestrian circulation and walkway areas of
the bus stop be constructed of a colored concrete or
paver material that creates an aesthetic and safety
improvement compared to an all-asphalt surface.
The staff would also like to add as a note on this
recommendation, that PEC approval of the proposed
development plan and zone district change should in
no way restrict the ability of the Design Review
Board to review this project.
,~
~dll ASSOC1a~S~ It1C.
Creators and Operators of Vait and E3eaver Creek
SITE OF THE 1989 WORLD ALPINE SKI CHAMPIONSHIPS
December 13, 1987
Mr. Rick Pylman
Planner
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Rick:
Vail Associates, Inc. submits a revised development plan as required by the
zoning code of the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation District.
In addition to the development plan and other information provided previously
we have provided certain documents and information described below:
- A Golden Peak Children's Center Parking Summary
- A revised Ski $ase/Recreation District Zoning Code
- Apro-farina, area summary
- A detailed view analysis
- An environmental Hazard Report
Our intent at this time is to make only those changes to the development plan,
zoning code and assorted information which are necessary to allow the construction
of the proposed Golden Peak Children's Center. We are leaving the concept, infor-
mation zoning code etc. generally intact which were provided resulting in the
approval of the Main Building. Thus, it would be our intent to treat the construc-
tion of the Main Building as Phase II and the construction of other facilities as
either part of Phase II or as separate phases in the development of Golden Peak.
This application requests approval of Phase I of the Golden Peak development
Plan - the Children's Center only.
Vail Associates, Inc. looks forward to working with the Town of Vail on this needed
project.
Sincerely,
VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC.
`Joe Macy
Vail Mountain Planner
Post Office Box 7 . Vail, Colorado 81658 .USA - (303) 476-5601 . Telex: 910-920-3183
GOLDEN PEAK CHILDREN'S CENTER
PARKING SUAI~IARY
Town of Vail regulations do not specify a parking requirement .for a Childrens
Center. The regulations state that the requirement will be determined by the
Planning Commission.
Currently, there are 105 paid public parking spaces available at Golden Peak.
The existing drop-off area north of the bus stop can accommodate 10-12 cars
for pick up and drop-off. Additionally, there are 20 short-term drop-off
spaces and 17 employee parking spaces in the main Golden Peak lot. Chalet Rd.
contains an additional 25 spaces which are utilized by employees.
The proposed Children's Ski Center will provide for additional 10 short-term
drop-off spaces for parents.
There is sufficient parking at Golden Peak to accommodate-.the needs of the
Children's Center. Additional public parking for employees and the public
exists at the soccer field east of Northwoods.
Revised: 12/14/87
CHAPTER 18.39
SRI BASE/RECREATION DISTRICT
18.39.010 Purpose
The Ski Base/Recreation District is intended to provide for the base
facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain and to allow multi-family
residential dwellings as a secondary use if certain criteria are met a In
addition, summer recreational uses and facilities are encouraged to
achieve multi-seasonal use of some of the facilities and provide for
efficient use of the facilities.
18.39.030 Permitted Uses
A. The following uses shall be permitted within the main building in the
Ski Base/Recreation District:
1. Ski Lockers/Employee Locker Rooms
2. Ski School and Ski Patrol Facilities
3. Lift Ticket Sales
4. Tennis Pro Shop
5. Ski Repair, Rental, Sales & Accessories
6. Restaurant/Bar/Snack Bar/Candy Sales
7. Summer Seasonal Town of Vail Recreation Offices
8. Meeting Rooms for Owner Use S~ Community-Oriented Organizations
9. Injury Prevention ~ Rehabilitation Facilities for Owners' Use
10. Basket Rental
11. Special Community Events
B. Permitted Uses Within the Secondary Building
1. Ski area services and programs
2. Year-round child care ~~
3. Community events and programs
4. Summer recreational programs
C. Retail and Meeting Room Space Limitation
T~~S I.JOJd ~~ ~~5
~J-e.,ev~ 4~.1n~.~e.v~~~,.e~
Sew ~~,`~~ a o ~ ~
3 ~ ~~ ~~`~_ ~~~
1. Retail sales space, whether it be a permitted or conditional use,
in the first two floors shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of
the non-residential gross square footage of the main building.
Under Section 18.39.030, retail shall be defined as tennis pro
shop, candy sales, ski repair/rental/sales and accessories, and
basket rental.
2. Meeting rooms shall be limited to a maximum of 5% of the
.non-residential gross square footage of the main building.
D. Multi-family dwelling units within the main building if the following
requirements are met:
1. The dwelling units shall be a secondary use within the main
building if they meet the following criteria:
a. No residential use on ground level.
b. Visual impacts such as surfact parking for the dwelling
units shall be minimized by providing at least 40' of the
required parking within the main building.
Revised: 12/14/87
GOLDEN PEAK SRI BASE/RECREATION DISTRICT
MASTER PLAN
REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESTAURANT S~ SRI SCHOOL FACILITIES
These facilities are planned for replacement at some future date. Plans
call for finishing operating space in one construction season. The
Condominia and landscaping will be completed during the following winter
and spring.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROPOSED SRI BASE/RECREATION DISTRICT
The Vail Village master plan recommended the Golden Peak area as a
potential site for a hotel. However, Vail Associates has no plans to
construct a hotel at Golden Peak at this time.
OTHER DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Lifts
Replacement and modification of the existing lifts, particularly Chairlift
~6, will be necessary. Replacement will be done with state-of-the-art
equipment having sufficient capacities to meet mountain operating needs.
A surface lift at Golden Peak is under consideration. No other new lifts
are planned at this time.
SRI RACING FACILITIES
While replacement of the existing ski racing facilities is not planned
concurrently with the restaurant and ski school building, or the
Children's Center, Vail Associates, Inc, anticipates replacing the
existing facility with a larger, more modern facility to accommodate World
Cup racing in the near future.
PARKING FACILITIES
Vail Associates, Inc. and the Town of Vail recognize the desirability of
additional parking in the Golden Peak Zone. Accordingly, we have
identified two locations in the zone for additonal parking development.
Underground parking structures could be built beneath the east tennis
courts, soccer field, and volleyball area, or beneath the west tennis
courts and surface parking. Underground parking structures would require
a Conditional Use Permit under the proposed zoning code. However, neither
the Town of Vail nor Vail Associates, Inc. has any plans to construct
additional parking facilities in the zone at this time.
• MASTER PLAN continued
PUBLIC PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, & RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
One tennis court west of the existing buildings would be lost when the
main building is built. Vail Associates, Inc. will replace the lost court
at a mutually determined location.
Up to three tennis courts east of Chair #6, would be lost due to the
construction of the Children's Center. Vail Associates and the VMRD are
currently working on court relocation.
It is possible that the Recreation District would want to expand the
tennis courts, playing fields, or other summer recreation amenities in the
zone. Such expansion would require a Conditional Use Permit and Vail
Associates, Inc.'s consent.
Seasonal structures for educational, cultural, or athletic activities will
be erected on an occasional basis.
Fireworks will continue on special occasions, such as July 4th, New Year's
Even, etc.
MOUNTAIN FACILITIES
Building facilities such as lift shacks and other buildings will require
modification, maintenance, construction, and replacement on an on-going
basis. Town of Vail building, demolition, street cut, and other standard
permits would be required.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Water storage and treatment facilities, and existing Upper Eagle Water and
Sanitation District improvements are within the proposed district and
routine maintenance will occur. Expansion of these facilities is also
possible.
CHILDREN'S CENTER
A 12,000 S.F. (approximately) Children's Center is planned for
construction in 1988. The Center will be designed to permit further
expansion if needed.
12/10/87 CS
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS REPORT
Geologic Conditions:
A mud slide occured in 1982 on the southeastern part of the site caused by
overflow of the a water storage facility. An overflow line was installed
in the fall of 1987 which will direct any tank overflow to Mill
Creek--away from the previous slide area. No problems have occured since
1982. The new building would not be endangered by any further slide
activity at the above site.
Preliminary geologic studies on the soils at the~site indicate that a
spread foundation will be recommended.
Avalanche:
Some moderate avalanche hazard occurs infrequently on the southeastern
portion of the site. The building could not be endangered by any
avalanche activity from the southeastern area.
Hydrology:
The Mill Creek diversion channel was relocated, culverted, and improved in
1985. The Children's Center is outside the flood plain of the diversion
channel.
Summary:
With the exception of some fugitive dust from construction, no adverse
environmental impacts will result from the project.
SAM L. OLSON, JR.
s
P. O. BOX 19425 468-3206
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77224
January 20, 1988
Ron Fhillips, Town N`ar_ager
Town of Vail
75 So. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81E57
?.e: Golder Feak/Nail Associates
Dear R.on:
I am enclosing tre information which I discussed with you by tela phone on
the. afternoon of January 18, 1988.
I want to make it Absolutely Clear that I am speaking for myself and in my
interest to protect property rights, visual views and property values at l~ianor
Vail Complex. For the past twenty-five (2[) years Vail Associates, Inc., The Town
of Vail, The Aletropolitan Recreational Districts, Town. Planning, Various Condominium
Boards and Individuals have tried z~rotecting these oper. space areas along the base
of the mountain. Little. by Little this Open Area Beauty is disappearing from our
Valley.
Golden Feak is the Last and Largest Open Area left in the Valley. Stop Vail
Associates, Inc. Now or President T'?ike Shannon will Bury A'ianor Vail Cwner Sam Olson
under some proposed building Cn Golden Feak Ski Base Recreational District Property.
Vail Associates can have what is needed at •~olden Peak and I am For Property Develor-
ment as long as the Development protects existir_£ Corr~nunity and Owners TJisual Views
and Ownership rights along the Over. Space of the mountain. A Yodge Fodge of buildings
is not in the Valleys and golden Feak~s best interest.
I also wart to in closing make it again ?bsolutely Clear in no way am I against:
SKI CLUB NAIL
THE CHILDFE'_d CE'`T~R
NAIL ASSOCIATES, h?C.
I have just been informed of other cortenplated encroaching plans or dreams at
the olden Peak House area, tor_ of Bridge Street. I have no details at this time.
'"he entire Comtrunity needs to stay informed.. As the property values increase from
dollars per acre to dollars per square foot so do Developers Dreams. Z Know I Am
A Developer.
em L. Olson, Jr.
cc: Feter Fatten, Head Vail Flapping Dept,
ORDINANCE NO. 6
Series of 1988
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 18.39.030,
PERMITTED USES OF CHAPTER 18.39, SKI BASE/RECREATION DISTRICT
OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, Section 18.39.030 of Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code
describes the permitted uses of the Ski Base/Recreation zone district; and
WHEREAS, Vail Associates, Inc. has submitted an application to amend Section
18.39.030 of the Vail Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town has recommended
approval of the amendment to Section 18.39.030 of the Vail Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the public interest to amend said
section of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO, THAT:
Section 18.39.030 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby repealed and re-enacted to
read as follows:
18.39.030 Permitted Uses
A. The following uses shall be permitted within the main building in the Ski
Base/Recreation District:
1. Ski Lockers/Employee Locker Rooms
2. Ski School and Ski Patrol Facilities
3. Lift Ticket Sales
4. Tennis Pro Shop
5. Ski Repair, Rental, Sales and Accessories
6. Restaurant/Bar/Snack Bar/Candy Sales
7. Summer Seasonal Town of Vail Recreation Offices
8. Meeting Rooms for Owner Use and Community-Oriented Organizations
9. Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Facilities for Owners' Use
10. Basket Rental
11. Special Community Events
B. Permitted Uses Within the Secondary Building
1. Year-round child care and children's ski school and appurtenant
recreational facilities and programs
2. Ski school services and programs
3. Community events and programs
4. Summer recreational programs
C. Retail and Meeting Room Space Limitation
1. Retail sales space, whether it be a permitted or conditional use, in the
first two floors shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the non-
residential gross square footage of the main building. Under Section
18.39.030, retail shall be defined as tennis pro shop, candy sales, ski
repair/rental/sales and accessories, and basket rental.
2. Meeting rooms shall be limited to a maximum of 5% of the non-residential
gross square footage of the main building.
D. Multi-family dwelling units within the main building if the following
requirements are met:
1. The dwelling units shall be a secondary use within the main building if
they meet the following criteria:
a. No residential use on ground level.
b. Uisual impacts such as surface parking for the dwelling units shall
within the main building.
c. The maximum gross residential floor area (GRFA) devoted to dwelling
units shall not exceed thirty percent of the total gross square
footage of the main structure.
~~~~;~~ ~
In accordance with Section 18.39.110 of the Ski Base/Recreation zone district, the
development .plan submitted by the developer, Vail Associates, Inc., is hereby amended
by the Town Council and incorporated in this ordinance. The approved development plan
shall be amended by the inclusion of Snowdon & Hopkins Sheets 1,2,4,5 dated 2/1/88 and
Sheet 3 dated 2/4/88 as well as Vail Associates revised Master Plan dated 12/14/87..
cow+;~~ ~
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.
c~~+;~n n
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 its inhabitants
thereof.
Section 5.
The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal
Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective .date hereof,
any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of
19$8, 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.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ATTEST:
this day of
1988.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
~:~
l~.c~'` ~ ,~,
_.~~x ,t : ~, _
S ~ - -
.9a ~ ~ -/
~) (_ O R A' D O
"E?E,~~..~ER CREEK*VAIL
GOALS
OTvE UI~IBRILLA ORGANI7.,nTION TJ ACT AS A VEHICLE FOR PROGRAMT~1IrIG Ai1D
A CONDUIT FOR ALL INQUIRIES
TO CREATE A I~10RE VALUABLE PRODUCT
MASTER CALENDER
'~ JOHN W. GIOUANDO/GENERAL DIRECTOR • IDA KAUAFIAN/ARTISTIC DIRECTOR
• PO. 80X 1108 / UAIL. COLORADO 81658 • 128 GRANT AVE. N0.7 !SANTA FE, NEW ti1EXIC0 87501 ~D
TELEPHONE • ~303~ 47G-7752 • (505 984-8548
L~FiH~iwi t1i'miLt~il~F~l:?LJ !
Street ~:ntertai nment :~ 1 , ~'.~'~;. Ca{~a
L~r-a~,~o i~o'l oracfo Seed I''~1one~a~~q {~a{~aii„ {~a(j
Town of ~~ai 1 ~j~.{diet ;_;~.„ is{.a{~a, {:~i~
iaddi ti oval F~{ncie i='tequi red ~;":', ~':~ . {:a{.a
~ °8' tsiJGt~E'i' '1"i:i~dlf~i i~i:= °,.'F~j 1: L S"I"FtiE:~.T' r~r Fir- uf=~:l-f~~Ft
Helmut rrir._k:er ~~. Ft~.ip~~r1~ i:.itaer°1.c:~hr
~~ore F~.~npe Bras a
~erca ':; f='r~ir7ce
Tot~~l ~~'~~t 1~'t3'7
1:', `Cn:~, c~~i
:~'7 , i 4t a , s~as~a
~:'!~°~
July 28, 1987 - r
Mayor Paul Johnston
and members of Council
TOWN OF VAIL
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mayor and Council:
We have made a case many times for the value
of street performances and you have always been
responsive. We certainly encourage the Town to
continue this great asset to summer Vail and
hope you will support the Vail-Resort Association
or the Eagle Valley Arts Council or even contract
artists directly to do so.
Berg & Prince, the Gore Range Brass Quintet, and
Helmut Fricker are now seasoned Vail ambassadors
as we1T as very fine street artists.
We strongly recommend that the Town in cooperation
with other organizations continues this fine
community service.
Wendy Gustafson who is managing all remaining
Ins~#.ute affa;rs has the contacts for these artists.
erv~esit/r-e4a
ine Mary M inley
for
CMM/ra
~~~~/ ~~. PO Box 1243. Vail, Colorado 81658. 303/476-1871
,~ .
Helmut Pricker
P.O. Box 1086
Vail, CO. 81658
476-0622
°~~ t
.' i
~'4 ;.t`f.'r
;,. -• PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
~~ .w.::.... ~` j,
~- .. ,
EVENT: STREET PERFORMANCE SUMMER 1987
ARTIST: HELP~IUT PRICKER & RUPERT
PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTION:
PERFORP~ANCE DATE: June 26 - Sept 6.
TIME• Fridays - 11:30 - 1:30 Beaver Creek .
LOCATION• Saturdays 11:30 - 2:30 Beaver Creek
AGREED FEE• Sundays same as Saturday
~j~/~U~'c/"_' U,' ~~ ~: ! I is ~ti l
PAYABLE T0: Helmut Pricker $9,240.00
PAYABLE BY • e~%rTetk~eT Fri ~~~--R~~ i ~~y ~vly~~o~-- ,
THE VAIL INSTITUTE WILL PROVIDE: ~ T' 3'~~
. ~ 3> o~,--a.
~/
ARTIST AGREES TO PROVIDE ALL ELSE NECESSARY FOR A QUALITY PERFORMANCE.
Artist agrees to be discreet regarding performance fee with other performing artists.
Artist agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Vail Institute for any loss, claim, `
injury, or damage arising out of or in any way connected with the artist's performance
in Vail.
AGREED BY:
T e rust, Date
C ristine Mary McGin ey, Executive Director, VAIL INSTITUTE Date
`~ JG/lor~/ ~{yf • ~o p,~.;x ,,2~v. ~,,.~;,. Co,~~UC~O 8~ ~`~; • :;u~/a~ J; ,
~ .
Jim Gray
Gore Range Brass Quintet
P.0. Box 97
Lafayette, CO. 80026
665-2495
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
EVENT: STREET PERFORMANCE SUMMER 1987
ARTIST: GORE RA;~GE BRASS QUINTET
PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTION:
PERFORMANCE DATE: July 3 - Sept. 6
Friday, Saturday & Sunday ~z
TIME: 2 2hr services per day
LOCATION: Vail & Lionshead TBA
AGREED FEE: $12,500. &
PAYABLE TQ: Jim Gray, Gore Range Brass Quintet
PAYABLE BY• every other Friday beginning July 17, 1987
THE VAIL INSTITUTE WILL PROVIDE:
- - ~;~ ~ ~ ~
3~ ,~- ~; ~
~v ~ ~ ~~ .
ARTIST AGREES TO PROVIDE ALL ELSE NECESSARY FOR A QUALITY PERFORMANCE.
Artist agrees to be discreet regarding performance fee with other performing artists.
Artist agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Vail Institute for any loss, claim,
injury, or damage arising out of or in any way connected with the artist's performance
in Vail.
AGREED BY:
T e ru st, Date
r
C ristine-Mary McGin ey, Executive Director, VAIL INSTITUTE Date
.IG1~~!/ ~y~. PO Box 1243. Vail, Colorado 8165f~ • 303/4 /- ~'-~ I
_ Ure-erk-o~`J~ .w
_ 9 . ~ :~"
~`~"-~ ljTw /c - I
Z, 3p-~i,~o
n, ~..~
~.w"~ i 2nd to-"'~ l Z
' ll- ~ ~-7
,`~~'
y ~..: ~.
.,:'~'~*
Mr. Jim Gray
Gore Range Brass Quintet
P.O. Box 97
Lafayette, CO 80026
Dear Jim,
The following is lodging we have arranged for your group
from July 2nd thru August 15th. We are still working on
it for the remainder of the Summer, and we will keep you
posted as soon as the rest is confirmed.
July 2, 3 & 4 Fallridge (accross from Vail Golf Clubhouse)
476-1163. 5 'Beds.
July 9, 10 & 11 Marriott Mark~Resort (in Lionshead)
476-4444. 5 Rooms.
July 16, 17, 18, The Landmark (in Lionshead)
23, 24,.25, 476-1350, Destination Resorts. 5 Beds.
30, 31 If arriving after 7 pm or separately, call
Aug. 1, 6, 7, 8 in advance for key arrangements.
13, 14 & 15
To discuss scheduling, would you please come to our office
on July 3rd at 10:00 am. We are now located in the Vail
Professional. Building, 953 South Frontage Road'(just west of
Lionshead) 2nd Floor. One important time and date to mention
is July 4th. Vail Resort Assoc. is asking-you to keep the
crowd going just prior to the big parade, and for this you
will need to be in Lionshead ready to perform at 9:30 am.
Jim, if you have any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Karen Blaney
Admin. Assist.
~~/ ~j'f • PO Box 1243, Vail, Colorado 81658. 303/476 1u71
L_ __
June 17, 1987
~/ .~~:.
Berg & Pri face
23676 County Road 73
Calhan, CO 80808
388-6463
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
EVENT:
STREET PERFORMANCE, SUMMER 1987
ARTIST: BERG & PRINCE
PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTION:
June 27 - Aug 30, Saturday & Sunday with the following exception:
PERFORMANCE DATE: Aug 14 & 15 rather than Aga 15 & 16
TIME: 2 - 2hr. performances per day
LOCATION: Vail & ionthead
AGREED FEE: $6,000.00 flat
PAYABLE T0: Berg & Prince
~~~~~~ ~ G ~~/~G)
PAYABLE BY : er ~ ~ -.w~1_ ~ -~.__ ~.-~~
~~~ ~ ~~
THE VAIL INSTITUTE WILL PROVIDE: b ~~~~ ~
.~ a'~ ~
ARTIST AGREES TO PROVIDE ALL ELSE NECESSARY FOR A QUALITY PERFORMANCE.
Artist agrees to be discreet regarding performance fee with other performing artists..
Artist agrees to indemnify and ho harmless the Vail Institute for any loss, claim,
;injury, or damage ari g out o or in an connected with the artist's performance
in Vail'.
AGREED BY;
~+
Christine Mary Mc inle Executive Director, VAiL INSTITUTE Date
~L ~/Nj ,~yf . PO Box 1243, Vail, Colorado 81658. 303/476-1871
1 ~O~
i::;hilcJre'n's l"he~tr~ - Ui~:ney ::part t~aaf~'4 atc.
11 ~~a~ef:;s ~Jr_~ne -- i-~k~ar i3~y
fYlusic~l C~roi..it~~.~ - (~ra~~, C.~alar~cia
~pri nc~~ ;~ym~nony ~r ~~~, U~~l l.~t~ C~r~ss,
f•lelmut f=ricF~:eri
~tree•L' N.nt~rtain~rW (Friar-~L•~~ a~~ lianc~,
Mime„ ~uc~gl~r~;;~
hi ~ r° d ir, c:~ W •l. ~ t i ~.:l i' . ~S . ~~ . -~ F~ ~ ~ r.. a;:. ~' :` „ `::; c~~ i i . c~~ ~~~
t~v~r•h~~cf < Hdmir•7istr~tian ~ 1~"i.i ~, 1~:~.+'~~~~
{pragr°~rnminq, ~c:h~d~.~1in~~, payra'll n
admini~tr~.tian) _________
._
! Ca6'd11 tai' ~Ic'~7.1' •`.:](?Ed !°Inl'1(•::?'v' L.UI"1'~.!"'1!'.7t_t't°.1{Jn '~ l.~".1i: U'~' t=:.'n~'.11"'E:2 I"l~W1~~?r~ i.~t
4~It..t~i c G..on~~rt ~;~rr ~._~
L-~~.td%~~t of 1~~~ ~~ ~t~a. t~aia
TQ6Nn ut `?ai 1 ' _, i_s~~d !~`lc~n~ r (:::c7ntr i l-.;ut:.a. on =' '~:~' cat tl~~ i=-i ~;~
~'~rfcarmanc~= ~.t:. ttia v~rald
F;. F'c~rd ~im~rhitheatre
,1 ~t 1 v `.
t~t~tgt_tst. ~-
r~a..t y ~.t mo't'. b
a ~.tg t_t ~ t. 1 '.~'
H G.t G] ~.t x ~ 7. ,T
SUMMARY BUDGET
BRAVG! CGLGRADG AT VAIL * BEAVER CREEK
Income/Event
Ticket Sales/Masters ~ 25,000
Program Advertising/Masters 10,000
Concessions (~~0%) GFA 3,000
Profit BC Concerts 2,500
Total Event Income ~ 40,500
Income/Contribution
Vail Valley Foundation ~ 48,000
Towm ofi Vail 50,000
Eagle County 2,000
Vail Associates 7,500
Corporate 35,000
Individual 40,000
Total Contribution Income X182,500
Total Income X223,000
Programming E>;penses
Masters of Music Concert Series
(Nine Concerts) X154,950
Bravo Production Costs 45,000
Bravo Fund Raising Expenses 10,000
Other GFA Concert Production 10,000
Reserve 3,050
Total Expenses X223,000
t~uayle Productions
Responsibilities to Bravo:
1. Production/Six Concerts GFA
~. Colorado Springs Symphony (2 concerts)
3. Production/Nine Masters of Music
4. Master Calendar
5. Ticketing all events
a. printing
b. ticE:et scale
c. subscriptions
d. distribution
6. Marketing/Advertising Eravo!
7. Master Erochure for Eravo!
8. Accounting for Programming of Eravo!
9. Coordination of Master Series and Eravo! in
all areas of administration and production
VAIL VALLEY FOUNDATION CONTRIBUTION
2 Colorado Springs Symphony Shows
Colorado Childrens Chorale
6 Other Concerts
Maintenance
Bravo! Colorado
Facility Improvements
$30,000.00
$15,000.00
T.B.A.
$30,000.00
$48,000.00
T.B.A.
TOTAL $123,000 +
UH ~: I_ r-~:~aSUC T r~"i°f= ~ , :L t~~li.~' .
I~iark:eti nc1
t~clverti si n~
t_tmmer E~rool-tore ?'~11=;H,Util',;visiC;i
TV [:~ommerc~ i a1 s
1-r~~nsport~~t i on (t~ro~_tnr~ ds Hi r- )
Joi rtt. r~r:iver-t i si nca
1 r`~: 1='rot i i:. from ~seaver f~reek: :chows
Housing t5c~}.c~}r~}:~nt. ;; 1.4 nt.. ~~vq. ;; 1:~: t..ir~it.si
.i. n i '~ l el ~. l.~ a~ S l"t ..
'~:4 bii{j, ijC? C:ir°ounci
TO: Town Council
FROM: Planning and Environmental Commission
DATE: February 16, 1988
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning
requested subdivision
Village 3rd Filing.
Appellants: Ben and
Commission decision to deny a
at Lot 4, Block 4, Vail
Martha Rose
Stated in simplest terms, this request would create two
Primary/Secondary lots where there presently exists one. The
request is not for zoning, but rather for a subdivision of the
existing lot. Staff has spent considerable time working with
the applicants on this proposal. While originally opposed to
the request, changes to the proposal have resulted in the
staff's supporting the application.
The January 25th memo to the Planning Commission outlines the
staff's response to this proposal. It is important to
understand that the staff's position is based on the
fundamental premise of subdivision: the basic measure for
evaluating subdivisions lie in the minimum standards
established for lot size. Other considerations in the
evaluation of subdivision are intended to ensure the quality
and compatibility of the proposed subdivision.
The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the request.
Concerns cited by the Commission included estab-lishment of
precedent, conflict with adjacent properties, effect on
property values in the neighborhood, and concern that the
proposal would not be harmonious with adjacent land uses. The
motion for denial cited three specific purposes of subdivision
as outlined in Town regulations (17.04.010 C 2,3, and 4).
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the
future without conflict with development on adjacent
land.
3. To provide and conserve the value of land throughout
the municipality and the value of buildings and
improvements on the land.
4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in
compliance with the Town zoning ordinances, to
achieve an harmonious, convenient, workable
relationship among land uses, consistent with
municipal development objectives.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 25, 1988
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to create two
Primary/Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail
Village 3rd Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road
Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE REQUEST
This proposal involves the subdivision of an existing
Primary/Secondary lot into two Primary/Secondary parcels.
In September of 1987, a work session was held with the
Planning Commission and applicants to discuss this
proposal. The application was scheduled for formal review
later that month, but was tabled to allow the applicants
time to reconsider their request. Since that time. the
staff has worked with the applicant in trying to resolve a
number of issues staff had identified relative to last
fall's proposal. This memorandum will outline the issues
relative to the request before the Planning Commission.
It is important that the Planning Commission understand
that this request involves a subdivision, and not a
request for zoning. As established by numerous examples
of case law, the basic premise of subdivision regulations
is that if minimum standards are met, the requested
subdivision is essentially to be approved. Minimum
standards typically deal with zoning considerations such
as minimum lot size, frontage, etc. As a result, these
standards establish the first set of review criteria to be
considered with this request. Relative to this request,
proposed Parcel A includes 15,020 square feet of site area
and Parcel B contains 15,010 square feet of site area.
Both lots satisfy the minimum 15,000 square feet of
buildable area, as well as providing lots capable of
enclosing an 80 foot by 80 foot box and a minimum of 30
feet of frontage along a Town right-of-way. Clearly, the
lots meet the minimum standards established in the
Primary/Secondary zone district.
The other set of criteria to be considered in a request of
this type involve the general purpose section of the
subdivision regulations. This section includes seven
factors that are intended to ensure that a subdivision is
promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community.
It was with these criteria that the planning staff had
difficulty with the previous proposal. While more
subjective than the quantifiable standards expressed in
the zoning requirements, these considerations address
other issues relative to the appropriateness of a
requested subdivision. The staff's previous
recommendation of denial was based on these seven
considerations. However, through redesign and
negotiation, staff feels that the proposal is now in
compliance with the basic purpose and intent of the Town's
subdivision regulations.
II. BACKGROUND ON PROPOSALS OF THIS TYPE
There have been questions raised concerning similar
proposals that have been made in the past, as well as the
potential for additional requests of this type. There
have been three comparable proposals submitted to the
Planning Commission over the .past four or five years.
These include the following:
1. Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn Filing.
This subdivision approval divided one Primary/
Secondary lot into two Single Family lots. The
net result was no increase in the total number
of units on the site. Because GRFA was
restricted on each Single Family parcel, there
was only a nominal increase in floor area
permitted on each new lot. Because of the size
and nature of this parcel, it was fairly
unemcumbered in terms of accessibility and other
site planning considerations.
2. Resubdivision of Pitkin Creek Meadows. This
parcel had a long history in terms of previous
attempts to subdivide the property. About the
time East Vail was annexed to Vail, applications
were made to create three Primary/Secondary lots
on this property. At the time, minimum lot
standards required 17,500 square feet of
buildable area per lot. Because of this
requirement, only two lots were approved on the
parcel. Following the reduction of the minimum
lot size to 15,000 square feet, a new
application was submitted to the Planning
Commission last year. Approval by the Planning
Commission at that time resulted in the creation
of three Primary/Secondary lots. While the
parcel contains significant amounts of area over
40% slope, it was the finding of the Planning
Commission that the lots were both accessible
and buildable. In addition, the newly created
lot was bordered by residential development on
only one side with Forest Service property on
two sides of the parcel and I-70 bordering on
the other.
2
3. Resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail
Village 1st Filing. Referred to as the Tennen-
baum subdivision, this approval created two
Single Family lots and one Primary/Secondary
lots on what were two Primary/Secondary parcels.
This subdivision resulted in no increases in
total number of units nor in GRFA, as
restrictions were placed on these parcels so as
to not increase either types of density through
the subdivision.
The staff has been asked to research the lot sizes within
the neighborhood of this proposal. We have researched lot
sizes in Block 7 of Vail Village 1st and Blocks 1,2,3 and
4 of Vail Village 3rd. This encompasses what is commonly
known as the Village side of the Forest Road area. The
results of this research found that the average lot size
in this neighborhood is 22,723 square feet, with a mean
lot size of 24,025 square feet. In addition, there are a
total of five lots in the neighborhood greater than 30,000
square feet (this includes the applicants' parcel). These
lots range in size from 30,945 square feet to 37,769
square feet. All of these lots are zoned
Primary/Secondary.
By way of comparison, 14 of the 42
in Potato Patch are over 30,000 squ
52 Primary/Secondary lots in the Gl
exceed 30,000 square feet. Because
involved in determining buildable a
unable to specify exactly how many
meet the quantitative standards for
subdivision.
III. STAFF RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSAL
Primary/Secondary lots
are feet. Nine of the
en Lyon subdivision
of the various factors
rea of a site, staff is
of these lots could
potential
Planning Commission review criteria are outlined in
Section 17.16.110 of the Subdivision Regulations. This
reads as follows:
The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to
show that the application is in compliance with the
intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the
PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be
given to the recommendations by public agencies,
utility companies and other agencies consulted under
17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and
consider its appropriateness in regard to Town of
Vail policies relating to subdivision control,
densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and
resolutions and other applicable documents, environ-
mental integrity and compatibility with surrounding
land uses.
One of the key aspects of this statement refers to
"compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter."
Seven specific purposes are outlined in 17.04.010 (Purpose
section) of the subdivision regulations. Within these
seven specific purposes, reference is made to other
criteria that may be applicable to subdivision requests.
The issues and concerns of the staff, many of which
involve other policies and planning related tools the Town
has adopted, will be identified within the parameters
established by the seven specific purposes of the
subdivision regulations. These purposes are the
following:
1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and
criteria by which development and proposals will be
evaluated, and to provide information as to the type
and extent of improvements required.
One of the underlying purposes of subdivision
regulations, as well as any development
controls, are to establish basic ground rules
with which the staff, the Planning Commission,
applicants, and the community know will be
followed in public review processes.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the
future without conflict of development on adjacent
land.
While the required 80 foot square within a newly
created lot is intended to provide for an
adequate building envelope, the previous
proposal raised questions relative to the lot's
ability to accommodate development within this
building area. This proposal provides for
building areas in excess of the required 80 foot
square. This should minimize the need for
subsequent setback variances when this property
is developed.
While originally subdivided prior to the
incorporation of the Town of Vail, Town zoning
has guided development in this area for over 15
years. This proposal's compliance with minimum
standards implies consistency with the Town's
overall development objectives. While previous
subdivision proposals for this site created
potential impacts on adjoining parcels
(particularly Lot 2 to the east), the proposed
lot line creates buffers which will limit
impacts on views, privacy, and the changing
character of this area.
4
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout
the municipality and the value of buildings and
improvements on the land.
The value of a lot, and to a greater extent the
value of a neighborhood, is in large part
dependent on the level and type of development
within it. Staff opposition to previous
proposals were, to a degree, based on this
consideration.
It is the staff's position that this proposal's
compliance with lot standards, along with
efforts to address other issues raised by the
staff, demonstrate that this proposal is not
detrimental to the value of land throught the
Town.
4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in
compliance with the Town's zoning ordinance, to
achieve an harmonious, convenient, workable
relationship among land uses, consistent with
municipal development objectives.
In order to remain consistent with similar
requests (the Summers and Tennenbaum
applications), the staff initiated dialogue with
the applicants on what types of restrictions
would be amenable to both parties. By virtue of
this subdivision, the property stands to gain
approximately 2,150 square feet of additional
GRFA than would be permitted under existing
conditions. In addition, the property would be
permitted four units (as opposed to two under
existing zoning). The Planning Commission
should keep in mind that there are presently
four legal nonconforming units on the property
at this time. The staff suggested to the
applicants that the GRFA on both parcels A and B
be limited to a total of approximately 5,335
square feet of GRFA. Prior to this time, the
applicant had offered to restrict the secondary
units on both parcels to restricted employee
housing units. As a result, discussion took
place concerning restrictions on both the amount
of square footage and the nature of the
residential units that could be built on these
lots.
Staff considers these types of "decentralized"
employee units to be very beneficial to the
community. This feeling is substantiated by the
results of the Eagle County housing survey which
5
identified stand-alone employee housing units as
the most desirable. As an incentive for these
units to be built, the staff and applicant have
agreed to what is essentially a 500 square foot
"credit" to allow for the construction of the
employee housing units. Simply stated, both
Parcel A and Parcel B would be permitted
approximately 2,667 square feet of GRFA if
single family residences are developed on each
parcel. If the right to build the secondary
unit is exercised, an additional 500 square feet
of GRFA will be allocated to that parcel for the
secondary unit.
5. To guide public and private policy and action in
order to provide adequate and efficient
transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks,
playgrounds, recreational and other public
requirements and facilities and generally to provide
that public facilities will have sufficient capacity
to serve the proposed subdivision.
This purpose of the subdivision regulations is
intended to address large scale subdivisions as
opposed to this proposal under consideration.
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly
subdivided land and to establish reasonable and
desirable construction design standards and
procedures.
This is another inherent goal of subdivision.
regulations that has little specific reference
to this application.
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds,
to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to
safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise
use and management of natural resources throughout
the municipality in order to preserve the integrity,
stability and beauty of the community and the value
of the land.
There is the potential that the development of
proposed Parcel B may impact the natural
features of the lot that may otherwise not be
impacted if this lot were developed as existing.
Specifically, staff concerns center around the
mature stand of pine trees at the northerly end
of the lot and the transition this lot makes in
leading to the Gore Creek stream tract. As is
the case with other issues previously cited by
the staff, the proposed lot line serves to
6
mitigate staff concern. It is the feeling of
the staff that the building envelope proposed
for Parcel B will allow for the siting of a home
while remaining sensitive to the natural
features found at the northerly portion of this
lot.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is no secret that the staff has looked very critically
at this proposal. While at one time opposing this
application, the applicant and staff have worked together
to resolve issues previously identified by the staff. As
a result, the staff is recommending approval of this
subdivision as requested. Conditions of approval include
the following:
1. The existing structure on Lot 4 be demolished,
removed from the site, and the site revegetated prior
to the signing of the minor subdivision plat by the
Community Development Department.
The staff would allow the opportunity for the cost of
revegetation to be bonded in the event that the lots were
to be developed shortly after the existing structure is
demolished. The details of this could be worked out
between the owners and the staff. The staff's intent is
to ensure that the lot is either redeveloped or restored
to previous natural conditions when the existing structure
is removed.
2. The second condition of approval involves
restrictions imposed upon the level and type of
development for proposed parcels A and B. The
following table shall be the development regulations
relating to density and employee units:
Development Summaries
Proposed Parcel "A"
Proposed Parcel "B"
2667 sq ft of GRFA permitted
if only a single family
residence is constructed
3167 sq ft of GRFA permitted
if a secondary unit is
constructed. This unit
will be restricted to
employee housing as
outlined in 18.13.080 B.10.
2667 sq ft of GRFA permitted
if only a single family
residence is constructed
3167 sq ft of GRFA permitted
if a secondary unit is
constructed. This unit
will be restricted to
employees housing as
outlined in 18.13.080 B.10.
7
Staff recognizes that this is somewhat cumbersome, but
feels the value of the employee housing units outweighs
any difficulties in establishing this condition of
approval. To ensure these conditions are met, staff would
recommend that the following language be recorded with the
land records of Eagle County:
1. Gross Residential Floor Area (as defined by Section
18.04.130 of the Vail Municipal Code) of Parcel A
shall be limited to a maximum of 2,667 square feet
and Parcel B shall be limited to a maximum of 2,667
square feet.
2. A Gross Residential Floor Area credit of 500 square
feet is permitted on both Parcel A and Parcel B for
the exclusive purpose of constructing a secondary
unit.
3. Secondary units constructed on either Parcel A or
Parcel B shall be restricted to use as long term
employee housing units as permitted under Section
18.13.080 B.10 of the Vail Municipal Code. These
restrictions prohibit the secondary unit from being
sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from the
primary unit, require rental only to tenants that are
employees. in the Upper Eagle Valley for periods not
less than thirty days, and prohibit any form of time
share, interval ownership or fractional fee.
4. These covenant restrictions cannot be repealed or
amended without approval of the Town Council of the
Town of Vail.
-8-
PARISH ASSOCIATES
415 WEST MICHIGAN AVENUE
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN 49007
January 20, 1988
The Planning & Environmental Commission
The Town of Vail
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: A Request For A Minor Subdivision To Create Two Primary/Secondary
Lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village, Third Filing, 443
Beaver Dam Road
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of and at the request of my children, Barbara
Parish Gibbs, Katharine Parish Miller, P. William Parish, Preston L.
Parish and David C. Parish, who own the residence at 338 Rockledge
Road, in opposition to the referenced minor subdivision. As former
limited partners of Vail Associates, my wife and I acquired and built
upon the above Rockledge Road-. property in 1962.
Since that time my family has watched with dismay the continuing
encroachment on open space in the residential and other areas of Vail
Village. The granting of subdivisions and variances has had an adverse
environmental impact and is not in keeping with the recorded covenants.
A case in point is a similar minor subdivision opposite our children~s
house which has destroyed the character of the lower end of Rockledge
Road.
Increased density in the residential areas is`particularly disturbing
and this letter is to register our vigorous opposition to the aforementioned
application.
Sincerely,
.~ • G~-~
Preston S. Parish
PSP/f 1
Ed Hicks Imports
Authorized Mercedea•Benz Dealer
National Dealer Council
3026 South Padre Island Drive
Corpus Christi, Texas 78415 Phone: 512.854.1955
January 20, 1988
Planning Envirornnental Commission
of the Town of Vail, Co.
Please accept this letter of protest regarding the
variance request of the City code made by Ben and
Martha Rose to create two Primary/Secondary lots on
lot 4, Block 4 Vail Village 3rd Filing - 443 Beaver
Dam Road. .___. ,~
As a resident at 225 Forest Road in Vail, We have
all lived by and complied. with the City. codes for
many years for the preservation of the-city Environ-
ment and 'to protest our investment we have made in
the City.
For the record, I strongly protest this request for
a variance and would request my name be listed as one
who wishes to be notified either directly or through
our Attorney Firm as to any variance request in the
City that would affect the home owners in Vail.
Respectfully Yours -` ~
~ ,,~.>:
~~~ ~;:
~~
Ed Hicks Sr.
,~
` ~.
Attorney Firm: ~°~-- - __ ;;.
Head & Kendrick
1020 First City Bank Tower
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403
G~ ~%"
~~~~ ~ ~ J ~ : ~~~
%,~-,
~~
~.z~-r/ ~-ram- ~_~~ G~ ~ ~~" ~2~./ ..~~-~- ~~i ~~ ,
ji~
~ ~" ~/~'
~`a i~
C~~
l/ / G~~ .
/~~
G%~
-~-~~-~- .~~6~ ~~r_.l/~~~~o-~-_~C.~ .~c'~-rte --~ - -~.~ ~~.~ 4-~<./
~l.~
~ ~~fl.~ ~~-~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~
~~~.~-
Jack R. Lilienthal
701 Watson Lane
Littleton, Colorado 80123
T~-,-,i~.~,-r r _- .
0 -^
lr.~iini',<_ w~~. .'.~i;ir:-m;~:~_~,ca ~~~:';~;s~`.., i
-- -
0.'.1 c:~ , ~,f~ 1
i 1w1~ ^;Civ"lc.Ci r, i IJi7
.~G3t ~: i:C3 ?7•'Q :'.i3 C11":°S:
JI ' _ L ~
2a :3 "'iO"G1--r riy.;?:. a'i; _." ^a~_,rr?-, ~ -~~ -'~~. ~ '
f
•. ~di C~~i t. '! °]. ~_ -"'3 __?5~~~ L,1?J ~ 'l3 C,.__~1<?, •-.S .'..C _' .-: S} ..i ..__. _ .
~~,'p T?S~_'_~il ~S`-`':.. 1:111.8 car°c. -'!irr ...S°.. C'li. :?'r _i+__,^3 _i~ j.
.i9 _ c. 'ri, __. 11C~i: C~..c. _~ -a J. ~_.nL .__ .. .. i. .CU.i ~•. '__ .; ....
ii:11S :?VVC^r _ ~-CS 8G.J7 P, ,~6G':.•
~~_.
_L~: ~:./
~_e +~..
ec. -~3 _....~=10
Charles L. Biederman
5 Sunset Drive
Englewood, Colorado 80110
January 20~ 1988
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail Municipal Building
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: 443 Beaver Dan Road - Rasberry House - Proposed
Creation of Two Primary/Secondary Lots Out of One
Such Lot
Gentlemen:
We are the owners of 254 B Beaver Dam Road and have become
aware of the proposed application for the subdivision of
443 Beaver Dam Road. We strongly object to the request
because of the following reasons.
The proposed plan will double the number of dwelling units on
the property and thereby create a precedent for future
activity on all other sites along Beaver Dam Road. As property
owners we feel that the traffic on Beaver Dam should not be
increased. Further, the subdivision plan will violate the
protective covenants covering the entire Vail Village 3rd Filing.
It was our understanding when we purchased our property
that the Town of Vail would not permit violation of those
covenants. It would be most disappointing at this juncture
to find a contradiction to what was expected by us.
We urge you to reject the application on behalf of ourselves
and the neighborhood in_general.
Ver tru yours,
- i,. '
C-i'Yd~l s L. iederman
for
CAPELL SSOCIATES
CLB:caw
cc: Lawrence L. Levin, Esq.
Holme Roberts & Owen
.~"~ -/1.
8182 MARYLAND AVENUE
ST. LOUIS. MISSOURI 63105
(314) 889-9625
January 20, 1988
Mr. Thomas A. Braun
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Braun:
In response to the recent Public Notice given by the
Planning and Enviornmental Commission of the Town of Vail,
I would like to voice my opposition to the request submitted
by Ben and Martha Rose.
Their request for a minor subdivision to create two
Primary/Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd
filing, 443 Beaver Dam P.oad, I feel, will be detrimental to
our neighborhood.
First, I feel the plan will have an adverse impact on
vegetation and natural features of the property. Secondly,
approval of this request will increase the gross residential
floor area, and the property cannot accommodate that increased
density.
I have been a property owner in Vail, (666 Forest Rd.),
for several years now and am concerned about the future of
our neighborhood.
I would appreciate your and consideration with regards
to this matter.
Sincerely,
P. Novelly
PAB/kb
Fed. Exp: 2742366561
lack R. Lilienthal
701 Watson Lane
Littleton, Colorado 80123
:,~-te:nbar 11, 1^~7
Tho[aas :i. ?rotin, Senior Manner
Def.ari:rr.ent of ~emmunity Deg*eioX:~:ent.
Town of 'Tail
75 3cut'r: _'renta~-e Road
. c.i.1, oicrado ~~ X57
Dear '.':r. 3roefn:
an; a resident of - -i.'_, 1 ~~ lea,*e-r r-~ !~^.ad.
have just learned teat tae residence ~''. Tot •?, ; 1^ci~ ~, 'T=%1
'J 1.11aJe Jrd s'lll_L1 E', ~}t1) LP.S7Pr 1='.1.1 .~.O C.d, cr? ti"1.:'7fi tG
reLCP,2 fCr CCCllTIle.'. C1al U.9? lu ledQ1:1~.
awl eY.tr°T!]el~T OL'P.OS°~ t^ t'_"_1S, ?S ~.S 2P°r'7 (; ".;e °~.Se
1i tilE ':lei4"'n DOrhOCd. '{° dial nCt Iiaz7 til l.u tT'^C C`f C!10°1 c~t+ T^r
a Clouse +_~est to a rotei.
"_"ran'.r ~rou 'cr ;,~oLtr ti*;e.
~ ~`
v Ll•1 -~ ~ ~l S~U,
j '
. ack 3 ~.ilient'_-•al
13ti Dsaaar D~~.r Road
J?;-: ; D
~~,~~ , ~~
~- ~/~~
~~
,_/7 i _ n
~~
,~'
f ~ ~~ ~" 7 ,
~a~ ~
~~ ,
~/ ` ~~r,, r.
i'~ ~~ ~'
C~'c.~",~aJ T !mot ./L~l " ~'?~ L11 ~~c~~ ~j l..f ~%`~~
/> _
~~L~~ ~ ~,~..~~
G-U~'~ .~
~ ~~~
~~7
~~~
J ~~ ~~. ~~;~ ~~
'2~-~
Gtr ~ ~ ~ ~~ CL i~~~ `/
~~~ ~L,~~:,~d ~~
~-~,~. ~,. ~ f ~~~ `~ ~ J
~~' L
'' -
~ v,~-~
~/~ %:
~: J
~~ ~ ~ ~CL~ ~ L-L ~v~CC~
October 05, 19'
1~Ir. Thomas A. Braun
Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81b57
RE: Request for subdivision to create t~vo (2)
Primary/Secondary lots on lot 4, Block 4,
Vail Village 3rd Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road
Dear Mr. Braun,
Regarding the above proposed subdivision my wife and I are
strongly opposed to this re-subdivision. 4Je have been long time
residence of this area and feel that the development would not
be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. I~Je feel we would
loose the beauty of the area and our property values ~vould definitely
suffer.
Please refuse this request that ~vould so negatively change our
neighborhood.
Please keep us informed as to the progress of this request.
Sincerely,
Edward ~1. Iaci no
332 Beaver Dam Circle
Vail, CO 81657
PEASE INDUSTRIES, INC., 7100 DIXIE HIGHWAY, FAIRFIELD, OHIO 45014 U.S.A. 513-870-3600
November 17, 19$7
Mr. Tom Braun
Planning Commission
TOWN OF VAIL
75 Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Tom:
I am writing to express some concern over a proposed zoning change in Vail
Village.
As you may recall, we are relatively new property owners at 454 Beaver Dam
Road, almost directly across the street from the Ben Rose "raspberry" property.
Our concern is that we understand there is some movement afoot to permit the
construction of more than two dwelling units in the improvement to that pro-
perty. It is our strong and considered opinion that deviating from the normal
two-unit construction in this area of Vail would be very unwise.
We believe that Vail has ample high-density construction areas and all too
few controlled-density areas. We believe that the character of Vail needs
to be formed in part with some lower density residential areas and we be-
lieve certainly that the portion of Beaver Dam and Forest Roads in question
is falling into this category. And, further, the type of construction there
and the addition that it is making to the tax base of Vail is significant.
In short, we feel that a three or four dwelling unit, multi-building structure
would seriously detract from the neighborhood and would work a hardship on
those people who in good faith thought they were building in a zone of primary
secondary zoning.
We would appreciate very much, Tom, if we could be kept up to date on the pro-
gress of this matter so we may pursue our interests as we are able to do so.
Very best regards,
David H. Pease Jr.
President
DHJ:jbb
EVER-STRAIT DOOR SYSTEMS • ROLLING SHUTTERS
Post Office Box 3210
Vail, Colorado 81658
September 10, 1987
Mr. Thomas A. Braun,Zoning Administrator
Community Development Department
Town of Vail, Colorado
Dear Sir:
As a homeowner at 344 Beaver Dam Road in Vail, I hereby submit my
objection to~the request for a subdivision to create two Primary/
Secondary lots on Lot 4,_Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing, at
443 Beaver Dam Road, such request made by the applicants, Ben and
Martha Rose.
My husband Byron and I bought our lot in this particular area of
Vail to have space and openness for our home and we felt the exist-
ing zoning benefited this desire. To divide lots in this area and
allow more housing will be detrimental to the natural beauty and to
the monetary values of present owners. I would object to this pro-
posed change and any others that might he requested in the future
in this area of town.
Sincerely yours,
~CClit2 G7/ .~, L~/..~c~(i~ , ~
Diana G. Williamson
~,y r ~
U,v-!%,~ ~~~
Post Office Box 3210
Vail, Colorado 81658
September 10, 1987
Mr. Thomas A. Braun,Zoning Administrator
Community Development Department
Town of Vail, Colorado
Dear Sir:
As a homeowner at 344 Beaver Dam Road in Vail, I hereby submit my
objection to~the request for a subdivision to create two Primary/
Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing, at
443 Beaver Dam Road, such request made by the applicants, Ben and
Martha Rose.
My husband Byron and I bought our lot in this particular area of
Vail to have space and openness for our home and we felt the exist-
ing zoning benefited this desire. To divide lots in this area and
allow more housing will be detrimental to the natural beauty and to
the monetary values of present owners. I would object to this pro-
posed change and any others that might be requested in the future
in this area of town.
Sincerely yours, //
Diana G. Williamson
ti
F'e!~rgy Ft_tl 1 er`
~' '~
Lien vf~r 9 r ~ ~r=?~;:? ~. C>
Sept~t~ber 1C7,, 1~s3-,
Mr. Them_i.:; ~. C'r:~~.tn
.L71_•~ p l::t r ~_ m e n t o ~• ~.~ i::? t_! i`t L y rte •tr e ]. %7 (? iit t= r. t
Tt:a!~~rt ~.c kY a. i 1
!~~ c?. 3. 1 ~ ~~ G 1 its T
l=',-t i~ V i? :! <~F:a ~~ ~> r d F i 1. i n !_l
(.x~i::? ~t'~r"F7f:i:1.~"! ~i::}lt~~~~~ 'k!J ~(f~? rt?~~!_l°'=i'F ~'~~._- ri~~Cln:lnk~ C]i' ~.('i~~ c?(]~7l't~
rF?~f~::?renr_r~Ci ;~rC~t_,!:?r"i.-v_ ~ GIs C}ra>•~~.n•~il of%dritr°=~ .=lnCj (~t_!1}.dE?r ~ O•v'
~~ - ~` rl ;a, fiS t=-? w~. v ~? r' .L ~~ tTl (~~ .7 rt ...I q ~ ("1 v-a _. r' {~, C!'~ t•~ d
rt,^?,'_. C~niiig fGr '~!~~~ () pt'"i iYi •~~.r'y% ~:eCGnC}ckr ~? hai7lee r~~!%id
t..t. (:.) =' '~ •~. n ~.:L :z .l }. `•{ i~,'i ~ ~='t=. {: t'3l! i" ~' C? ~ ~~ E-? d i. n {.: C? r - ~=' ~;'~'.:_r .
~ h 1 :.a p r [~ E7 l'J ~= a i. i'- 2 C} t_i ~ :v 1. _ _~. •fa i) (] =_• f .=i n ~ 7.:.=i }. d G' `~! 2 d ~ ]. !7 {l •t r- i ~t ([1 'F ~'} ~~
fJrag:Lncl.~ ~=C]n"Ik?n:~l"1'~'= •.'_lt"iC.:( ~4.)nltlt-j rF?C.}!.t:Lr~~~?tihi~li~'~z -~~~SI'~ (}r C, (:,E-1f-t.tij=
o~•anr,r'-hip in t(-ri~a n;~i~~h{7nlr•hcod, The t_i~ty ~-~ '.~:7.i.1 h~3.__ ~.n
k~(::7.~:Lt.,it7.C7ft ~C? iTl%_i:l.il~;_?.l;"S ~:hF_? C]i'"lta:Lii•=tl (lt~?1!1i1~:7C7(=-(.l~~i:Ji-(':~' ln'~t.'t7Y"1't.`y.
ry dC?n'.,.+ing '~u~_h ir;•fr•ingerr~~~?n~t. ~~.tch prt=ar._edr~an•t e•tti.ng
~ac.rir~n cri1~ !~r-e_~'1:1.`:~ it~tp:.t• ~:. ~joil-7in!~ r7~=:ighb~r~. Tr-~.•~-tic ti.nd
p~~r{<:ir,g ~i~~ng rJe~?.,fer 1~~!m ~'na.d h=st.s incre~.~•si=d st_ah=._~~:_.n•!_i:~.lly
t]V~•?r '~ht-? V~?:?.r':~< ~'r~1 V;il_y ;~.nd ~=}lli ~~t: pt'~':~~a:=sl t=)n ii'i' ~{-1F?
preperti~=~ are? mc~r-e n•ften being c1;:~.11i•?t~~~ed ,r7s •rr~=es a.re
retlrt~vedA be_!ver- d:7.t11S d?stroyedq -and n.tt_tr•~1 f1c7r.y rknd •~aun~~
are end:~ngered.
I+_~ :i•~ !`zr'_~r~=b~~ re!~t_t~:~sted th~-~t ~~t_trrent nnint-t :t:~t!.i,e ~,nk~
i:»Qnb''~=i1~?.n~ ~ ~7C~ L!phE?1 d dn~J '~h.~.~ n~~ '••/c?.r`:L c?.ni_L? r:lc? ?.l ]. C]wF?d ..i t7r
Y" ra;_' C7 (i '1 (~ ~-l k~ ~ ~• ~• _~ ~j ~~ ~ ":' k:? 1" X.l rt i it F~ n <l ~_ ~ n
~ -•`~
~~``~~
l"y1 er f-L~!trti 1 y p~iepre tien~F.~~.~ti via
~~
~ `~
F'r -~ (-'
\~\
~.~ ~ ~ ~
~ - -~,.9.-~ ~~~ Gam-- .,~..~.~D ~..~,~
~.~n.. /mss-...-~Q~ ~- /~' - - ~ o--e~, ~
`~''' ~~~/~
Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658.1303)476-5601
BERNARD H. MENDIK
330 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORE 20017
February 5, 1988
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Application of Ben and Martha Rose
443 Beaver Dam Road
Gentlemen:
I am the resident owner of 265 Beaver Dam Road, Vail, Colorado, and
I would like to voice my support for the captioned application subdividing
the captioned property into two primary-secondary lots or to two single
family lots with a caretaker unit located on each lot.
Yours tr~Cil}~,
Bernard H. Mendik
cc: Jay Peterson, Esq.
Mr. Ben Rose
e.<< `"~ ~ ~ ~ ..
~- q~Z~r'
BYR~ E
& ASSOCIATES
REAL ESTATE
265 BRIDGE STREET
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
303/476-1JB7
September 11, 1987
TOWN OF VAIL
75 S. Frontage Road; Vl~est
Vail, Colorado 81657
Gentlemen:
It has come to our attention that there is a proposal pending before the
Town to subdivide Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing on
Beaver Dam Road in such a manner as to permit the construction of four
living units on such property.
We are the owners of a home at 254 Beaver Dam Road and object strongly
to such subdivision or zoning variance to permit the construction of more
than two living units on any lot on Beaver Dam Road, Forest Road or
Rockledge Road.
Would you please inform us of the date and time of any hearing on this
matter so that we may attend.
_;r,...~.....
--'~-Qd ~ ~ _____
Paula Byrne
~ ~C H.
{~ 7`_u
?~ .C
~ '\~.f' t
d r j'~
'
~ '~~ !~ ~
~
S ~~
t
f r },
~
»
~,
s
~
~ ~
H
t __S
a
p
'~L -S T'
.~
`Fh
~ y ; C [ 4 4 ~ ~ F 7 ; ~ ~ lIl h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T. S` ~. 71 Ck
`l i
`
t
*~ .Ih t T - ~ ~ J 'SFr }`t a~ < { -:;I g~
Y L.~ ~
j
i
~ 3
1 S
~ ` - it ~-. sz
'-
_
r i
- _ .. Y. ~ ' i ~ 'f~ ~
e. ... c' ~ ~ `~
~~ i ~ ~>res; ~..Ay~i
t' ~i ~ I
'.I (1 tL1GJ i~ I ~~.~ ~
_ ~~~~ternber 3, 1987
Mr•, Thaomas A. I3ra~,;,
;cjr~for Planner
J~,,I~artment of Comu,~~n~.ty Devel.~l~tttc~t~
t
~J~~,wn of Fail
~~'; South Frontage ,,.~,~ca
~,i{l, CO 81657
Jtl;; Request for u~rt-,r~ivision r
.
c~
,
~. c,~
",ate two (2;1
Pr~.mary/S`scr,~l,,ry lots ot
r , lui
Vail Vilage ~:rr1 Jilin '1~ B.lock 4,,
~,
- Road . Appl i<;,xrrts : Ben ~ M~~ r
~.
;:tlta Rose
~;~ -_ -
Tom:
n - -
_
x -
" C appreciate your tune and cotti•
l'ua
~
,,f ~ ~,~ ~~
j
in meetinc-
~~'tth me yes~~rday concerning t:l-r' ~tl
~
~r~ve.
r;;4 '~~ .` ~
'~~ - wife and I vc~r
much op{~ur~r~ i I
r
lY
,. le grant of
~ s re-subdivs r,
t
t
f that w~,tr Ic
l
~ allow the
construction of fc„ar (q) hou;sc,n
~ =`. ti 4.:.
> it
r;
the .last 2S ,3 lot, that
C~~r Y~:ars, wotr l~~
~
_' . ~~it 1 al_1ow a
hG mary/secondary cJc,velopment, Y
__
k ~ ~' ~ h'a purchased our h~~nre at 48G ~~
l" ~c~"'sr
,'~- `;,~'~ ~ Road last
We have
~~aar • ,i subs tarts; la
r k ~~ ,~E,proximately 10c) Yards fr~,rrr investment:
~~ < ` `
. ;,rlbdivision. Suc.:-t t Ire proposed
a devel.okrrricsnt
s ^ ,~
:~ > ~~ r ,r :
tt~e construction oC four would allow
~ `1) hc,rttt
~
l~
j.
~
.. ;r ~: es on ver't'
;~ruall lots, and represents
:s
h
~ ~
~
, ,
vr, different:.
,iE;velopment from what has 1)crc~
r ~~
r~t~ `; T`
°" ~x ~~ ~~ rr
Joing on i.n
tt~ is area for thc, J.~lst ~5 year
-r
#
z,~~~~"F ~ .
s,
'rrd from wha ..
~;~, bargained for; . It wouL~
,
~;-~ ~ `'-t~ ,x-; r`'J'resent poa,r
:.Manning, and wit:hc~ut a doufsH
k
~ _
thy- neighborhood . We are agri { nrsr4r/'r11d cheapen
~~:;~' ~~
_ Fhi.s change.
~ _ _ .~. a, ~ . .
r ~'~ ~ ~ - ,n~F* .~~ ~~ `~ iii t-"' -~ "~$ ` ~u'`~" '~ker~; n~'~' ~ v„ ~` { _ds t ,~
'~ _ ,~ k ~i~-tn- fi >t ham,{- +s.. ~S` ~yy k3 r, ~ f 4- ~ ~ *z
- F r s ~ ~ ~~ ~' "~'y,'K ~ _: ~ .~~' _ far, ~ ~ 6 ~7 -~{
- _... ..
_- ,~ .
_.
..
._ ~ ,
' - ~ ~~6.i~P~:."'^°°'7C'drc'~y„~'"`st4..s..°L. .e.'~~C'c'~:rj'3'4.%;:~' ~.'.
Mr. Thomas A. Braun
September 3, 1987
Page 2
We would attend the hearing on 9/14/87,
however, we will be out of town.
We would appreciate it if other property
owners in this area would be informed of this
request.
Please turn down this request that would
change our neighborhood, and kindly keep us
informed as to the developments concerning
this request.
Many thanks.
Very truly yours,
F :/' .
~ -. / ,
H. Lindley Gr~bbs
r ~,
~!~,t.~u-~-
dia C. rubbs
HLG:ccj
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
~_ a'q ~ ~TT"~ c~^m~+i_Za ~~ ,,~a„t a*¢,a.°`Y~ ~#~3=1 fW ...1"'~try C,~ '~ ~~ y~ .~ t; ~.,k ~,y~ T.: 'i 5~c,1~~ ","h~5
L ~~ < fAl iT ~ 3-I . d r ~ ~~ J r ~ ~ N ~ 4'Y f
x F ,
~, ,. ,
y
-n - - ~
~a
,_ ,
r
- - - mss
- ~ ~z~
,~/
' l1 ,~
-~ ~-~~ ~ J ~'~, 1 ~t/
,~
r~
. 1 /'~.'-~' IL~Z! a r ~
~. ~f 7 v S~/ ~ ~~.'v
~~
-u~,~ ~
~~~
.~ J
f r .,i, 1 i L~< ~ ~
za' "'gy'm` ~ - ~`
^f1
w K ~ ,e : ° z~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~-t icy`-c /z.~~~ ~~
Yf ~~.T
~
L~
~ ~.. 3 aiP tr ~ _'~ ~~ ;~ _ ~~
.~-K'
i ~.a 5 +.
~ ,tin
~
~
~
5~
~~
~
~~
~•
_ ~~
~
r
,
z
rY ",r
t"~
~ F.
~4 ~
~
A ~ a c
~
f k r
~ ~+ } -~ ~ S
~ ~-
f
{
~
- ~ _ .. . ~.-~ ! ~ y'
~ ~
1 r;.
L~ ~~
- - ~~L~~'~~~"~~~~ ~" 1 51 2 Woodcuff 5E, Grand Rapids, Mic ~ ~_ n =1S50B
j L 1 L T
~~ephone (E ~ B7 X57-7gge
~~ ~ ~~
~._~ J ~n~, ~ ~ ~r~v~~z~nr~~-~-r~~
~~,~,,,m~ss~~~
- I c w --~ ~' ~% ,~~,
__ O ~ ~ S ~-~ ~ ~--z.._ cz ~, c~~ ~.n
,~ =~ ~ ~ _ S ~ ~ ~~-; s ~ ~ ~ -~; I -ems ~ Y~
r ,
~ n -.,
~_~ ~~ W ' ~ 1
~]
. _ .
~ G ~ i ~, ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~,J c~tiP ~ 1 c~.,~ ~q
~
r ~ ~ I
~~ti~ /l'~r2~~~t C./~G~ M. ~ ~7 ~C~ T~Y~it Lvr1 S ~ ~,~ p~-c,~
~ - ~V
~~
y, r _
F ~ _
~
JOIN I.. TYLER
1Fi0 HIIMBOLDT STREET
DENpER. COLORADO 80218
~ ~. ~
9, i9~j
,~`• .~.
~.~cr~. ~ I/~ fie: ~'f ~ `/
75 So F ~~ VQ{~~3.r~F-~
/a.i~ AGM`}~O S /6 57 ~! H 3 l3.aau~~, ~7~~v,
~~~~~~~
~~~„~ 2H.
~~~~~~
e <.~~_z~
~~~z~,. ~.~~~
BURTON E. GLAZOV
875 NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE, SUITE 3900, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611
September 10, 1987
Mr. Tom Braun
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Proposed Resubdivision of Lot 4, Block 4,
Vail Village, Third Filing (Property located
on Beaver Dam Road, known as "Raspberry House")
Dear Mr. Braun:
I am the owner of a home located at 454 Forest Road
(which fronts on Beaver Dam Road) (Lot A, Lot 5,
Block 2, Vail Village, Third Filing).
I am advised that a proposal is being made concerning
the above referenced property to permit the building
of two primary-secondary residences, or a total of
four single family homes where only one presently
exists.
I am very concerned about the impact of what this
increased density will have on this area and feel
strongly that the property owners near to this site
should have the opportunity to be made aware of the
details of the proposal as well as to express their
concerns.
I would appreciate receiving notice, at the address
listed below, of any hearings or materials filed
regarding this proposal.
Yours very truly, ~
~ ! G' r~~
/ .%
11z~C ~ ~~ f~
Burton E. Glazov
875 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3900
Chicago, Illinois 60611
BEG:mj
PETER S. HITCHCOCK
THE HOMESTEAD
BERKSHIRE FARM
MENTOR, OHIO 44060
Planning and Environmental Commission
The Town of Vail Jan. 2P1,1988
Eagle County Colorado
Re: Public Notice of public hearing in accordance with Sec
18.66.fd60 of municipal code of the Town of Vail on Jan
25,1988 at 3:fd0PM in the Municipal Building.
With reference to the above item no.l --a request for a
minor subdivision to create two Primary / Secondary lots on
Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing,443 Beaver Dam Road -
Applicants Ben and Martha Rose -- I wish to,as owner of the
lot adjoining this property to the east, OBJECT strenuously.
To identify myself, I am Peter S. Hitchcock and am the
sole owner of Lot 3, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing and
have been since I bought the property in June of 1964. I
built my in 1966 and it has been most enjoyable even tho my
neeighbores to the west had a Duplex and the traffic has done
nothing but increase which has been not to my liking. The
open space which we now have is limited and if this proposal
is approved will remove it all.
The Town of Vail is saturated with dwelling units now
and we certainly don't want any more. Let's keep what open
space we have and keep our town not a jammed-packed bunch of
dwellings.
Please record my objection to the request made by the
Roses.l
Sincerely
~~~' ~~ G~
Peter S. Hitchcock
~ ~ ~~~~~ C
.I ~'
Q~
i i 5 ~'
/ / ~
~ 1 7~i ~
~~.
i .
~ ~
• / . ~.
/T f /_ 'i. (~ i I
-..->=--
i
-~
;.;
~~ ~ C~- ~C~=L'-' ~-.
~~r.r ~~ , ,._~ -.~ ~ ~-
° ,"~;''~C ~~ ~i- ~~`s7"rY~-~.~^~r ~~r..- .~~s"'z`~' M" ; z.~'~XS~g"~5;'~ ~''~..~~~ 'St
~ ~ 1 ~_ r~f~ [~ 7`'S '"!~ a ~ t 3 -y~, ~, 'wa rt~y',~ .µ~` .mot rC' ~d, ~-i ~,.y t~ fbf .~ ~ y i
- '- r ~ ~ .:n ~ . -. ..e
'~ ,~ ~ 4 7r1-,~' __ 'Y ,.r '4 Fem.
,, yi ;;
- _ .. - 4''
. ,'-? t
7
~.
~~`
.y`C ~ _
~ ~ v .1
y y~l~~
;
{
.7.~ ~
~
t{t '!~;
~
N
~.~ ..
\ ~`1
l ~.
~~ ~.- ~v` °~ y
~ ,
-, ~, J' _~
i~ - ~~ I~ - ! ~,/
~ F_ ~'` f` _ ~ f~
BURTON E. GLAZOV
875 NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE, SU1TE 3900, CHICAGO, 1LLINCIS 60611
January 20, 1988
Mr. Thomas A. Braun
Zoning Administrator
Community Development Department
Town of Vail Municipal Building
Vail, Colorado 81568
Dear Mr. Braun:
We are the owners of a residence at 454 Forest Road (west
property), which fronts on Beaver Dam Road. This letter is
in response to the Public Notice of a January 25, 1988
hearing of the Planning and Environmental Commission, as we
will be unable to attend the hearing.
We strongly oppose the request listed as Item No. 1 (to
create two primary/secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail
Village 3rd Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road).
Technicalities aside, the creation of four living units where
only two would now be permissible is simply a bad idea.
Increased density in this residential community is contrary
to rational land use plans. A very significant and harmful
precedent would be set for future similar variances in this
community.
From an economic view, it is understandable why a landowner
would want to double the permissible number of buildings on
his property; however, this is not an acceptable basis for
land use planning.
We can assure you that we did not purchase our horse in 1986
with the expectation that the Town of Vail would be
permitting the doubling of density virtually across the
street from us. In fact, homeowners rely upon the Town of
Vail to protect them from such events based upon its
reputation for sensible land use restrictions.
Please note our opposition to this request.
Yours very truly,
.,
r
Trc ~c~ l
Burton E. Glaz v
,~
~~
Adrienne G. Glazov ,J
~u~.Ca.~
~lc~oc ~ 1tia~~,y ~t-}~
u;coc(, Cry ~ l 1 b
X101 -'+~eA,U-e.~ ~t,,t~ v~t ~ ' e--
~~ ,
~a~ ~ v~
~~~
~~~~~'.
~S lam. ,S ~ .~~~~. ~ bPpo~ ~.- ~
X93 ~ei,U,~t Ica vii ~~,oa~ . ~ ~ ~ ~-Q.-~-
C~.1buS~l.lt~t c~-c~ p.~ -AA,~.v u„u:~'~ wo u.QcQ. _ ~ ~ ~w~-
tl~- ~ou ~{a ~a u.e~ La,vi.~ ~..., ~1~u: o
0.,~,e c~ was I~.u.~ l~ c~,~.cf- w-~-- l~-~C.- o~ l o u.~..Q,~
~- ~.a~u.e_. l~ns~- ~a.k,Q, c,t~.e- C.~~u~-l.~c'L e~ (9..~.~dz.
out- ~t ~- wt-~-e_ `1-Itie~.v~ a..~u~ G `l-itio,L ,
f7~lt. U.41`~L4 Vl ~' G~ ~-1.a- '~.dy.,~,2v1R C~(..P.u-"C- ~~l~.l, L~.Q.41.~4.t
aura lax u~ dwu.eP.~ v~~ r~ - ~ ~uG~- is ~~w
mi.c. o~ VdA- ~eui a.u_as i,a~ Ua:~P wiV-P~
Samv~ ppu~ spae~. ~,ricPa~~ auk
v 1 si 4.0-~ s aka kx. £ui °~- ~.`. aFea' Sp°.e`"
G~d~u~' owe ~~''`y~ e~djetiuu~_ y-B~_
pke~ a,Ra a.~.d, ~ C~s,J
r~l~bdz o~- ~eucv~ eauue-w-
~o owe op~rsiJ~s~- -vet s~ uwued-
4Gw- subd,~wa,;~u: mw~ vim
fy~ tuoukcL o~~sP~ ~AW~'Act~e va~~
V1~- .~uz- o.~-~- . U;z. wc~.w~ a.¢.~
wlw~- wz en ~~ Vo w- V~
opzU- SG u~ a , ,k~~- «-k- -G ~ P-~
aMd ~~F v~+.c,~rula~,~ aua_
Cued gooc~ o~ V~~ ~aaw~ . 61
s~~y ~.+
,~
...,
~>, y
~~. ~
~iltl~vt6224~c.
~~
f~ Du.~ t~,rc- 6~ I q 3 ~~-a- ~u^2 ' 1 I,~~cP I,~Cce- d v
~. ~- ~ ~ ~-
~~- ~
„ „ ~ u,~, ,~,~_ ~,~n c
ROBERT G. IRWIN ARCHITECT A.I.A.
February 12, 1988
Town Council
Town of Vail
RE: Request for subdivision to create two (2} Primary/Secondary
Lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village. Third filing, 443
Beaver Dam Road. Applicants: Ben and Marsha Rose
To Whom It May Concern:
We most vehemently oppose this request and any others of a
similar nature in the Beaver Dam/Forest Road/Rockledge area. We
built our home at 486 Forest Road in 1965 and have watched the
development of lots ever since. The majority of houses built
have been of good quality without exceeding our acceptable
density Level, maintaining the value of the overall area.
The concept of splitting lots of over 3Q000 square fee (and there
are several in the area} will open up Pandora's box to the
delight of developers.
We sincerely ask that you do not grant this request - please do
not emulate Pandora.
Very truly yours,
,j _ .
bert G. Irwi
Elizabeth Irwin
RGI:ccj
COUNCIL MEMBERS -
There will be a joint meeting of Vail, Avon,
Minturn, Red Cliff, Eagle and Gypsum Town Councils
regarding a TV Translator System. The meeting will be
held Friday, Feb. 19, 12:00 Noon, at the Avon Town
Council Chambers. Pizza will be served.
All Council members should plan to attend.
,,
To: Ron Phillips
From: Tom Braun~~~
Date: February 4, 1988
Re: Allegations of staff inconsistency with respect to
development review process
It is obviously very disconcerting to hear allegations of staff
inconsistencies in our review of development proposals. While one
can certainly understand the controversy surrounding our position
on the Golden Peak House proposal, I feel strongly that our
recommendation is both sound and defensible. I would offer the
following in response to comments we have heard over the past few
weeks:
1. The staff has previously fought for preserving open
space (Lodge land exchange has been mentioned as being
comparable), yet is now supporting the development of a
ski base facility on existing open space behind the
Golden Peak House.
I can safely speak for the staff when stating that we still value
open space. Our support of the ski base facility is based on a
number of solid reasons:
* The area is zoned ag/open space, a district that permits
certain levels of development;
* The property is privately owned, making it incomparable
to the Lodge situation;
* The Vail Land Use Plan designates this area "Ski Base",
to include activities such as ski trails and facilities,
The same is true with the unadopted Village Master Plan;
* The Village area is presently without a public base
facility;
* The underground design is in fact sensitive to the
existing character of the area.
2. The staff took a hard line with GRFA on the Plaza
Lodge redevelopment, now our position has changed with
the Golden Peak proposal.
There is no question that our position may be considered bold, but
it is in no way inconsistent when evaluating the criteria
established by the Urban Design Guide Plan. The existing building
is without doubt the single most inconsistent (that may be a poor
choice of words!), structure in Vail Village when using the Guide
Plan as a measure. The new design is not only consistent with
the Guide Plan, it provides dramatic improvements over what is out
there today. Consider the following:
~ .,
* The vast majority of the building's mass is existing,
the introduction of a gable roof does not add to what is
there today (in terms of mass);
* The upper floors of the building are "stepped back" to
provide relief to the structure;
* The design provides an improved sun/shade pattern;
* Approximately 85% of the new GRFA is created by the new
roof form and converting existing spaces in the building
* The benefit of the gable roof cannot be overstated, the
existing roof form is the. only "inverted mansard" in the
Village - a radical departure from the goals of the
Guide Plan.
We have essentially said, "you show us an improved building, you
show us positive responses to the criteria in the Guide Plan, and
the issue of numbers (GRFA) is of secondary importance. We are
confident that the unique condition of this building will not bind
us to a similar position with subsegent proposals.
3. The staff recommends approval of the Golden Peak House,
yet "hassles" Pepi's application for a dining deck
enclosure.
Pepi's deck is a premier feature of the Village. We did recommend
denial, but with specific suggestions on how to re-design the.
proposal so that it would be consistent with other deck enclosure
approvals. We requested fully operable floor to ceiling walls
to maintain the vitality of an outdoor deck during the spring and
summer seasons. A quick review of our position with similar
requests (i.e. Blu's, Vendetta's, Hong Kong, etc.), will
demonstrate in no uncertain terms the staff's concern with
maintaining consistency in our review of deck enclosures.
I hope this will clarify our position on these proposals. I would
be happy to discuss this issue further at your convenience.
~ ~.
f
MEMORANDUM
T0: Town Council
Ron Phillips
FROM: Brenda Chesman
DATE: February 9, 1988
SUBJECT: Meeting in Steamboat Springs
Mr. Carl Matledge, the Highway Commissioner at Steamboat
Springs, phoned yesterday to extend an invitation to you to
hear Governor Romer speak on the "Highway Legislative Program".
The meeting will be held 9:00 a.m., Saturday, Feb. 13, at the
Holiday Inn (east side of US 40) in Steamboat Springs.
Breakfast will be served (dutch).
Please let Ron know today if you will be attending or not. I
need to RSUP Wednesday morning to Mr. Matledge. Thanks very
much.
/bsc
cJAY A. PRECOURT
1560 Broadway, Suite 2000
Denver, Colorado $0202
February 4, 1988
Town Council
Town of Vail
Vail, Colorado
81657
Dear Council Members:
W'J
g'
Enclosed please find a copy of my letter to the Planning
and Environmental Commission concerning the proposal for a Special
Development District #20. I have been advised if the proposal is
approved, it will come to the Town Council for a decision to
change the zoning presently in effect. Please reject any such
change.
As a long time Vail property owner on Mill Creek Circle,
I would ask that the Town Council notify the Planning and Environ-
mental Commission that Vail refuses to consider proposals that
would commercialize Vail's open areas. I realize a great deal
of time and money has gone into this project to date, but it
would certainly be a breach of faith with the residents of Vail
if approved. If we compromise green space designated and set
aside for the enjoyment of Vail villagers here, when and where
will it end?
Please say "no" to this proposal and any similar request
that may come up in the future.
JAt' : PP
REC'C FEB - 8 1988
Very truly your
r
`.
~~ ~
,Taffy A. Precou t
cTAY A. PxECOUBT ~`~•~ ~"' ~ " ~`~`~`~
1560 Broadway, Suite 2000
Denver, Colorado 80202
February 4, 1988
Town Council
Town of Vail
Vail, Colorado '
81657 \',\
1~
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed please find a copy of my letter ~to the Planning
and Environmental Commission concerning the proposal for a Special
Development District #20. I have beers advised if the proposal is
approved, it will come to the Town Council for a decision to
change the zoning presently in effect. Please reject any such
change.
As a long time Vail property owner on Mill Creek Circle,
I would ask that the Town Council notify the Planning and Environ-
mental Commission that Vail refuses to consider proposals that
would commercialize Vail's open areas. I realize a great deal
of time and money has gone into this project to date, but it
would certainly be a breach of faith with the residents of Vail
if approved. If we compromise green space designated and set
aside for the enjoyment of Vail villagers here, when and where
will it end?
Please say "no" to this proposal and any similar request
that may come up in the future.
Veery truly your
~ ~. 1
1~, ~
,Taffy A. Precou t
JAP : pp U_
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
VAIL METROPOLITAN RECREATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1988, 2:15 P - CLU$~-iOUSE KRUEGER ROOM -
1. Call to order - 2:15 PM
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
2. Personnel Contracts 1 hour
See attached work sheets - Personnel
Bring contracts from previous meeting
A. Director of Tennis
B. Director of Golf
C. Head Golf Professional
3. Golf Superintendent Salary Review 10 min
See attached Krueger Wage and Benefit History Sheet
PUBLIC MEETING:
4. Approval of minutes (JANUARY 14, 1988) see attached 1 min.
5. Election information - Pam Brandmeyer 5 min
6. Financial report -.Steve Thompson 8 min
7. Adjustment of Mill Levy - Board approval __ _ ,. ,5 . min
(See attached sheet from Caruthers)
8. Eagle County Action Plan - Pritz 10 min
9. Irrigation update - Ben Krueger 5 min
10. Discussion of joint meeting 5 min
11. 1988 Tennis proposal - Kathy Payne 10 min
12. Approval of 1988 No Name Golf Tournament 3 min
13. Approval of purchase orders 3 min
14. Adjournment
Attachments;
Personnel at Golf Club - work sheets
Krueger Wage and Benefit history
Mintutes 1/14/88
Caruthers letter (Eagle County Assessor)
Colorado Women's Golf Association - FYI
Personnel at Golf Club
Head Golf Professional:
-Does the board want to select or let DOG make selection
-Benefits
Salary: 1987 - $10,200
$1,700 per mo for 6 months 50 per pay
All golf lessons
12 month medical and dental $3,506
Ski pass $525
Need to discuss position 1st then person recommended for position.
Director of-Golf:
-Pro shop - rent etc - salary of employee - VMRD vs Pro Shop
-Duties and responsibilities
-Policies on _
cart use
employee privileges
board privileges
-Position title
-Driving range - see attached cost per season
rent payment
1987 85$ DOG 15 $ VMRD
-Term of Agreement
length of contract
-Compensation
$15,600 salary - 6 mo
8% gross cart receipts
all proceeds golf lessons
12 month medical/dental $3,605
ski pass_$525
-Cable TV hookup
pro shop
starter house
-Phones
winter use
-r' ^~ ~~%,~.;~~i~,~- ~_ -yam- -~N ~fr~.;~,~,.. ~--------------------------
c}-+~Y
Director of Tennis:
Discuss
-1988 tennis proposal - marketing and cost
no money in 1988 budget for this
-No evaluation done in 1987 at board request
-term 1 year on site 15 weeks
-Salary
$15,600
-All proceeds from lessons $25% of court revenues that exceed
29,100 or 20% of all gross income that .exceeds 45,225
-Pro shop - no rent __.~
-Use of tennis courts for lessons without payment
-all camp proceeds - pay court fees
VAII, GOLF CLUB IY2IVING RAiJC~
TIME, ~'FRTAT ~ AND C06T -1987
2~SIH r+g7W FKJURS SEF~ ~ F ~7.I'TT T7.FR ~ SAND-jIOP USING
MAY 30 175 200
JUNE 80 300 100 12
JULY 96 200 250 12
AUGUST 108 200 300 12
SEPI'II~:R 90 175 350 14
OCTOBER 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 404 1050 1200 50
riOW HOURS INCLUDE EQU~I' AND MAQTT~2Y NEIDID. NORMAL Pi2OCED[JRE IS ~
CLEAN AND MQW ON I~NDAYS. RAKE rK7W, AIRg'Y, SEID, 7~P DRESS AND FER~'ILZE
ON FRIIIAYS.
SPRIIQKI~2 REPAIR: 20 HOURS X $5 $100
MOT4 HOURS: 404 X $ZO $4, 040
SEID: 1050 X $1.10 $1,155
F~ILSZER: 24 BAGS X $10 $240
SAND TOP MIX: 50 YAF2LIS X $10 $900
TOTAL COST OF I~2IVING RAt3GE MPC, 1987 $6, 435
r
Ben Krue ger Wa a and Benefit History -
The foll-awing information was taken frcffn Bens fil e. ~-_
MONTHLY
~'~ POSITION GRADE SALARY OON~fI~
04-O1-67 Golf Course Manager- $ 900.00 Benefits included Health
Insurance, 3 weeks vacation, 6
Holidays, 12 sick days
12-01-68 $ 800.00 No reason given in file
04-01-69 ~~ $1000.00
10-16-72 $1167.00 -
01-01-73~ $1417.00
01-01-74 $1583.33
OZ-OZ-75 I9 $1694.16 Cost of Living Raise
O1-O1-76 19 $1815.67 Cost of Living Raise
O1-O1-77 19 $1924.61 Cost of Living Raise
01-01-78 21 $2040.08 Cost of Living Raise
02-14-78 Benefits changed to Health
,
Dental, Life (1 1/2 times
annual salary), Short Term
Disability, 4 weeks vacation
,
11 holidays, 12 sick days.
01-01-79 21 $2182.88 Cost of Living Raise
BaI ~JEGIIt 4~G'E AND BEIJEpIT HISTORY
JANUARY 13, 1988
PAGE 2 -
DATE
~SITION
GF2ADE r~N'I~Y
SALARY
CUNIMF.iJ'I~S
08-O1-79 21 $2302.94 Merit Increase
01-01-80 21 $2579.30 Annual pay Adjustment
01-O1-81 17 $2721.16 Annual pay Adjustment
Reclassification of all
' employees
Reached top of grade
O1-01-82 17 $2823.99 Annual pay Adjustment
04-01-82 18
$2965.19
Upgrading and merit.
Top of Grade.
04-O1-82 $ 727.91 Longevity check
On January 1, 1983, we withdrew from Social Security. Salaries are listed as Gross
salary and W-2 Wage. .
01-01-83 $3038.53 Annual Pay Adjustment
_ $2834.00 W-2 Wage __
O1-O1-83 Benefits
changed to Health,
Dental, Life (2 1/2 times
~~ ~~Y) ~~ and Shozt
. Term Disability, 4 weeks
vacation, 11 holidays and 12
sick days.
04-O1-83 $ 771.70 Lr~ngevity Check
01-01-84 $3129.69 Gross Annual pay
$2920.00 W-2 Adjustment
SIId KRUF~ER AGE AND • BIIIEFTT HIS'IURY
JANUARY 13~ 1988
PAGE 3 -
ATE R'~IfiION
04-O1-84
04-01-84
01-O1-85
MONTHLY
GRADE SALARY OOI~44E~1'S
$3130.40 Gross Merit to top of
$2920.67 pay grade
_ _ _ - -
. $ 822.27 Lr~ngevity Check
$3154.32 No longer on Town system for
" ranges. Range determined by
. _ Boa~i.
O1-01-86~
01-01-87
$3280.49
$3331.00 Actually paid $3533.00/ month
due to_con~uter error when new
system was installed and raise
_ was paid retroactively at the
same time.
i
2~Si?IUI'FS
R~c~L~t MEErirrc
VAIL N~~~~POLITAN RLCRFAZ~ON DLS"IRICP
JANUARY I4, 1988
i~ PRFSII~: Bob Ruder, Geon3e Knox, Meer Lapin, Gail Molloy, Tim -_ -
Garton
~iIIZS PRESBNr: Pat Dodson, Steve Thompson
DOBSON ICE ARII~: Merv Lapin asked Pat Dodson when the Dobson Ice Arena
repairs would be finished and reopen. Dodson stated a
week from Friday (1/22/88). Lapin asked Dodson if he
wanted to bet $20 on the 1/22/88 deadline. Dodson
accepted the bet of $20.
CALL ~ ORDEF2: The meeting was called to order at 3:05 PM
APPROVAL OF MIN[f~: Knox motioned to approve the minutes from the December
10, 1987 meeting, second by Lapin, passed unanimously.
WI2~ ACI'IVi'Fg5 AT GOLF
DOLTRSE: Barb 2~;asoner joins the meeting 3:05 PM. Masoner handed
out a ~ recappingsome winter activities (see
attached). The USSA Ski Week, Trophee Revillon and EMS
Governor's ~ will all be using the golf course in the
next few weeks. The December, 1987 attendance was 1,400
people. This is more than used the golf course for the
opening season of the Nordic Center - 1985. N~soner
leaves the meeting.
CASH FLOW FI2~NOIAI,
RF~ORT: Gail Molloy joins the meeting 3:10 PM. Steve Thompson
joins the meeting. See attached hand out from Thompson.
Thomson reviewed the 1987 actual budget. VMRD ended
the year with a working capital of $8,856. Garton asked
why 6°s short on green fees. Ruder stated it c~~s probably
due to changing off season rates to late into the season.
Cash flow projection: Thompson stated Wick will defer
the $50,225 management payment to save tre board from
borrowing money and will change the District 6% interest
on the outstanding balance. Dodson stated this cash flo*w
report does not include any funds for the swiraning pool
project. Lapin made a motion instructing Tnom~pson to
keep the check book balance at 0 through the winter
season, second by Garton, passed unanimously. Lapin made
a motion to pay the TOV 1/2 point over on money bor-ro:ed,
second by Knox, passed unanimously. Thompson leaves the
meeting 3:45 PM.
GOLD PF-11K TF~v'NIS: Larry Lichliter joins the r:eeti.ilg at 3:45 P:~I. Ruder
stated he has met with VA and they are willing to replace
2-courts in place of 7, 8 and 9, south of courts 4 and 5
at Golden Peak. VA will take this plan to the 'InV for-
- their approval. Dodson handed out so.;ie information on-;=-
post-tensioned courts (see attached). Dodson explained ~~_-___-
these courts will not crack and could be parked on in the ~-~
winter months. Garton asked what happened to the third
tennis court. Ruder stated the 2 courts are more
valuable in their new location, than three courts in
their current location. It is not iripossible to add a
third court, but very expensive. Dodson stated he is
researching relocating the volleyball courts at the NE
` corner of the athletic field. VA was agreeable to this.
The Bo~-ir~i was concerned about the noise interfering
with the golfer on hole '~6. Dodson ~•.ould also like to
investigate moving the Potpourri Day car:tp from LionsHead
to Cold Peak. Jack Huhn joins the r~~ting 3:55 PM. VA
is proposing to put the bi}>>e path bet~•reen the old and new
tennis courts.
Lapin asked if the contract would address the foot print
ct~~ges. Lichliter said it crould. Lichliter and Niasey
believe a doctu~.nt exists that a11oTrrs VA to move a court
across the road. Lapin feels VA owes VI~g2D 1 more court
and wants it covered in the contract. Lichliter stated
VA cannot affoz~i 1 more court and if that was part of the
proposal he would then place the wilding on VA oThTned
land in~ediately adjacent to cour`,.s 7, 8 and 9. Hann
shc~,~°ed the boazrl a site plan placing the building without
disturbing the existing 3 courts.
Garton stated fiat VA is atter.~ting to do at Gold Peak is
a benefit to the entireu-iity. The &.~ard wants to
find out how Bill tw'right feels about losing 1 court, the
location of the 2 new courts and the use of post-
e tensioned concrete.
Lapin taants a fine quote to build the 2 courts. He also
wants the contract to give Viu~D the option to accept
cash in lieu of building the courts.
DOTE : r~1LFUNCTION IN TAPE i ~Q~~IE . 2~Cr~INE EATS TAPE i
The tape for tt,,e meeting up to this point was destroyed.
Fixed the r~chine and continued on.
Lichliter inquired about the value of -the LionsHead
~. Garton stated they do not have heavy use, but
are very important to the LSOnsHead merchants and
hotels. Lichliter will come back to the V:~ZD board with
a propo=.~ed contract.
L iu'~IICAL t'SE CSI GOLr~'
CJiJ~ZSE:
Dave I~~ott from the Upper Eagle Valley ~ti'ater and
Sanitation District joins tt,.e meeting at 4:45 PId. Mott
explained to the Bowl that the Water Boazzl's 3 wells
located direc.-tly under the gol f course started showing an - _ . ~ _ -
unusually high level of mercury in August, 1987. They =- --
contacted Ben Krueger and asked him to discontinue use of -_ _-
the chemicals containing mercury. The Water .Board has
continued to monitor the mercury content in the water and
it has greatly decreased. This may be due to the frozen
ground or the discontinuance of the chemicals
containing mercury Krueger used. The Water Board will
continue to monitor this situation and asked 4~2D not to
resume use of the chemical until further notice. Lapin
asked if there were tests done in previous years Mott
said no. Lapin asked ,here the samples are being taken.
Mott stated frr~n the raw water in each of the 3 wells.
IRRIGATIO'd SYSTr3~I: Dodson stated there are 2 plans to redo the irrigation
system. 1) This plan addresses all currEnt existing dry
spots and be installed within 2-3 seasons changing all
the sprinkler heads to tt~.e electronic system. Ben wants
to hire and run his own crew to do this work which would
be headed uP by Jeff Houston. Cost is $125-250,000. 2)
This plan would tear up the entire golf course in 1
season and complete the nAw system in 1 season. Cost is
$315-350,000. Ben would like to proceed With plan 1.
The board agreed with plan ~1.
EX.ECiTIIVE SESSION: Lapin made a l:~otion to go into executive session, second
by Carton, unanimous. 5:05 PM
VAIL CRf~6S 2RAINING C1~NiP: The Board reviewed the contract which Collins had
prepared. I,e Board asked Ibdson to express to Jim Davis
broadening the participants in this carp or V:•~D will not
be able to justify continued support of this camp if it
only reaches 25 people. Molloy made a motion to approve
the contract as presented, second by Lapin, passed
unanimously.
DCP~ITICP`IS: "Project Graduation" from Eagle High School. The Board
declined to offer any passes due to no value received.
JOINT V^~2D / 'ItOV P•SEIi1TII~3G: The joint meeting will be held January 26, 1988 at the
Te•,an Council work session. Debbie Warner joins the
r~~eting at 5:30 PM.
Zapin pointed out the Dobson Ice Arena agreement bet~•een
Debbi's parents requires that 75% of s~'~eduled time
has to be ice related events. The Board realizes a need
for an outdoor ice surface which would allow for easier
scheduling.
S•~•rirzming Pool. Garton wants Dodson to call cextain
architects to Uet their opinions on the next steps that
should be ta}:en by the s:ai~ning pool task force before
the joint ,:~eeting.
Ruder will call Kent Rose to see h~~ the neeting will be
run.
p~~ZSC?`~~L, O~Zi~ACI'S: The Board would lime to discuss personnel contracts at
the beginning of the February Ming in executive
session. The meeting will start early - 2:15 PM.
- Knox leaves the meeting at 6:00 PM = =-
GOLF ~ "
SALARY: Dodson gave the Board a history of Ben's salary (see
attached). Cathy Jarnot is doing a study of areas
superintendents and will give it to the Board at the
Februt-~ry meeting. m. _-
?i0 iv'AME GOLF TOt~ tom: Satterst,rom gave the Board a hand out (see attached) . In
1987 the Board charged $20 for cart and green fee.
F'URQ~SE ORDIIZS:
AII70UF~~r:
Lapin leaves 6:05 PM
'Ihe Board agreed to a $25 fee for green fees and cart
fees, OK to be held on June 10, 1988 and the Board will
discuss what to do with the green/cart fee revenue. at the
next meeting.
N~olloy moved to approve the purchase orders as presented,
second by Garton, passed unanimously.
Molloy moved to adjourn, second by Garton, passed.
Gail I~Zolloy, Secretary
Iowo o uai ~'
75 south frontage road
vail, Colorado 81657
(303)476-7000
Mr. Charles A. Meyer
375 Mill Creek Circle
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Meyer:
office of the town manager
February 8, 1988
Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed Special
Development District No. 20 regarding the Golden Peak House.
We appreciate your concerns and I am sure that your comments
will be given due consideration by both the Planning and
Environmental Commission and the Town Council.
We appreciate your interest in this matter and your
willingness to state your views.
Sincer ,
~~"J
Rondall U. Phill'(ps
Town Manager
RUP/bsc
cc: Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission
Charles A. Meyer
375 Mill Creek Circle
Yail, CO 81657
February 5, 1988
Mr. Ron Phillips
Town Manager
TOWN OF VAIL
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Phillips:
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 the Planning
Commission and the Town Council. It may seem that three
identical letters are a redundancy. Yet, you and the
Planning Commission and the Town Council 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
v~ith which I am familiar, I hope that you will continue to
ask yourselves, now and in the future, this tough question:
"Where will we draw the line?"
Most sincerely,
Charles A. Meyer