Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-01 Support Documentation Town Council Regular SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes from February 2 and 16, 1988 Meetings 2. Appointment to the Local Liquor Licensing Authority Board 3. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1988, second 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. 4. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1988, first reading, an ordinance rezoning (proposed) Tract E-1 from Agricultural/Open Space to Ski Base/Recreation and establishing Special Development District No. 20 for (proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing and Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. 5. Resolution No. 5, Series of 1988, a resolution adopting the Town of Vail Transit Development Plan Update 1988-1992. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 6. Town Manager's Report 7. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1988 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Approval of Minutes from February 2 and 16, 1988 Meetings 7:35 Z. Appointment to the Local Liquor Licensing Authority Action Requested of Council: Appoint one member to the Liquor Authority. Background Rationale: Bill Bishop has resubmitted his name for the vacancy to fill Jack Curtin's position. He is the sole candidate at this time. 7:40 3. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1988, second reading, amending Rick Pylman the Vail Municipal Code regarding the Ski Base/Recreation Zone District. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1988, on second 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 second reading. The conditions requested by Council have been incorporated into the ordinance since first reading. 8:00 4. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1988, first reading, rezoning Tom Braun tract E-1 from Agricultural/Open Space to Ski Base Recreation, and establishing Special Development District No. 20 on tract E-1 and lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance.. No. 7, Series of 1988, on first reading. Background Rationale: This ordinance will establish approvals for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House Building and the development of a ski base facility immediately adjacent to the Golden Peak House. Additional information is available in the enclosed memorandum. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1988, on first reading. 9:00 5. Resolution No. 5, Series of 1988, adopting the Town of Vail Stan Berryman Transit Development Plan Update 1988-1992 Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution No. 5, Series of 1988. Background Rationale: The Town of Vail adopted an initial Transit Development Plan (TDP) in 1978 and updates in 1981 and 1986. The Colorado Dept. of Highways has requested that the Town again update its TDP. CDOH approval of the TDP is required as a condition precedent in applying for Federal and State transit assistance. The Dept. of Public Works/ Transportation completed the plan update in-house and the TDP was reviewed by the Vail Transportation and Parking Task Force on 2/25/88. 9:20 9:25 Staff Recommendation: 1988. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 5. Town Manager's Report 7. Adjournment Apphove Resolution No. 5, Series of -2- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 1988 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held. on Tuesday, February 2, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Affeldt Merv Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Gordon Pierce Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: None TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was ten year anniversary awards to Dick Duran and Jim Spell. Ron Phillips gave some biographical information on each and congratulated them for ten years of service. Dick Duran thanked everyone and stated he was pleased to have worked for the Town. Jim also thanked everyone and explained he was proud to be a part of everything. Dick then thanked Jim and stated it had been a pleasure knowing and working with Jim. The next item was the approval of the minutes from the January 5 and 19, 1988 meetings. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, and Tom Steinberg seconded. Eric Affeldt requested a change in wording in the middle of the first paragraph of the January 19 minutes. He wanted the wording changed from "noted they liked the Lionshea.d parking structure site" to "noted the Lionshead parking structure site deserved more study". Merv Lapin changed his motion to approve the minutes with the noted changes. There was no other discussion on the minutes. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The third order of business was the appointments to the Local Liquor Licensing Authority Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board. The Council voted and the appointments to the Planning and Environmental Commission for a two year term were Diana Donovan, Pam Hopkins, Peggy Osterfoss and Jim Viele; Grant Riva was appointed to a one year term. The appointment to the Design Review Board for a two year term was Roy Stnte, and the appointment to the Local Liquor Licensing Authority for a two year term was Colin Gleason. The next item was a legislative report from State Representative Danny Williams. He discussed issues in the Legislature now. One issue was regarding coal mining; Denver has been pushing power plants to stop using coal. He's helped introduce a Bill for a moratorium so there would be time to study the effects. He's also sponsoring a 8i11 for lowering the severance tax on coal which would be important to the mining industry. Another Bill Mr. Williams is sponsoring is a water Bill for compensatory storage. Other issues of importance were adequate funding for the use of the State Patrol during the World Alpine Ski Championships, an education interim report, a highway funding proposal from Governor Romer and funding of State prison construction by the LOTTO lottery. He then held a question/answer session with Council. Mr. Williams then thanked the Council for letting him speak and invite d them to visit him in Denver when they are there. The fifth order of business was Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1988, second reading, regarding West Vail assessments. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith noted the ordinance had changed dramatically in .certain areas since first reading and reviewed the amendments made. Eric Affeldt asked if bond counsel was comfortable with the changes, and Larry said yes. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the ordinance as presented, which Gordon Pierce seconded. Mayor Rose answered questions from the public. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The next item was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1988, emergency reading, providing that abutting property owners to street improvements in West Vail required to connect to utilities may pay the cost in one sum or by installment payments. Mayor Rose read the title in full and explained this ordinance was brought about from earlier discussion by Council. Larry Eskwith explained the reasoning behind the ordinance. After some discussion by Council, Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the ordinance as presented, and Tom Steinberg seconded. Larry Eskwith answered questions from the Council and public. A vote was then taken and. the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The seventh order of business was Resolution No. 2, Series of 1988, supporting H.R. Bill 3561. Charlie Wick stated he had checked on the status of the Bill and learned it had been withdrawn from the Committee, so the resolution was moot. He requested the resolution be withdrawn. Council agreed. There was no Citizen Participation. Under the Town Manager's Report, Ron Phillips stated he had received a note from Shelbi Williams thanking the Town staff for their help and support of the Revillon Sled Dog Races. He noted Wednesday through Friday, the Ski Fun Norway would be in town sponsoring a two day event at Golden Peak. Thursday afternoon a special invitation has been extended to Council members for the opening of the Nordic events at 3:30 p.m. at Golden Peak. At this time, Merv Lapin requested clarification regarding traffic lights. Ron Phillips responded the staff had approval to work with the consultant for the design of the Frontage Road improvements and the signal light design. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -2- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 1988 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 16, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Affeldt Merv Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Gordon Pierce Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: None TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1988, first reading, amending the Vail Municipal Code regarding the Ski Base/Recreation Zone District. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Rick Pylman explained the purpose of the ordinance and each of the proposed phases the construction would take. He also discussed concerns the staff had with certain issues and stated the staff recommended approval with conditions.. Larry Lichliter, Executive Vice President of Vail Associates, Inc., gave background information on the issue, noted the building may or may not be built and explained that Vail Associates also had other priorities. He stated he did not agree with Vail Associates being required to pay 50% of the cost of the construction of the sidewalk. Nancy Nottingham, Administrative Manager of Children's Programs at Vail Associates, explained what programs are presently available and areas the new building would address which the oid building could not accommodate. Jack Hunn, Project Manager for Vail Associates on this project, discussed how Vail Associates came upon this site. He then reviewed the site plans and explained how each area of the building would be used. He then answered questions of Council. A woman representing Jack Rush of Manor Vail stated they were in favor of the Children's Center, but wanted a guarantee there would be no other new buildings. Larry Eskwith and Mayor Rose responded. Chuck Crist had a question regarding the view from Manor Vail. Mike Cacioppo stated he was pleased Vail Associates was doing this, but had some concerns. John Slevin responded that checks and balances were already in place. After more discussion by Council, Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the ordinance with the following conditions: 1) Vail Associates contribute 50% of the cost of construction of a walkway from the Ramshorn walkway to the Manor Vail walkway (to be reimbursed to the Town at the commencement of Phase II construction); and 2) Vail Associates amend and construct the skier drop-off and bus stop area, provide roughed-in conduit for the installation of control gates at each end of the bus stop, reimburse the Town up to $10,000 (at the commencement of Phase II construction) if the Town of Vail wishes to install control gates otherwise provide the $10,000 for the bus control gates at commencement of Phase II construction. Eric Affeldt seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The next item was a Bravo! Colorado presentation. Brad Quayle gave background information on how Bravo! Colorado came about and what it would do. He explained he was asking for seed money to put the organization together. He requested a donation of $56,625 from the .Town; $34,000 which had already been budgeted for street entertainment, plus an added $22,625. Brad then answered questions from Council. Mayor Rose noted Ron Phillips' recommendation was to stick to the budget of $34,000. After some discussion by Council, Mike Cacioppo stated his objections to spending more than what was budgeted. Brad answered more questions and Council held more discussion on the issue. Eric Affeldt then made a motion to approve the request for the full $56,625 for one year only; that the funds would be taken from the business license fees, if the vote passes this next week, and if it does not pass, the funds would be taken from the Town of Vail contingency fund. Gordon Pierce seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2, with Mayor Rose and Merv Lapin opposing. Tom Steinberg abstained from the vote due to the fact he was a Board member of Bravo! Colorado. The third item of business was an appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission decision to deny a requested minor subdivision at Lot 8, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing. Mayor Rose state this item would be continued until the April 5, 1988 Evening Meeting as requested by the applicant. There was no Citizen Participation. There was no Town Manager's Report. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -2- ORDINANCE N0. 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. Visual impacts such as surface parking for the dwelling units shall be minimized by providing at least 40% of the required parking 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. Section 2. In accordance with Sect ion 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 into 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. The approved and amended development plan shall incorporate by reference in this ordinance the following conditions: Vail Associates shall contribute 50 percent of the cost of a walkway to be constructed between the Ramshorn and Manor Vail at commencement of construction of the main building as described in the Golden Peak Development Plan. Vail Associates shall contribute $10,000 for a traffic control gate installation at the bus stop upon commencement of construction of the main building as described in the Golden Peak Development Plan. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The 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 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the .Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk ~F TO; Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 1, 1988 SUBJECT: Golden Peak House Redevelopment Proposal The following information has been provided for your review of the Golden Peak House redevelopment and ski base/recreation facility: 1. Proposed Ordinance No. 7 of 1988 2. The January 25th cover memo, SDD, minor subdivision, and exterior alteration memos to the Planning Commission summarizing the three requests involved in this proposal. 3. A February 8th memo to the PEC for the second review of this application. 4. Minutes of January 25th PEC meeting. 5. Minutes of February 8th PEC meeting. 6. A series of letters from opponents and proponents of this proposal. This proposal is undoubtedly one of the more complex developments that have been submitted to the Town in the recent past. The complexity of this review has increased by virtue of differences between the applicant's proposal, staff recommendations, and Planning Commission recommendations to the Council. Specifically, differences lie in the recommendations for. conditions of approval as proposed by the staff and the Planning Commission. Conditions recommended by the staff and PEC differ to the degree that each would dramatically change the nature of the project as it is proposed. In relating the various conditions of approval to the Town Council, the staff has chosen to incorporate the conditions recommended by staff in the proposed ordinance. This was done for the sake of simplicity, as well as the fact that these conditions more closely parallel the intent of the applicant. ~~ The following conditions were recommended by the Planning Commission in their recommendation for approval of this project: 1. The size of the proposed dining deck and the seasonal enclosure of the deck be reduced by 1/2. 2. The uses permitted on Tract E will be limited to those allowed in the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. 3. Delivery and loading to Tract E will be provided through the Golden Peak House Building internally. 4. The construction of the Golden Peak Building and the ski base facility shall be done simultaneously, or the construction of the Golden Peak House Building shall precede the ski base facility. 5. Vail Associates shall dedicate the remainder of Tract E to the Town of Vail. 6. A construction schedule shall be submitted and approved by the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a building permit. The intent of this schedule is to minimize impacts on the Village during construction. The implications of the staff and Planning Commission conditions will be explained during Tuesday night's presentation. It is the intention of the staff that the Council provide direction concerning these conditions at the first reading of this ordinance. This will allow for a "cleaner" ordinance to be presented at second reading. To summarize, the Planning Commission action was a recommendation of approval with conditions for the SDD zoning request. In addition, the exterior alteration and minor subdivision requests were approved conditional upon the approval of the SDD. While the applicant has made three distinct requests, the requests have been conditioned on one another so as to review the proposal as one application. These conditions were also supported by the PEC in their recommendation to the Council. ..,. ORDINANCE N0. 7 Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE REZONING (PROPOSED) TRACT E-1 FROM AGRICULTURAL/ OPEN SPACE TO SKI BASE/RECREATION AND ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 20 FOR (PROPOSED) TRACT E-1, VAIL UILLAGE FIFTH FILING AND LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, application has been made for Special Development District approval for .certain parcels of property within the Town known as (proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing and Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing to be known as Special Development District No. 20, commonly referred to as the Golden Peak House; and WHEREAS, the rezoning of (proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing from Agricultural/Open Space to Ski Base/Recreation is necessary in order to allow for the range of uses and activities proposed for SDD No. 20; and WHEREAS, the proposed development plan is consistent with both the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended approval of the proposed Special Development District No. 20 with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish said Special Development District No. 20. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED 8Y THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report. The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for SDD No. 20. Section 2. Rezoning of (Proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing. (Proposed) Tract E-i, Vail Village Fifth Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of .287 acres, more or less, is hereby rezoned from Agricultural/Open Space to Ski Base/Recreational. Section 3. Special Development District No. 20. Special Development District No. 20 and the related development therefore, are hereby approved for the development of (proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing, and Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of .4457 acres, more or less. Section 4. Purpose Special Development District No. 20 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail, to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the Town, anal to provide recreational related facilities to serve residents and guests of the Vail. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council. and meets all applicable design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special Development No. 20 which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the development standards in either the Commercial Core I or the Ski Base/Recreation zone district. To further respond to the unique aspects of this special development district, SDD No. 20 is delineated by Development Area A and Development Area B. Development Area A of SDD No.20 shall generally apply to Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Development Area B of SDD No. 20 shall generally apply to (proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing. SDD No. 20 is compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while maintaining its unique character. Section 5. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD No. 20 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development of Areas A and B within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by John M. Perkins, Architect, and consists of the following documents: 1. Site plan, dated January 4, 1988 2. Typical floor plans and roof plan, sheets 2 through 8 3. Elevations, dated January 4, 1988. 4. Vicinity Map, sheet 10 2 5. Finish area vicinity map, sheet 11 6. Preliminary .landscape plan, dated 10/6/86 7. Environmental Impact Report and Development Proposal as prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. B. The development plan shall establish parameters for the following development standards: Setbacks Setbacks shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above. Height Building heights shall be as indicated on the elevations and roof plan listed above. Coverage Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above. Landscaping The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as generally indicated on the preliminary landscape plan listed above. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for final approval. Parking• Parking demands generated by this development shall be met by payment into the Town of Vail parking fund as established in Section 18.52.160 B of the Municipal Code. 'Section 6. Density Existing development on the site consists of 20 dwelling units and 9,861 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area. The approval of this development plan .shall permit an additional 6 dwelling units, consisting of 6,114 square feet of GRFA. Total density permitted with the approval of this development plan consists of 26 dwelling units and 15,975 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA). Section 7. Uses A. Permitted, conditional and accessory uses for Development Area A shall be as set forth in the Commercial Core I zone district. B. Development Area B of SDD No. 20 is primarily intended to provide for the recreational base facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain. In addition, year around community events and activities, along with summer recreation uses, are encouraged to achieve multi-seasonal use of this facility. Permitted, conditional and accessory uses for Development Area B shall be as follows: 3 Permitted Uses - Lower Level The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the lower level within Development Area B: 1. Lift ticket sales 2. Ski school lesson sales 3. Ski and boot locker rentals 4. Employee lockers 5. Ski storage facilities 6. Basket storage facilities 7. Ski repair 8. Ski and sport equipment rental 9. Recreational related accessory sales 10. Candy, snack, and sundry sales 11. Meeting room facilities 12. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities 13. Ski training center 14. Guest business and communication center 15. Children's Center 16. Host reception/reservation center 17. Public restrooms and changing areas 18. Special/community event center 19. Company offices--accessory to permitted and conditional uses, not to exceed 25% of the gross square footage of the facility. Permitted Uses, Upper Level A. The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the upper level of Development Area B: 1. Lift ticket sales 2. Ski school lesson sales 3. Ski and boot locker rentals 4. Employee lockers 5. Ski storage facilities 6. Basket storage facilities 7. Ski repair 8. Meeting room facilities 9. Ski training center 4 10. Guest business and communication center 11. Children's center 12. Host reception/reservation center 13. Public restrooms and changing areas 14. Special/community event center 15. Company offices--accessory to permitted and conditional uses, not to exceed 25% of the gross square footage of the facility. B. The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the upper level of Development Area B provided the total floor area of these uses does not exceed 25% of the total gross footage of street level of Development Area B: 1. Ski and sport equipment rental 2. Recreational related accessory sales 3. Candy, snack and sundry sales 4. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities 5. Kitchen/food preparation facilities Permitted Uses, Deck Level The following uses shall be permitted on the deck level of Development Area B: 1. Restaurants in a seasonally enclosed facility as per approved development plan. 2. Cocktail lounges and bars in a seasonally enclosed facility as per approved development plan 3. Outdoor dining decks Section 8. Amendments Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by the Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. Section 9. Expiration The applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 18 months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work 5 toward completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District within the time limits imposed by the proceeding sub-section, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the Special Development District. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the approval of the Special Development District be extended, that the approval of the Special Development District be revoked, or that the Special Development District be amended. Section 10. Conditions of Approval for Special Development District 20. (These conditions of approval include only those conditions recommended by staff. Conditions recommended by the Planning and Environmental Commission are reflected in the cover memo dated March 1, 1988.) 1. A comprehensive drainage plan shall be submitted (and approved by the Town Engineer) and approvals for the relocation of utilities and easements shall be provided by affected utility companies prior to final DRB approval. 2. The developer is responsible for relocating the bike path (as generally shown on the site plan), and .the two mature pine trees on the south side of the project shall be relocated in the area of Pirate Ship Park. In the event these trees die within 12 months of relocation, the applicant is responsible for placement of spruce trees of 20 feet high or more. 3. The Town of Vail presently maintains the lawn behind the Golden Peak House Building. The Public Works Department will require indemnification from the owners against any damages to the underground structure prior to resuming maintenance in this area. This area must remain useable to the general public - no roping or fencing off will be allowed. 4. Owners' use restriction as outlined in Section 17.26.060 of the Municipal Code shall apply to these 6 new units proposed in the Golden Peak House (or an equivalent number of units). 5. The inclusion of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the Golden Peak House may be incorporated into the approved development plan. Final determination as to the appropriateness of these trees shall be made subject to the outcome of the Vail Village Streetscape Conceptual Design study (to be completed in the summer of 1988). 6. The applicants' participation in public improvements shall be accomplished by participation in a "mini-special" improvement district to redesign and 6 relocate Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district to redesign and relocate Seibert Circle if and when one is formed. An equitable manner of crediting the applicants' contribution for Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district for Vail Village will be established, if and when a Village-wide district is formed. Section 11. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 12. 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 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day. of 1988 at 7:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 7 INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 8 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: Proposed redevelopment and additions to the Golden Peak House building. The redevelopment and additions to the Golden Peak House building involve three separate requests. 1. Minor Subdivision The existing Golden Peak House building is situated on Lots A and B of Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. The redevelopment of this building will take place on these two parcels. The proposed addition of the ski base facility on the south side of the Golden Peak House is to be located on proposed Tract E-1. Presently, Tract E is a largely undeveloped parcel of land located between Mill Creek Circle and Vail Village. Tract E-I is proposed to create a parcel of land that will accommodate the ski base facility. The owner of this property,. as well as the applicant of this request is Vail Associates, Inc. 2. Rezoning The Golden Peak House is presently zoned Commercial Core I and proposed lot E-1 is zoned Agriculture/Open Space. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone these two parcels to a Special Development District (SDD). Planning Commission on this request is advisory, as any rezoning requires approval by the Town Council. The SDD is being requested to allow for flexibility in development standards that would not be available with standard zoning. Two distinct development areas are proposed as a part of this Special Development District. This is similar to the Cascade Village SDD where a different set of development standards apply to the Westin Hotel area as opposed to the Glen Lyon subdivision. In this case, Development Area A would cover the Golden Peak House building. Commercial Core I zoning would apply as the primary guide for development in this area. Development Area B would accommodate the Ski Base/Recreation facility. In this case, a set of zoning regulations somewhat similar to the Ski Base/Recreation zone district would establish development parameters of this parcel. 3. Exterior Alteration Consideration of the Urban Design Guide Plan is involved in any alteration to buildings in Commercial Core I. This review will focus primarily on the existing Golden Peak House building with consideration given to design, views, building height and massing, sun/shade analysis, etc. The benefits of this project are found in the two primary elements of the proposal. The first of these is a major upgrading in what is undoubtedly the most inconsistent building in Vail Village. Since the adoption of the Urban Design Guide Plan in 1980, the numerous redevelopments in Vail Village have strengthened the design character of this area. During this time the Golden Peak House has grown increasingly out of step with surrounding buildings. Given the condition of the existing structure, coupled with its prominent location at the top of Bridge Street, the benefit of this redevelopment to the Village cannot be overstated. While the Golden Peak House does increase considerably in terms of square footage and units, the bottom line is that the end result is a far better product than what is existing today. The Vail Associates component of this project is designed to be primarily a ski base/recreation facility serving the needs of the guest. A facility of this type is nonexistent in the Village today. Given existing conditions and approvals for expansion to both skier capacity and terrain, there is an indisputable need for a facility of this type at the base of North America's largest ski mountain. Dialogue and project review with the applicants has been taking place for almost two years. The review before the Planning Commission and Town Council is a culmination of these efforts. The following memorandums will demonstrate why the staff feels these proposals are not only appropriate, but also highly desirable. f TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and proposed Tract E-1 to Special Development District No. 20. Applicant: Catacombs, Ltd./Golden Peak House Association I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST This rezoning request has been proposed in order to facilitate the redevelopment and expansion of the Golden Peak House building. At the present time lots A and B of Block 2, Vail Village 1st and a portion of Lot C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st are zoned Commercial Core I. Proposed Tract E-1 (this proposed subdivision is addressed under a separate memorandum) is zoned Agricultural and Open Space. This tract would also be rezoned as a part of SDD #20. This proposal is best understood by considering its two main elements. The first of these involve a complete renovation to the Golden Peak House building. This renovation includes a dramatic change in the appearance of the building as well as an increased number of units, GRFA and commercial square footage. The major expansion to the structure will take place on the south side of the building. This features a two level underground structure that is designed to serve as a ski base/recreational facility. The main focus of this facility is to provide guest and skier services such as changing rooms, ski storage areas, ticket sales, ski school sales, and a limited amount of recreational related retail activity. Approximately one-half of the roof of this structure would be an expanded dining deck for Los Amigos restaurant. The other half would be earth covered and landscaped in a manner not unlike what is existing today. In recognition of these two components of this proposal, SDD #20 is structured into two distinct development areas. Development Area A establishes parameters for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House building. Commercial Core I zoning would apply to this portion of the SDD. Development Area B covers the proposed ski base /recreation facility. Of particular importance in Development Area B are the specific set of uses that are permitted within this area. It is the intent of these uses to ensure that the facility serves as a ski base/ s recreation facility, primarily providing services and facilities for the skiing guest (allowing some summer uses as well). The following table summarizes the zoning/development statistics of the existing building and the proposal before the Planning Commission: Development Statistics Lot size: 6,912 square feet, .1587 ac. (A and B only) Permitted Development Existing Proposed Total Units 3.9 du's 20 du's 6 du's 26 du's (25/ac) GRFA 5,529 sf 9,861 sf 6,114 sf 15,975 sf ( . 80) Commercial 7,455 sf 1,863 sf 9,318 sf (Limited only by UDGP) Common Area 1,105 sf 6,686 sf 1,357 sf 8,043 sf 20% of GRFA Ski Base 12,322 sf 12,322 sf Facility II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of special development districts is to: 18.40.010 Purpose The purpose of the special development districts is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and economic provisions of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas. Historically, SDD's have been proposed in Vail to allow for the development of sites that would be unable to do so under conventional zoning. Simply stated, SDD zoning allows for the creation of development standards that are 2 particular to a given site. Frequently this zone district has been requested in order to allow for development with densities greater than what underlying zoning allows. While that is true with this application, the variety of uses and complexities of this development is sound justification for considering SDD zoning. SDD zoning will also provide specific safeguards to define the intent of this development proposal. There are a number of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a request of this nature. Foremost among these are the nine design standards that are listed in the SDD section of the zoning code. As stated in the code: "The development plan for the special development districts shall meet each of the following standards or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved." The following is the staff response to each of these nine criteria. In a number of cases, staff comment will refer to the exterior alteration memorandum that accompanies this packet of information. Because many of the issues relative to this proposal relate to design considerations, it was felt most efficient to include those comments within the exterior alteration memorandum. III. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS The following are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates to the design standards as outlined in the zoning code. A. A buffer zone shall be provided in a special development district that is adjacent to a low density residential use district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures, and must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on the surroundin areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, signage, and other comparable otentially incompatible factors. The location of this SDD in the Village core precludes buffer zones on three sides. There is, however, a low density residential zone directly south of this proposal. At the present time, Tract E provides a natural buffer between this residential area and the Village core. Any 3 potential impacts on this existing buffer are mitigated by the nature of the building proposed for Development Area B. Designed as an underground structure, it is felt that the presence of this facility will not affect the existing buffer zone in this area. B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic __ __ generated, taking into consideration safety, se aration from livin areas convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire Department vehicles for emer ency pur oses. _Bicycle traffic should be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes. As with many of these criteria, this consideration is intended primarily for large scale development. As a part of this proposal, significant improvements are proposed between the Hill Building and the Golden Peak House building that will serve as a gateway entry to Vail Mountain. This feature of the proposal is discussed in greater detail in the exterior alteration memorandum. The ski base/recreation facility will necessitate the relocation of an existing bike path. The applicant has proposed to relocate this bike path and this will be made a condition of approval with this redevelopment. Another factor relative to this consideration are the elements of the building cantilevered over the property line on the Bridge Street side. An existing overhang easement allows the opportunity for this to occur. However, this overhang easement does not override any necessary approvals from the Town of Vail. The impacts of these overhangs are addressed in detail in the exterior alteration memorandum. Relative to emergency vehicle access, all Town of Vail departments have OK'd these elements as proposed. C. _Functional open space in terms of: o timum preservation of natural features (includin trees and _drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and functinn_ As a result of the existing footprint of the Golden Peak House building and the proposed redevelopment, there is little in the way of functional open space within Development Area A. However, Development Area B contains significant portions of ground that will remain open space. Two existing mature pine trees will be impacted through this proposal. One pine tree lies in the path of the underground building, while another is located 4 E. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and nei hbors. As with other criteria, these considerations are felt to be more relevant to large scale SDD's. F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness. The gateway to the mountain is discussed in greater detail in the exterior alteration memorandum. Other pedestrian improvements include a heated paver sidewalk on the Bridge Street side of the Golden Peak House. G. Building type in terms of: density,_site relationship a a iateness to These issues are also covered in the exterior alteration memorandum. H. Building design in terms of orientation, spacin materials, color and texture, stora e, signs, lighting, and solar blocka e. A majority of these issues relate to the Design Review level of review. I. neighborhood. A preliminary landscape plan has been prepared for this proposal. Impacts on existing vegetation on the south side of this proposal have been previously addressed. Other landscape aspects of this proposal are covered in the exterior alteration memorandum and are generally the purview of the Design Review Board. IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS USES Types of uses permitted in both development areas A and B are instrumental to ensuring the intent of this development proposal. The following is a synopsis of what will appear in the ordinance before the Council regulating uses within this SDD. 6 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 20 USES Development Area A. Permitted, conditional, and accessory uses within Development Area A of SDD No. 20 shall be as outlined in the Commercial Core I zone district of the Vail Municipal Code. Development Area B Development Area B of SDD No.20 is primarily intended to provide for the recreational base facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain. In addition, year-around community events and activities, along with summer recreational uses, are encouraged to achieve multi- seasonal use of this facility. Retail related activities are permissible, provided they are limited in type and amount, in order to maintain the skier-related and recreational intent of this development area. Permitted Uses - Lower Level The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the lower level within Development Area B: 1. Lift ticket sales 2. Ski school lesson sales 3. Ski and boot locker rentals 4. Employee lockers 5. Ski storage facilities 6. Basket storage facilities 7. Ski repair 8. Ski and sport equipment rental 9. Recreational related accessory sales 10. Candy, snack, and sundry sales 11. Meeting room facilities 12. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities 13. Ski training center 14. Guest business and communication center 15. Children's center 16. Host reception/reservation center 17. public restrooms and changing areas 18. Special/community event center 19. Company offices - accessory to permitted and conditional uses, not to exceed 25% of the gross square footage of the facility. 7 Permitted Uses, Upper Level A. The following uses shall be permitted. within the main structure at the upper level of Development Area B: 1. Lift ticket sales 2. Ski school lesson sales 3. Ski and boot locker rentals 4. Employee lockers 5. Ski storage facilities 6. Basket storage facilities 7. Ski repair 8. Meeting room facilities 9. Ski training center 10. Guest business and communication center 11. Children's center 12. Host reception/reservation center 13. Public restrooms and changing areas 14. Special/community event center 15. Company offices - accessory to permitted and conditional uses, not to exceed 25% of the gross square footage of the facility. B. The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the upper level of Development Area B provided the total floor area of these uses does not exceed 25% of the total gross square footage of street level of Development Area B: 1. Ski and sport equipment rental 2. Recreational related accessory sales 3. Candy, snack and sundry sales 4. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities 5. Kitchen/food preparation facilities Permitted Uses, Deck Level The following uses shall be permitted on the deck level of Development Area B: 1. Restaurants in a seasonally enclosed facility as per approved development plan 2. Cocktail lounges and bars in a seasonally enclosed facility as per approved development plan 3. Outdoor dining decks DENSITY A number of considerations come into play when evaluating the appropriateness of the density requested with this proposal. With other SDD 8 requests, the staff has typically responded to density requests by evaluating whether or not a given level of development "fit" on a site. On the other hand, the staff has historically taken a very hard line on development projects in CCI with regard to their complying with underlying zoning standards. A number of factors have distinguished this request from others. These factors have contributed to the staff supporting the requested density. Foremost among these is the dire need for the upgrading and redesign of this building. More importantly, the proposed redevelopment of this building results in a property that will become consistent with the Urban Design Plan, whereas the existing building is totally inconsistent. While over 6,000 square feet of new GRFA is proposed, the majority of this floor area is created through the conversion of existing space and through floor area created by adding a gable roof to the building. Other considerations include an improved sun/shade pattern in the Seibert Circle area. The staff's position on this issue cannot be construed as a carte blanche approval to density increases in the Village core. To the contrary, our position is premised on the fact that the proposal before the Planning Commission will result in a far improved final product than what is existing today. In fact, we find no other situation in the core area that would be of a similar nature. PARKING As with any redevelopment project in the core area, parking demand created is met through payment into the Town's parking fund. Because minor variations always take place concerning specific floor areas, a detailed analysis has not been done to determine the precise number of spaces that will be purchased. Payment for parking will be required for all new retail space, new residential units, retail related activities in the ski base/recreation facility, as well as for the multi-purpose room within the ski base facility. Final determination of this dollar figure will be made during the building permit review. Other development standards setbacks and site coverage) approved development plan. (precise building height, shall be as indicated on the 9 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is approval. The SDD request is the only appropriate method for accommodating the type of development proposed. As proposed, it will allow for two dramatic improvements to Vail Village and to the entry to Vail Mountain. The first of these being the upgrading of the Golden Peak House .building. Secondly, the ski base/recreation facility will provide a needed community and guest facility. While there are a host of conditions of approval related to this development, the majority of these will be presented in the exterior alteration memorandum. The two conditions of approval relative to the rezoning request include: 1. The request for the minor subdivision be approved. 2. The exterior alteration be approved. 10 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to remodel the Golden Peak House building. Applicants: Golden Peak House Association and Catacombs, Limited I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST As has been discussed in the rezoning memorandum, there are a variety of elements in the redevelopment proposal of the Golden Peak House. Relying primarily on the Urban Design Guide Plan criteria, this memorandum will focus on the renovations to the existing building and the ticket window area created by the ski base/recreation facility. Simply stated, the exterior alteration involves a total face lift of the Golden Peak House Building. Specific elements of this proposal will be addressed throughout the course of this memo. A statistical analysis of the additions proposed are found in the request for rezoning memo. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL The Urban Design Guide Plan and zoning considerations are used in reviewing development proposals in Commercial Core I. The Design Considerations in the Guide Plan were adopted to augment standard zoning regulations. They are intended to allow for greater flexibility and creativity in designing projects in the Village, while recognizing and maintaining its unique character. The Guide Plan identifies desired physical improvements for strengthening the overall fabric of Vail Village. These improvements are generally designed to reinforce the overall character of the Village, with particular emphasis placed on improving the pedestrian experience. These improvements are referred to as sub-area concepts. Design Considerations address the primary form-giving physical features of the Village. They provide a description of these elements without which the image of the Village would be noticeably different. It is the goal of the Design Considerations that through their applications, future changes will be consistent with the established character of the Village and make positive contributions to its experience. III. SUB-AREA CONCEPTS The following sub-area concepts are relevant to this development: Sub-Area Concept # 9. Commercial expansion jground floor) not to exceed 10 feet in depth, possible arcade. To improve pedestrian scale at base of tall building, and for greater transparency as an activity generator on Seibert Circle. The intent of this concept is to improve the overall appearance of the storefronts as well as to provide relief and a more pleasing pedestrian scale to this building. The potential for this expansion, however, is complicated by the fact that the Golden Peak House building is essentially built to its property line and the area for this potential expansion is located on Town of Vail right of way. The developers did approach the Town Council with a request to purchase a ten foot strip of land in this area, but were unsuccessful in their efforts. In order to address this sub-area concept, the design of this redevelopment includes a 6 foot roof overhang, bay windows and cantilevered portions of the building. These have been done in order to provide relief and establish a pedestrian scale on the Bridge Street side of this building. It is felt by the staff that this design accomplishes the intent of what is proposed in Sub-Area Concept No. 9. A variety of overhang easements were granted to the Golden Peak House by Vail Associates in 1966. This was done to accommodate roof and balcony overhangs. Following the incorporation of the Town of Vail, the Town became the heir to this agreement. Larry Eskwith has reviewed this easement agreement and feels it does allow for the alteration and reconstruction of improvements within the easement. While this easement would not override any decision by the Town Council, Planning Commission or Design Review Board, it does allow the applicants to proceed with these improvements as proposed. Sub-Area Concept #10. Seibert Circle. Future area paving treatment. Relocate focal point (potential fountain) to north for better sun exposure (fall/spring), create increased plaza area and/or the backdrop for activities. Separated paths on the north sides for unimpeded pedestrian route during delivery periods. The relocation of Seibert Circle has been discussed for many years. While not an element of this redevelopment proposal, the applicants have indicated a willingness to participate in this project if and when it occurs. A related concern that is addressed in other portions of this memorandum deal with sun/shade effects from this building. As demonstrated by sun/shade studies, additions to the Golden Peak House will not increase shadow patterns on Seibert Circle or the potential relocation of Seibert Circle. Sub-Area Concept #l0A Mountain gateway improvements. Landscaping screen, minor plaza, pedestrian connection loop to Wall Street (Vail Village ticket window area). This sub-area concept is specifically addressed through this redevelopment proposal. The ticket windows proposed in the ski base facility will anchor a mini-plaza to be developed between the Hill Building and Golden Peak House. (Completion of this plaza will require approval from the U.S. Forest Service and owners of the Hill Building.) The connection between this plaza and Seibert Circle will be strengthened with increased transparency on the west elevation of the Golden Peak House. While the improvements in this area are considerable, staff is not completely satisfied with the transition proposed between the plaza area and the ski mountain. Specifically, staff would prefer a ramp system as opposed to the stairs shown. Overall, it seems this area is in need of further attention in order to establish a prominent gateway between the Village and Vail Mountain. The need for further study of this area, however, is not significant enough to delay the review and approval of this project. Staff will recommend as a condition of approval that developers return to the Planning Commission at a later date with a more refined plan for this area. IV. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The Urban. Design Guide Plan outlines nine different design considerations to be used in the evaluation of any exterior alteration. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION Because of the location of the existing building, there are no significant factors involved in pedestrianization. The development of the ticket window plaza will certainly improve pedestrianization around the building between the 3 Village and Vail Mountain. In addition, a heated system of pavers is proposed on the Bridge Street side of the building (similar to the Gorsuch and A & D Buildings). These are all considered positive improvements relative to this redevelopment. B. VEHICULAR PENETRATION It is an underlying goal for the Village to keep all vehicular traffic into the Village at a minimum. The six additional residential units proposed in this redevelopment will undoubtedly generate trips into the Village core. This traffic is obviously necessary in order for guests to arrive to these units. Because parking is not provided on site, these trips will be primarily for arrival and departure of guests. The underground building will also generate some additional vehicle trips - mostly service and delivery (see item H). C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK A high quality streetscape framework can be established through landscape features and active, visually interesting storefronts. As proposed, this redevelopment is a substantial improvement to existing. conditions. Improvements to transparency, relief, materials, and variety all are marked improvements over the present building on both the north and west sides. An additional element of this proposal that has been discussed centers around the introduction of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the building. While there is no question that street trees would add to the color and life of this building, staff is uncomfortable with requiring them at this time. This is due to the unknown future of the Seibert Circle area. Based on preliminary studies of this relocation, it is apparent that space in this area is at a premium (space between the Hill Building, Plaza Lodge, Red Lion and Golden Peak House buildings). Money has been budgeted for a comprehensive analysis of streetscape improvements in Vail Village. This study will address the Seibert Circle relocation and result in a conceptual plan for its relocation. Staff is reluctant to commit the 3 to 4 feet of depth that would be required for street trees before this analysis is undertaken. As a result, we would prefer to deal with the street trees as a condition of approval subject to the findings of this study. If it is determined that ample space is available for these trees, they would become an element of this approval. On the other hand, if the findings of this analysis indicate there is not room for street trees, they would obviously not be required. 4 D. STREET ENCLOSURE The sense of enclosure between this building and surrounding structures remains unchanged, if not improved. It is important to understand that as the peak of the roof lines increase over what is existing, the eave lines are in many places lower than the existing mansard roof line. In addition, the upper floors of the building step back away from the street. E. STREET EDGE The location of this building at the top of Bridge Street results in less importance on this criteria than if it were located along Bridge Street. In addition, the existing footprint of the building remains substantially the same. As a result, the building does continue to "wrap around" the circle created at the top of Bridge Street. F. BUILDING HEIGHT Because of the existing roof form and roof height (which exceeds what is permitted), a variety of considerations arise in evaluating this proposal. The inverted mansard roof form is without question the most irregular in the Village. Existing roof forms throughout the Village are almost exclusively gable. Clearly, the proposed gabled roof forms proposed will have a positive impact with regard to this building's consistency with the rest of the Village. On the easterly portion of the building, the proposed ridge elevation exceeds the height of the mansard roof line by 4 - 5 feet, while the eave line is lower than the existing mansard roof line by 4 - 5 feet. More importantly, the majority of the upper floor is stepped back to provide relief to the building. This helps the building "read" as less massive than presently exists. The westerly portion is different in that the valley of the inverted roof is being infilled by the introduction of the gable. The ridge line is approximately 9 feet lower than the ridge line on the easterly side of the building. This provides a nice mixture of roof heights that is also encouraged by the Guide Plan. Overall, the staff is very positive about the improvements to this element of the building. One must consider the improved sun/shade conditions, the roof form and materials that are proposed and the manner in which upper floors are stepped back from the front plane of the building. Collectively, these improvements result in the transformation of a building that is at the present totally inconsistent with the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan into a building that is very compatible with other buildings in the Village. 5 G. VIEWS A variety of overlays have been prepared to demonstrate the mass of the new building and how it may impact views from various points in the Village. Overall, the proposed building is not a detriment to these views. The proposed building does encroach into two major view corridors in an insignificant manner. The first of these is a vantage point from the steps of the parking structure overlooking Vail Village. Avery minor portion of the roof peak encroaches into this plane.. The second encroachment is on the view corridor from Seibert Circle between the Hill Building and Golden Peak House toward Vail Mountain. The specific direction in the Guide Plan states that "Any proposed building changes which would encroach into, or substantially alter the designated view planes will be discouraged." The applicants have submitted documentation that clearly demonstrates that the encroachments into these view corridors will not substantially alter these view corridors. The degree of encroachment of the building roof plane was so slight that it was difficult to determine where the encroachment actually was. With regard to the view from Seibert Circle, it is felt that this encroachment is also negligible. As stated in the original ordinance, this view plane was preserved to provide an orientation point for the visitor toward Vail Mountain as well as chair lifts and lift ticket sales. Improvements to the streetscape and the introduction of ticket windows in this area will serve to mitigate any potential impacts of this encroachment. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY Delivery functions will remain unchanged from the way the building presently operates. Delivery for the new underground building will be performed by existing loading zones on Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road and brought through the Golden Peak House. A substantial improvement will be made to the westerly side of the building where garbage is presently stored. A trash compactor will be located in the basement of the building with service being provided on the easterly end of the building. There are inherent difficulties in servicing a building that has no "back door." It is felt that the relocation of the trash facilities is an overall improvement to existing conditions. 6 I. SUN/SHADE The proposed building responds very well to the intent of this consideration. The result is an overall improvement on the impact of shade along the street in the area of upper Bridge Street. The combination of the gabled roof form and stepping back the upper floor of the structure actually allows for more sun to reach Bridge Street over a greater period of time. This consideration was very influential in the staff's position on the building height. V. ARCHITECTURAL/LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS While these detailed considerations are typically the purview of the Design Review Board, the staff felt they were worthy of some mention with regard to the overall improvements to this building. These are important because it is the collective result of all of these improvements that will provide a far superior product for the community and Vail Village. Some of these considerations include improved transparency, revisions to existing decks and patios, shadow lines that will highlight the building, and most importantly the roof form and materials. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for this proposal is approval. In considering this project's compliance with the various criteria, it is very evident that the proposal is consistent with the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The most significant issue relative to this proposal has not been specifically addressed. That being the density increase requested in conjunction with this exterior alteration. In the past, the staff has maintained that density controls established with zoning must work hand in hand with the Design Considerations of the Guide Plan. This was demonstrated by our position on preliminary proposals for an additional floor at the Plaza Lodge building. The obvious question raised is, what is different in this proposal for the staff to support 6 additional units and 6,000 square feet of additional GRFA on property that already exceeds its allowable density? It is not the intent of the staff to establish an open ended policy that unlimited amounts of GRFA are appropriate for Vail Village. In the Golden Peak House, we are dealing with a building that is unique among all other properties in the Village. This uniqueness is a 7 result of the building's total incompatibility with the existing design character of the core area. Our support of the additional GRFA is predicated on the fact that the end result of the design proposed is a far improved product over what is existing today without improvements. The following summarizes the staff's considerations that have contributed to our recommendation: * The present design of the Golden Peak House is outdated and in need of remodeling to bring it into step with the character of the Village. * The prominent location of this structure, located at the gateway to Vail Mountain and at the top of Bridge Street, serve to accent the need for its redevelopment. * The vast majority of additional .GRFA is a result of converting existing spaces and square footage created under the gable roof. * The "inverted" gable roof form is not only inconsistent, but also awkward. The introduction of the gable roof is the single most important element in bringing this building into harmony with the Village. * Other considerations such as the massing .and improvements to sun/shade serve to improve the existing condition. * While the building is increasing in size, it will not read as such. This is primarily due to maintaining and lowering eave lines, cantilevers, and stepping the upper floors back off of Bridge Street. * There is not a single property in Vail Village that is in need of attention as badly as the Golden Peak House. The bottom line is the Village will be a better place with this remodel than it is now. Staff's decision to support increasing the size of this building was not made without much deliberation. We have been working with the applicants for nearly two years on this project. While the additional square footage is a sensitive issue, we feel it is supportable and our position is defendable when considering the overall impacts and improvements that this proposal will have on the Village area. The staff would recommend the following conditions be applied to this approval: 8 1. A comprehensive drainage plan shall be submitted (and approved by the Town Engineer) and approvals for the relocation of utilities and easements shall be provided by affected utility companies prior to final DRB approval. 2. The developer is responsible for relocating the bike path (as generally shown on the site plan), and the two mature pine trees on the south side of the project be relocated in the area of Pirate Ship Park. In the event these trees die within 12 months of relocation, the applicant is responsible for placement of spruce trees of 20 feet high or more. 3. The Town of Vail presently maintains the lawn behind the Golden Peak House building. The Public Works Department will require indemnification from the owners against any damages to the underground structure prior to resuming maintenance in this area. This area must remain useable to the general public - no roping or fencing off will be allowed. 4. Owners' use restriction as outlined in Section 17.26.060 of the Municipal Code shall apply to these 6 new units proposed in the Golden Peak House (or an equivalent number of units). 5. The applicant shall return to the Planning Commission for final review of the gateway entry to Vail Mountain prior to any review by the Design Review Board. 6. The inclusion of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the Golden Peak House may be incorporated into the approved development plan. Final determination as to the appropriateness of these street trees shall be made subject to the outcome of the Vail Village Streetscape Conceptual Design study (to be completed in the summer of 1988). 7. The applicants' participation in public improvements shall be accomplished by participation in a "mini- special" improvement district to redesign and relocate Seibert Circle if and when one is formed. An equitable manner of crediting the applicants' contri- bution for Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district for Vail Village will be established, if and when a Village-wide district is formed. (This same condition was applied to a previous approval at the Plaza Lodge Building.) 9 in line with the relocated bike path. As a condition of approval, both of these trees will be relocated to the Pirate Ship Park area. Architects for this project have met with the Town's Public Works Department to discuss drainage issues relative to this project. While a basic understanding of expectations have been reached, a detailed drainage plan will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. D. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space. Without question, densities proposed with this project raise some of the more significant issues relative to this proposal. As demonstrated by the statistical zoning analysis in this memorandum, existing development on the Golden Peak House far exceeds what is allowed by existing zoning. This proposal would add considerably to existing development on this site. In evaluating the appropriateness of this increase in density, the staff has relied on the criteria established in the Urban Design Guide Plan. While this is addressed in greater detail in the exterior alteration memo, it is the conclusion of the staff that, while the building is being enlarged through this redevelopment, the end result is a building with drastically improved design characteristics consistent with the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan. Another important consideration relative to residential density is with respect to Development Area B. As proposed in this SDD, there is no density which will be located on Development Area B, nor are residential units a permitted use in this development area. A proposal involving the rezoning of Agricultural and Open Space land raises issues in and of itself. Staff is supportive of this proposal because of a number of important considerations. Foremost among these include the underground design of the building and the purpose of the building being to provide a ski base/recreational facility for Vail Mountain and the community. In order to assure this facility remain a ski base related facility, uses permitted within Development Area B have been established through negotiation with the staff and applicant. It is the goal of the staff to prevent this facility from becoming an extension of Commercial Core I. As a result,~retail uses are restricted to those deemed related to recreational and ski base facilities. This issue is discussed in greater detail later in this memorandum. 5 .. ~~`' TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to resubdivide Tract E, Vail Village 5th Filing, and a part of Lot C, Block S-C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. A variety of players are involved in the redevelopment proposed for the Golden Peak House building. Vail Associates is the present land owner of Tract E. This tract is located behind the Golden Peak House and runs as far east as the Christiania • and north to Mill Creek Circle. This subdivision would create Tract E-1 and Tract E-2. (See attachment.) Tract E-1 would provide land for the ski base/recreation facility. The remaining portion of Tract E would then be referred to as Tract E-2• Apart of Lot C, •Block 5-C of Vail Village First Filing would also be incorporated into Tract E-l. Tract E-1 would become a part of SDD#20. Lots A and B of Vail Village First Filing would comprise the remaining portions of the SDD. Because this development is a Special Development District, there are no prescribed standards for minimum lot sizes and dimensions. As a result, the merits of this subdivision are best established by evaluating the proposed development plan for this project. Two other memorandums related to this project address the issues relative to this subdivision. It is felt redundant to repeat these considerations as a part of this memorandum. It is important that this subdivision be approved if the SDD and exterior alterations are approved. As a result, staff recommendation for this request is approval. This approval should be conditional upon approval of the proposed SDD. ,, ,d.4~1.4~•k N~.ri~- V41L VILLA E ,FIRST FILING •M•N'Nj . M00 IIW ~ • II'H Ofy LOf w 11•> '00•r 111.11 M ~1w• N it E-t O)f1 ) V Q ' N N W v N J /''~ .•~/ C ~~ •/ 1 a 8 LOi / I w +••i ~- ~.._ •rYN •.rw ~~ LoT ~ lOT Z •Y `..• ..~,w. I - / •w Y_ lOT 1 ~~.1~ ' t. • ~• I LL1 .~... G 0 IIT11 ti«M14w 1w 1111. t..rr1« f w «•• r1•• sr1N1 Iw11 w IN« « NN / Iw1 www wr W• 11M1 IIN Nw rT wrlMS w 1• r«1N Iw Ylll A RESUBDIVISION OF TRACT E VAIL VILLAGE FIFTH FILING AND -~ ~ V01l MIll1G( ,lK TN lILIMO ' , , ,q PART OF LOT c BLOCK 5-C VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING ~ ~ ~ , , , ` ~..-.u \ TOWN OF VAIL r EAGLE COUNTY COLORADO pw11IwY / ` ~ 1 M01GIIrs w WMM \ • •l '• OP \ 'G N IM«r ww1 -1M1 .1W111•srlNwr FY.11WINs .~w ~ ly w11 •...r t I« r . N •11 IMI Iwl rssrrls 1. IM Ir N WII WrNw 1 1• Lww11 Mw111•I N Y~ 1 w- \ O. w . , . -N ~ 4 \ ~ Ary- VILI.4GE , FIRST TILING VAIL VILLAGE , i1FTN FILING ;N 1 ~. rwl~ ~I T. I Iw 1111M rtrMw w r Ww :.Iw rwl. rr11~ t«rw., pr1 w~.r.:.....NH i.111 r.«. .... , r ~ ' l0T • ' w a • , • wt N \M s 11N• K~WII wI1T IIrN IIIIA. r•rr « I • lOT t LOi 1-1 • LOI • I I \ i. » W 1M w 1M. rw .. N11/. N Iwl• twwlry [Ir1 w..rw. r«.Iw « I.i1...1 tTC •1.1n \ 1 w pT [~ -~ ~I M•K Y•[ •I• p Irlry N w rl 1/I• srr N L.t11w~sTwnlwll 1 OMIy 4ww wrN • IrIM1I.1 w.111W 1 • rl• «'MY w.« I••\ /. y '\ 1.r 1 r ' • r1'p p ~.~ y ~~[~ •M•1r .1 rn r f TO'fO Mj It. w' - •. w .+. 11+1-N~ 11w N w IN w N rlMy •rr• • IM INIwIY I.r w sIw 1 rlr wwllrrl I .IM r II N ~~ 1 . r __.__._____ _ ~1~ 1w• I• / y M• • s r ~II~L ~ i.•w1y w . la1 1 T••w-[ II.« IM .• ~ w.r~ . 11 srr N lsrw 1 r1rN1 M 1N I Ytl11r l1f[rLwt iii ~- I•• ~,r . N 1 M M N ti• Glrrr. tl/wiW I M ~~ ~\I~ r 1 ll a• I Y ':t ~ !~ ` [M001sG~ M N .• t.w rNr1r IIM • «w ~ ~ir..r Y wIMw ~1. sty N 1 • iN «'N • w I t .w I -~ I I rft[ K _ 1 1 A MIM'w. s •.It u . I. w MIM . w.I.IM . w, .r. r w 1.11s r N ~1 I ~ 1 r 1 1l lii 1.0 K' t..L3s,f0; ••• .• «~' / w w ww.. w I, Ir IIw~1 wr w 11N w ~ Nw,1 SK. vN1 w111w..r•/I.NI[Y~~twWl1.1~ w sw r M ,Nn1• lr 41 Nr w w. r •1 111 r ill ~iw / y « ~ N ~1 •t+. M w.•1r1T Ir 1• w 1 1 11 O r N r•sw .r N ws N111 t10 I wIr•11 ~-w f I C L~ rrlw wNr1~N1 y r« . wl w .r.1a« Ir .w1« 1M •.1•.rl «• r11p .~::ar w 4 • 1 w•N r- t . .. w:1 N' N n • 1.11N ~Irrw lt••tN•11'«j,NN' vary. vlt(aGf ,FIRST FILING '( 1 t w11. p Fr• r01[ t' V Al iN w r~«..««««.... 1 K1wIKS 1w( 11S[0 Ow 1N r{fI l1N 3[1/1w I•f[[1111w 0-11f.rl0rp ii:i~yr « Iw( 1rw lrr NwK r00•IJ'OI'w If([ /(K[ I'• 10' w NNN Ow1wwL/ t rOwur(wlllgw 13 SwOrw ) 01T1 p Swr[T• Juw{, H1• r-rl.oll•1 pwlYl4l1 \~•1•V.1• wr rt .YIw.Rl 4f(rlwl--~ \ .\ \`~ ~ ~ `\. ~~~~~ w.r.11«.. \\\ ~.. a. LOT 1) 1 w M1 1 r wrr Isswwl Wsr M N~1s N h« µ~1 r r•w -- ~ 11r1a w w w:.w ,w ~~ w Iw ~• • -,1 wlrrl• .N ~isw s .IrN : .. wl. Msr 1N I «NN~ l~ w ~~ « ww lM -Nwl .wrlw r wN w / i r..rMM IM •.w1 N Iw. I 1w .IaMw 11.•.••1 1 Mw M w • ... • «~. M N .._...~---..._....... ..... Iw. ~ ~ 1+.+1• tr,r w ~ •sw r1 41rw •.1. INII •ww lrslNl w1 UNPLATTED .v ~.a l~~ C^I "11•..r «N w 1ptlpl 111rrw N Wrr 1« w1 ww11 <rrw wN r \ Mw~ ~wwl w W1 v« w Iwr 1rr «~. i Nw »w~~•r ..~. V1CI-NT ~ MAV 1 Iw IM• V N Mr• 1Mn 1r wrs Irr 1.w MI• N IM sr\IIISN1w Ww M•w. 1141 Y1ll(I SYRYLTIIH 11C., N/ 10rTw I10w11L[ x010 1(St, NI\ ,[01011100 IMf0 NYNI 1 ti.w=Nw. y.. 1 Wrw .«.-«-« srrN F. I •..1, s Nw 11111 ~ .........«. I clu.r r .._«_«I••. tti 1rwrY•l«1rr.1 •rwl•sN Ww w Ws !~ wt N ....... . ........ •.1.• IM rr ...~~..«.«.....~ .~ r .. _... /ri~isw.1 w _ ~. w ~~~Zs.rrs N Ir.11 Mrsl.lrr. Ir., ~ C.1 r~ii~ ~rNla w 1 r .« Yw ~ hills wMIN M Iwtgsfwlnl OrwlYl> QIIY 1411 [wrllr.r4N ~I1[rIN w~~•~ w it N rN1 w1.NY M •./.. Isw. ....MN «.~~.• MI«1l ;~~ MI ~ .....««...«~.... _ «.~. a.. 11. W-w I•rl,N w11 Il wlw w bNSwaw1N trwl rlw MIN MIMNwtw tiwT1I14w MI• Ilrl N ; .• wrrwl rrs+.s 1'/ W 1-1 N w11 1w1wr r..M«.rr •.• ._..._ 1•r N ..~ 1.wr 1111. h\«1t tr N r.. ,o rr. 1r N w11.rW~•1• llstu loll INl/ 1111 I. w .. s..rs. w Mrsw1 1x111. 1wN W .Nw x111 wssl• M w I.rNlr w N-- 1 N r..1 «Iw• w1ar1M w 1M•-I,.u1 slr •r~ W~ « MI. !r«•rr IT~rw Cllr M MMN/•L R11TII14TL 1wl• IIwN IIN w IIIN Ir INr1 N W NIIS1 N W flrr r./ wart w 1N• ...._ « N L/., Iw1. N - •'<Ir• -••w. 1LrM Ir11~: ~wl«Iw r. Iw 1.•1 .....NIT «.... TIr1"`r.r 1w1• tr.1F Wr•w M 001 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Communitv Development Department DATE: January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to remodel the Golden Peak House building. Applicants: Golden Peak House Association and Catacombs, Limited I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST As has been discussed in the rezoning memorandum, there are a variety of elements in the redevelopment proposal of the Golden Peak House. Relying primarily on the Urban Design Guide Plan criteria, this memorandum will focus on the renovations to the existing building and the ticket window area created by the ski base/recreation facility. Simply stated, the exterior alteration involves a total face lift of the Golden Peak House Building. Specific elements of this proposal will be addressed throughout the course of this memo. A statistical analysis of the additions proposed are found in the request for rezoning memo. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL The Urban Design Guide Plan and zoning considerations are used in reviewing development proposals in Commercial Core I. The Design Considerations in the Guide Plan were adopted to augment standard zoning regulations. They are intended to allow for greater flexibility and creativity in designing projects in the Village, while recognizing and maintaining its unique character. The Guide Plan identifies desired physical improvements for strengthening the overall fabric of Vail Village. These improvements are generally designed to reinforce the overall character of the Village, with particular emphasis placed on improving the pedestrian experience. These improvements are referred to as sub-area concepts. Design Considerations address the primary form-giving physical features of the Village. They provide a description of these elements without which the image of the Village would be noticeably different. It is the goal of the Design Considerations that through their applications, future changes will be consistent with the established character of the Village and make positive contributions to its experience. III. SUB-AREA CONCEPTS The following sub-area concepts are relevant to this development: Sub-Area Concept # 9. Commercial expansion (ground floor) not to exceed 10 feet in depth, possible arcade. To improve pedestrian scale at base of tall building, and for greater transparency as an activity generator on Seibert Circle. The intent of this concept is to improve the overall appearance of the storefronts as well as to provide relief and a more pleasing pedestrian scale to this building. The potential for this expansion, however, is complicated by the fact that the Golden Peak House building is essentially built to its property line and the area for this potential expansion is located on Town of Vail right of way. The developers did approach the Town Council with a request to purchase a ten foot strip of land in this area, but were unsuccessful in their efforts. In order to address this sub-area concept, the design of this redevelopment includes a 6 foot roof overhang, bay windows and cantilevered portions of the building. These have been done in order to provide relief and establish a pedestrian scale on the Bridge Street side of this building. It is felt by the staff that this design accomplishes the intent of what is proposed in Sub-Area Concept No. 9. A variety of overhang easements were granted to the Golden Peak House by Vail Associates in 1966. This was done to accommodate roof and balcony overhangs. Following the incorporation of the Town of Vail, the Town became the heir to this agreement. Larry Eskwith has reviewed this easement agreement and feels it does allow for the alteration and reconstruction of improvements within the easement. While this easement would not override any decision by the Town Council, Planning Commission or Design Review Board, it does allow the applicants to proceed with these improvements. as proposed. Sub-Area Concept #10. Seibert Circle. Future area paving treatment. Relocate focal point (potential fountain) to north for better sun exposure (fall/spring), create increased plaza area and/or the backdrop for activities. Separated paths on the north sides for unimpeded pedestrian route during delivery periods. 2 The relocation of Seibert Circle has been discussed for many years. While not an element of this redevelopment proposal, the applicants have indicated a willingness to participate in this project if and when it occurs. A related concern that is addressed in other portions of this memorandum deal with. sun/shade effects from this building. As demonstrated by sun/shade studies, additions to the Golden Peak House will not increase shadow patterns on Seibert Circle or the potential relocation of Seibert Circle. Sub-Area Concept #l0A Mountain gateway improvements. Landscaping screen, minor plaza, pedestrian connection loop to Wall Street (Vail Village ticket window area). This sub-area concept is specifically addressed through this redevelopment proposal. The ticket windows proposed in the ski base facility will anchor a mini-plaza to be developed between the Hill Building and Golden Peak House. (Completion of this plaza will require approval from the U.S. Forest Service and owners of the Hill Building.) The connection between this plaza and Seibert Circle will be strengthened with increased transparency on the west elevation of the Golden Peak House. While the improvements in this area are considerable, staff is not completely satisfied with the transition proposed between the plaza area and the ski mountain. Specifically, staff would prefer a ramp system as opposed to the stairs shown. Overall, it seems this area is in need of further attention in order to establish a prominent gateway between the Village and Vail Mountain. The need for further study of this area, however, is not significant enough to delay the review and approval of this project. Staff will recommend as a condition of approval that developers return to the Planning Commission at a later date with a more refined plan for this area. IV. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The Urban Design Guide Plan outlines nine different design considerations to be used in the evaluation of any exterior alteration. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION Because of the location of the existing building, there are no significant factors involved in pedestrianization. The development of the ticket window plaza will certainly improve pedestrianization around the building between the 3 Village and Vail Mountain. In addition, a heated system of pavers is proposed on the Bridge Street side of the building (similar to the Gorsuch and A & D Buildings). These are all considered positive improvements relative to this redevelopment. B. VEHICULAR PENETRATION It is an underlying goal for the Village to keep all vehicular traffic into the Village at a minimum. The six additional residential units proposed in this redevelopment will undoubtedly generate trips into the Village core. This traffic is obviously necessary in order for guests to arrive to these units. Because parking is not provided on site, these trips will be primarily for arrival and departure of guests. The underground building will also generate some additional vehicle trips - mostly service and delivery (see item H). C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK A high quality streetscape framework can be established through landscape features and active, visually interesting storefronts. As proposed, this redevelopment is a substantial improvement to existing conditions. Improvements to transparency, relief, materials, and variety all are marked improvements over the present building on both the north and west sides. An additional element of this proposal that has been discussed centers around the introduction of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the building. While there is no question that street trees would add to the color and life of this building, staff is uncomfortable with requiring them at this time. This is due to the unknown future of the Seibert Circle area. Based on preliminary studies of this relocation, it is apparent that space in this area is at a premium (space between the Hill Building, Plaza Lodge, Red Lion and Golden Peak House buildings). Money has been budgeted for a comprehensive analysis of streetscape improvements in Vail Village. This study will address the Seibert Circle relocation and result in a conceptual plan for its relocation. Staff is reluctant to commit the 3 to 4 feet of depth that would be required for street trees before this analysis is undertaken. As a result, we would prefer to deal with the street trees as a condition of approval subject to the findings of this. study. If it is determined that ample space is available for these trees, they would become an element of this approval. On the other hand, if the findings of this analysis indicate there is not room for street trees, they would obviously not. be required. 4 D. STREET ENCLOSURE The sense of enclosure between this building and surrounding structures remains unchanged, if not improved. It is important to understand that as the peak of the roof lines increase over what is existing, the eave lines are in many places lower than the existing mansard roof line. In addition, the upper floors of the building step back away from the street. E. STREET EDGE The location of this building at the top of Bridge Street results in less importance on this criteria than if it were located along Bridge Street. In addition, the existing footprint of the building remains substantially the same. As a result, the building does continue to "wrap around" the circle created at the top of Bridge Street. F. BUILDING HEIGHT Because of the existing roof form and roof height (which exceeds what is permitted), a variety of considerations arise in evaluating this proposal. The inverted mansard roof form is without question the most irregular in the Village. Existing roof forms throughout the Village are almost exclusively gable. Clearly, the proposed gabled roof forms proposed will have a positive impact with regard to this building's consistency with the rest of the Village. On the easterly portion of the building, the proposed ridge elevation exceeds the height of the mansard roof line by 4 - 5 feet, while the eave line is lower than the existing mansard roof line by 4 - 5 feet. More importantly, the majority of the upper floor is stepped back to provide relief to the building. This helps the building "read" as less massive than presently exists. The westerly portion is different in that the valley of the inverted roof is being infilled by the introduction of the gable. The ridge line is approximately 9 feet lower than the ridge line on the easterly side of the building. This provides a nice mixture of roof heights that is also encouraged by the Guide Plan. Overall, the staff is very positive about the improvements to this element of the building. One must consider the improved sun/shade conditions, the roof form and materials that are proposed and the manner in which upper floors are stepped back from the front plane of the building. Collectively, these improvements result in the transformation of a building that is at the present totally inconsistent with the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan into a building that is very compatible with other buildings in the Village. 5 G. VIEWS A variety of overlays have been prepared to demonstrate the mass of the new building and how it may impact views from various points in the Village. Overall, the proposed building is not a detriment to these views. The proposed building does encroach into two major view corridors in an insignificant manner. The first of these is a vantage point from the steps of the parking structure overlooking Vail Village. Avery minor portion of the roof peak encroaches into this plane. The second encroachment is on the view corridor from Seibert Circle between the Hill Building and Golden Peak House toward Vail Mountain. The specific direction in the Guide Plan states that "Any proposed building changes which would encroach into, or substantially alter the designated view planes will be discouraged." The applicants have submitted documentation that clearly demonstrates that the encroachments into these view corridors will not substantially alter these view corridors. The degree of encroachment of the building roof plane was so slight that it was difficult to determine where the encroachment actually was. With regard to the view from Seibert Circle, it is felt that this encroachment is also negligible. As stated in the original ordinance, this view plane was preserved to provide an orientation point for the visitor toward Vail Mountain as well as chair lifts and lift ticket sales. Improvements to the streetscape and the introduction of ticket windows in this area will serve to mitigate any potential impacts of this encroachment. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY Delivery functions will remain unchanged from the way the building presently operates. Delivery for the new underground building will be performed by existing loading zones on Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road and brought through the Golden Peak House. A substantial improvement will be made to the westerly side of the building where garbage is presently stored. A trash compactor will be located in the basement of the building with service being provided on the easterly end of the building. There are inherent difficulties in servicing a building that has no "back door." It is felt that the relocation of the trash facilities is an overall improvement to existing conditions. 6 I. SUN/SHADE The proposed building responds very well to the intent of this consideration. The result is an overall improvement on the impact of shade along the street in the area of upper Bridge Street. The combination of the gabled roof form and stepping back the upper floor of the structure actually. allows for more sun to reach Bridge Street over a greater period of time. This consideration was very influential in the staff's position on the building height. V. ARCHITECTURAL/LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS While these detailed considerations are typically the purview of the Design Review Board, the staff felt they were worthy of some mention with regard to the overall improvements to this building. These are important because it is the collective result of all of these improvements that will provide a far superior product for the community and Vail Village. Some of these considerations include improved transparency, revisions to existing decks and patios, shadow lines that will highlight the building, and most importantly the roof form and materials. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for this proposal is approval. In considering this project's compliance with the various criteria, it is very evident that the proposal is consistent with the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The most significant issue relative to this proposal has not been specifically addressed. That being the density increase requested in conjunction with this exterior alteration. In the past, the staff has maintained that density controls established with zoning must work hand in hand with the Design Considerations of the Guide Plan. This was demonstrated by our position on preliminary proposals for an additional floor at the Plaza Lodge building. The obvious question raised is, what is different in this proposal for the staff to support 6 additional units and 6,000 square feet of additional GRFA on property that already exceeds its allowable density? It is not the intent of the staff to establish an open ended policy that unlimited amounts of GRFA are appropriate for Vail Village. In the Golden Peak House, we are dealing with a building that is unique among all other properties in the Village. This uniqueness is a 7 result of the building's total incompatibility with the existing design character of the core area. Our support of the additional GRFA is predicated on the fact that the end result of the design proposed is a far improved product over what is existing today without improvements. The following summarizes the staff's considerations that have contributed to our recommendation: * The present design of the Golden Peak House is outdated and in need of remodeling to bring it into step with the character of the Village. * The prominent location of this structure, located at the gateway to Vail Mountain and at the top of Bridge Street, serve to accent the need for its redevelopment. * The vast majority of additional GRFA is a result of converting existing spaces and square footage created under the gable roof. * The "inverted" gable roof form is not only inconsistent, but also awkward. The introduction of the gable roof is the single most important element in bringing this building into harmony with the Village. * Other considerations such as the massing and improvements to sun/shade serve to improve the existing condition. * While the building is increasing in size, it will not read as such. This is primarily due to maintaining and lowering eave lines, cantilevers, and stepping the upper floors back off of Bridge Street. * There is not a single property in Vail Village that is in need of attention as badly as the Golden Peak House. The bottom line is the Village will be a better place with this remodel than it is now. Staff's decision to support increasing the size of this building was not made without much deliberation. We have been working with the applicants for nearly two years on this project. While the additional square footage is a sensitive issue, we feel it is supportable and our position is defendable when considering the overall impacts and improvements that this proposal will have on the Village area. The staff would recommend the following conditions be applied to this approval: 8 f ~ 1. A comprehensive drainage plan shall be submitted (and approved by the Town Engineer) and approvals for the relocation of utilities and easements shall be provided by affected utility companies prior to final DRB approval. 2. The developer is responsible for relocating the bike path (as generally shown on the site plan), and the two mature pine trees on the south side of the project be relocated in the area of Pirate Ship Park. In the event these trees die within 12 months of relocation, the applicant is responsible for placement of spruce trees of 20 feet high or more. 3. The Town of Vail presently maintains the lawn behind the Golden Peak House building. The Public Works Department will require indemnification from the owners against any damages to the underground structure prior to resuming maintenance in this area. This area must remain useable to the general public - no roping or fencing off will be allowed. 4. Owners' use restriction as outlined in Section 17.26.060 of the Municipal Code shall apply to these 6 new units proposed in the Golden Peak House (or an equivalent number of units). 5. The applicant shall return to the Planning Commission for final review of the gateway entry to Vail Mountain prior to any review by the Design Review Board. 6. The inclusion of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the Golden Peak House may be incorporated into the approved development plan. Final determination as to the appropriateness of these street trees shall be made subject to the outcome of the Vail Village Streetscape Conceptual Design study (to be completed in the summer of 1988). 7. The applicants' participation in public improvements shall be accomplished by participation in a "mini- special" improvement district to redesign and relocate Seibert Circle if and when one is formed. An equitable manner of crediting the applicants' contri- bution for Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district for Vail Village will be established, if and when a Village-wide district is formed. (This same condition was applied to a previous approval at the Plaza Lodge Building.) .'' 9 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 8, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision, rezoning, and exterior alteration for the proposed redevelopment and additions to the Golden Peak House building. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association Catacombs, Ltd., and Vail Associates, Inc. Following presentations and comments by the Planning Commission at their January 25th meeting, these three requests were tabled at the request of the applicant. Modifications to the previous proposal will be discussed in this memorandum. The staff's position of supporting this project has remained unchanged. For your information, staff memorandums from the January 25th meeting have been included for your consideration. It is the primary goal of this memorandum to summarize the issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Staff comment regarding each of these issues will also be provided. I. ISSUES RAISED BY PEC The staff has reviewed all the comments made by the Planning Commission during the initial review of this application. The following nine issues were those mentioned by more than one commissioner. This list is not intended to be all inclusive. Rather, these issues are presented in an attempt to focus the discussion of this item. Where applicable, a staff response has been provided. 1. A number of Planning Commission members expressed concern over the size of the proposed dining deck on the south side of the building. An issue related to this concern was how this design was contributing to the relocation of the existing bicycle path. The redesign of the dining deck has resulted in a slight reduction in size of approximately 250 square feet. In addition, the bicycle path has been relocated to what is essentially its existing alignment. This has been made possible by cutting back the southeast corner of the proposed patio and by discussions with contractors and engineers that indicate the underground structure can bear the load of the bike path. 2. A general concern for the need to further restrict permitted uses within Development Area B (the ski base/ recreational facility). The staff is sensitive to the issue of what uses occur within this facility. It was felt that restricting the types of uses and percentages of floor areas for these uses were appropriate safeguards. A number of alternatives are available to strengthen these restrictions. Examples could include making some uses conditional, further restricting the percentage of space that could be occupied by particular uses or simply deleting certain uses entirely. The applicants have proposed no changes from that presented at last month's PEC hearing. 3. Concern over the five story element proposed for the easterly end of the building. The staff support of this fifth floor element is based on a number of considerations. Among these is that the building is condominiumized and a reality of redeveloping this building~is the unlikelihood of substantially altering the space within the existing fourth floor condominiums. Secondly, the vast majority of the building mass is existing by virtue of the mansard roof. Finally, the introduction of a gabled roof form is without question, a very desirable design element for this building. As stated at the last hearing, the overall result is a building that is far more consistent with the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan than what is existing today. There is no question that the staff would oppose a five story building if this development were proposed for undeveloped land. The fifth floor is justified by its overall positive improvement to the building, given the existing condition of this structure. 4. Concern with potential difficulties. providing delivery and loading service, particularly to the ski base/recreation facility. Staff previously maintained that existing loading zones on Hanson Ranch Road and Bridge Street could be used to service the delivery needs of this project. There is little question that the delivery needs created by the increased size of the existing building can be met by existing loading areas. Given the limitations on retail types of uses within the ski base facility, it was felt that these loading. zones could also serve the ski base facility. 5. One step that could be taken in improv service to the ski base facility is to circulation through the lower level of building to the proposed levels of the facility. This issue warrants further during Monday's meeting. ing loading establish the existing ski base discussion Concern over the seasonal enclosure proposed for a portion of the dining deck. Staff saw little concern with this enclosure given its ability to retract both the roof and wall systems. In addition, large amounts of the proposed dining deck would remain permanently outdoors. The applicants have not changed this element of the proposal. 6. A desire to see both aspects of this project developed simultaneously was expressed by members of the commission. There is certainly merit to seeing both aspects of this project developed simultaneously. There has been no definitive response to this comment by the applicant. This consideration could be adopted as a condition of approval by the Planning Commission in their recommendation to the Council. 7. The dedication to the Town of remaining portions of Tract E was expressed as desirable by a number of Planning Commission members. References were made to previous statements by Vail Associates concerning the dedication of Tract E to the Town of Vail. Vail Associates has indicated that they are not interested in transferring the remaining portions of this parcel as a condition of approval for this development. Given VA's responsibility of operating the mountain, the staff certainly sees merit in their desire to retain ownership of this parcel. As with the previous item, this issue could be dealt with directly by the Commission as a part of their recommendation to Council. 8. A number of questions were raised concerning the ski race finish area and the proposed gateway improvements to Vail Mountain. The revised site plan and landscape plan show substantial improvement to this area. Most significantly, this redesign show a ramp as opposed to a staircase leading from the ticket window plaza to Vail Mountain. It should be noted that the Public Works Department has signed off on this redesign. This should effectively eliminate any questions concerning their snow removal operations in this area. The revised race course layout also demonstrates an improved circulation system during World Cup events. 9. Concern was expressed regarding the relationship of this building to the possible relocation of Seibert Circle. It is difficult to answer questions concerning the design and timing for the possible relocation of Seibert Circle. The staff feels strongly that the design of this building can stand on its own merits regardless of whether the circle is relocated or remains in its present location. The one outstanding issue relates to the possible introduction of street trees along the Golden Peak House Building. As previously stated, the staff is concerned about committing space for these trees until the conceptual design of Seibert Circle is established. This design should be completed some time this summer as an element of an overall streetscape plan for Vail Village. As a result, the Planning Commission is faced with evaluating this proposal on its merits given conditions existing at this time. II. OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PROJECT The staff has had a number of conversations with the Town Attorney concerning uses proposed for special development districts. As outlined in the zoning code, all development standards within an SDD are established by the development plan. Uses are dealt with somewhat differently in that uses in an SDD are limited to those allowed by the property's underlying zone district. In this case, the underlying zone district would be Agricultural and Open Space. This zone district does not allow for the range of uses proposed with SDD #20. As a result, a part of the bureaucratic process in approving this project would be to designate the Ski Base/ Recreational zone district as SDD #20's underlying zone district. It is recognized that this situation may appear somewhat confusing. This is essentially a bookkeeping item necessary in adhering to the letter of the law outlining in the zoning code. For example, if this project were to be approved as proposed, a simple reference to the Ski Base/Recreational establishing it as the underlying zoning with respect to uses would be included in the ordinance that creates this zone district. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation remains approval for the reasons cited in this memo and those memos presented on January 25th. We have previously stated our position concerning the redevelopment and addition to the Golden Peak House building. As a result, it would be redundant to repeat at this time. The same can be said for our position on the ski base recreational facility. It is important for the Planning Commission to keep in mind that Tract E, while zoned Agricultural and Open Space, is privately owned property. This request does not involve development on public lands and should not be regarded as such. In addition, consideration should be given to the fact that the Agricultural and Open Space zone district does allow for a variety of different types of development (as conditional uses). The staff certainly understands the importance of maintaining and preserving open space throughout the Town of Vail. This is not to say, however, that certain levels and types of development in certain areas may be appropriate. It should also be emphasized that the Land Use Plan has designated this area as a ski base land use. In addition, the Vail Village Plan has proposed a similar land use desination. Consideration of these facts are important in evaluating the merits of this proposal. F .~ ~ ~ ~. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Bryan Hobbs STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack A work session was held prior to the formal meeting on the Vail Mountain School addition and the Golden Peak Children's Center. The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of 1/11/88. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5-0. 2. A recruest for an exterior alteration, a minor subdivision and a rezoning to a Special Development District for the Golden Peak House. Applicants: Catacombs, Ltd; Golden Peak House Association; Vail Associates, Inc. Tom Braun presented the request, explaining that it consisted of three parts. He then described the rezoning request and the criteria used to evaluate the request, including design standards for SDD proposals such as a buffer zone, circulation, housing types, etc. Ron Riley, one of the applicants, described two years of working with the planning staff on the proposal. Peter Jamar, planner for the applicants, described the renovation, preservation of the views, sun/shade impacts, etc. John Perkins, architect on the project, explained how the design of the building had improved by following the Urban Design Guide Plan guidelines. He also showed site plans, floor plans, roof plans, elevations and view planes. Larry Litchliter, Vail Associates representative, spoke of the underground facility and the need for more guest services at the base of the mountain. Tom Braun then described the Special Development District. The uses to be permitted were limited to assure the facility would operate as a pubic ski base facility. Tom then explained the exterior alteration criteria which included the Urban Design Guide Plan, zoning considerations and design considerations. He showed photo overlays to explain the view impact and added that the sun/shade element had been improved. Peter Patten stated that the staff had been working with the applicant for two years. He stated that the staff felt the mass and bulk were appropriate and were not a significant increase, that the use of the additional units would be restricted regarding use so that they would be available to the guest. Peter felt strongly that the proposal was consistent with short and long term goals. He felt that this was not precedent setting and listed many building which had received increased density. Peter pointed out that the Mountain Plan increased the number of skiers and there was a need for increased skier facilities. With regard to the Land Use Plan, the proposal on the mountain side of the building was entirely consistent with the Land Use Plan and also with the proposed Vail Village Master Plan. This was to be a ski portal to the mountain. The staff recommendation was for approval with the 7 conditions listed on page 9 of the exterior alteration memo dated 1/25/88. Jack Curtin asked why the Hill Building was not shown on the model. John Perkins, architect for the applicants, replied that the owner would not release the drawings so that his office could make a model from the drawings. He added that an alternate plan was to have the Hill Building architect build the model. Curtin read a letter from Beardsley, the architect for the Hill Building written on January 14 confirming that in September he had received a phone call from Perkins and Beardsley offered to build the model. Curtin read the duties of the PEC from the Town of Vail zoning code, and added that nowhere was the PEC required to look at "beauty." He also mentioned that there was not unanimous support for the project from the Golden Peak condo owners. Curtin discussed the design standards to be used in evaluating an SDD. Curtin felt the staff was extending the boundaries of the CCI zone district. With regard to the exterior alteration, he discussed the sub-area concepts. Paul Johnston spoke on behalf of the proposal and felt it would be a major improvement. Dan Corcoran felt the development was needed, and that the gain was greater than the loss. Teke Simonnett, manager of Vail Ski Rentals, was opposed to the project, stating that Vail Associates could use the space behind One Vail Place, .rather than using public land. Bill Wilto and Bob Kendall were in favor of the proposal. Bill Post, representing Greta Parks, owner of Cyrano's stated that his client was in the "middle ground" regarding the proposal. He warned, however, that Cyrano's could also go up to 43 feet 2 in height. Post felt that the deck was very large and cut off the flow of traffic from the west to Cyrano's. He added that he had not known that part of the deck was to be enclosed and was opposed to that. Bill Point, owner of condo #203 in the Golden Peak House, was in favor of the exterior improvements. Authur Cox, owner of unit #13, was against enclosing part of the deck.• Todd McDonald felt that the action was precedent setting and wondered if the Town would regret the action. Gary Valentine, owner of unit #402, was in favor of the improvements, but stated that there would be many owners who would not be in favor of the proposal. Dick Georgie was in favor of remodeling the building, but not in favor of destroying the open space. He added that the owners of condos in the Golden Peak House would not realize any financial gain from the commercial expansion. He suggested that if the PEC were to recommend approval, that one condition be that the Golden Peak House be remodeled prior to or simultaneously with the development on the mountain side of the building. Bill Pierce felt that the Town was giving and not receiving much in return. George Knox encouraged the PEC to approve the project, pointing out that many non-skiers would be able to use the deck and that public restrooms were badly needed. Pepi Gramshammer was concerned about the loading problem, stating that it would take 10 minutes to check into the hotel. He wondered if more ski shops were needed, and felt that what was needed was another night club. Gordon Brittan felt that the people's land was being taken away and was against the proposal. John Kemmer felt that Vail residents overlook what nonskiers look for, such as the deck on the back and was in favor of the proposal. The PEC was asked for their feelings about the project. Pam Hopkins liked the project, but had questions concerning where snow would be placed during the 89 World Championships and how the finish area would work. Peter Jamar showed the finish area plan. Larry Litchliter of VA stated that they would continue to hold races on International. Pam felt that the finish area was a serious problem and should be addressed. She also asked how far the deck was from the nearest lot, and was told it was 120 feet. She asked about summer uses for the VA property and was told they hadn't been decided as yet. She felt that many uses seemed unrelated to skiing and felt that there should be more control over uses so that it did not just become a commercial venture. Pam was concerned about the number of stories and about service ,and delivery. She felt the deck should be cut back and the underground building be design 3 so that the bike path could go over it. In requesting these things, Pam pointed out that the applicant had many incentives: To enclose the deck, go up a story, and use open space. Sid Schultz had three major concerns: He should not contain 5 stories, that a lot north side depended upon what happened at felt that there should not be retail uses formerly Agricultural and Open Space. He having a deck on AOS zoning. felt the building ~f the design on the Seibert Circle, and on an area that was was also against Diana felt the deck was too large and should have softer lines. She felt the bike path should be closer to the building. Diana asked where the snow removal storage would be and wondered if the gateway could be wider. .She felt it was steep and treacherous last year. Diana was also concerned about deliveries and service and felt that trucks would block the gateway. Riley answered that they did not allow trucks to park in front, but insisted they,use the loading zone. John Perkins said that if an opening between the Golden Peak House and Catacombs could be negotiated it might solve the problem. Diana felt that completing both the Golden Peak House and the underground facility at the same time was a good idea. She added that there should be a construction schedule that stated that the outside of the building should be completed by a certain date. Diana would not support the underground facility unless VA dedicated the remainder of Tract E to the Town. She felt that there were too many uses, and that they should be more defined than "skier related" and "summer uses." Peggy felt in general that the proposal was positive. Her major concerns were with the spaces around the building. She felt the gateway area and Seibert Circle were crucial areas. She did not feel comfortable going ahead without knowing what was to happen in Seibert Circle. Concerning the deck, she hoped the public would be encouraged to use the deck rather than just for bar service. Peggy was not sure how much of the deck should be enclosed. She asked Larry Litchliter how many years the base facility would be adequate and whether or not VA was planning to add more floors in the future. Litchliter replied that surface structures could not be constructed on Tract E, and that he did not know how long the facilities would be adequate. Jim Viele thanked all of the public who participated in the discussion. He felt that the project was consistent with the goals of the Land Use Plan. Also, the Land Use Plan encouraged improvements in the core with incentives. He felt the Town of Vail was "a little light" in what the Town was getting out of it. He felt the uses should be public. Jim felt that this was a good time for the balance of Tract E to be dedicated to the Town. Jim agreed that delivery and loading needed study and agreed that a condition that stipulated construction on the two 4 phases must be done must be presented. problems and felt i solution. simultaneously and a construction schedule Jim continued to be concerned about parking was time the community began to work on a Peter Jamar, planner for the project, stated the issues raised, the applicant requested to proposal until February 8. Diana moved and _ seconded to table the proposal until February 5-0 in favor. that in light of table the 8. The vote was 3. A request for an exterior alteration and a common area variance in order to construct a spa and to enclose a portion of the existing dining deck at the Gasthof Gramshammer. Applicant: Gasthof Gramshammer Sid Schultz, architect on the project, abstained from voting on this proposal. Kristan Pritz presented the request and explained that the staff was in favor of the common area variance with conditions. She then reviewed Urban Design Guide Plan criteria with regard to the deck enclosure and dining addition. The staff recommendation was for denial of the deck enclosure and addition. Kristan explained that this was the premier deck in Vail. She went through the 6 criteria for outdoor decks (on page 5 of the memo) which have been used in reviewing previous deck enclosures and showed how the proposal did or did not meet each. Then she recommended 5 changes to the design of the deck which would make it similar to other dining deck approvals. Sid Schultz gave his presentation. He stated that the applicant did lower the wall 1 foot from the original and would agree to lower it further to 18". He felt it was better to have diners in the winter than to have nothing happening. Sid added that Pepi had the right to do away with his patio entirely like the A & D Building. Sid stated that the north and west windows were not operable now, due to the wind and spray from the Children's Fountain. He felt that placing the emergency exit on the north elevation would encroach on the large evergreen tree as well as the spa and would necessitate too much stairway. Sid felt that Pepi should only be charged 1/2 of the parking fee, as the deck is used in the winter part of the time now. Jack Curtin felt the applicant had mitigated his concerns and had shown that it will relate to the street and will create night activity. Pam felt that stone in the wall was a good material to use, she did not mind the exit on the west if it is landscaped nicely. Pam felt the exit might Lend more activity to the plaza. Pam felt sad that the deck would be enclosed. 5 Jim Viele shared Pam's concerns about the deck being enclosed. He felt an 18" wall would be OK and had no problem with the exit on•the west. He stated that Pepi would want operable windows on the west for ventilation. He asked if Pepi must pay for the additional parking impact, and was told Pepi must pay the fee or ask for a variance. Peggy asked if the east side was totally operable and floor to ceiling and Sid said it was not. Peggy felt it was important to have the windows totally retractable on the east and operable windows on the west. Pepi replied that there would be too much wind and water to open the windows. Concerning the south elevation, Peggy pointed out that 18" would be more visible than the wall is today. Assuming the 18" is of stone, she felt it would•be alright. Diana did not like having an emergency fire exit into the Children's Fountain plaza. She felt that there must be a structure to hold up roof, and this would make the enclosure look like the Red Lion. Diana stated that she has never supported deck enclosures of successful decks, and felt that any good deck in Vail should not be enclosed. The parking fee was discussed and Sid asked when did a porch become enclosed space and Kristan pointed out that with this enclosure, the deck was enclosed on all four sides. Peggy moved and Pam seconded to approve the exterior alteration per the staff memo with the provision that the wall be stone and no more than 18" above floor level, that 50% of the windows on the north and west be operable, and that the applicant agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a special development district if an when one is formed for Vail Village. The vote was 3 in favor, 1 against (Donovan) and 1 abstention. Peggy moved and Jim Viele seconded to approve the request for the common area variance. The vote was 4 in favor with one abstention. 4. A request for a minor subdivision to create two Primary/Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose Tom Braun explained the request. Bill Pierce, architect for the applicants felt the impacts had been reduced and the applicants were willing to restrict the size of the proposed units to 2667 square feet plus an additional 500 square feet of GRFA for a secondary unit. He reminded the board that there were at present, 4 legal non-conforming units on the property. He felt the smaller structures limited the negative impacts. 6 Carol Schmidt, a neighboring property owner, asked questions concerning allowable sizes. Lawrence Levin, an attorney representing Dr. Ehlein who lives across from the Rose property, stated that Dr. Ehlein was against the proposal. He asked if each of the existing 4 units could be sold separately. Tom replied that there could not be 4 owners, but there could be 2 owners. Robert Irwin opposed the project and referred to the Tennenbaum project as being similar to that proposed in that it complies with the zoning code, but is "overbuilt." Ken Wilson, representing Burton Glasov of 454 Forest Road, opposed the project. Mr. Levin mentioned that there were probably 25 letters in opposition. He referred to Section 17.16.110 which includes the statement that the burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that he is in compliance with the technical requirements. Levin presented an engineer who showed a survey which differed from the one the staff presented at the meeting. He then stated that he felt Rose was "torturing the Iot line" and violating the intent of protecting the environment and open space. Levin referred to Subdivision Regulations 17.04.010 Purpose, paragraph C which lists 7 criteria for subdivisions. He added that not all of the 80 square feet on each parcel was buildable and felt there would be an increase in amount of traffic. Levin said that protective covenants for Vail Village 3rd Filing did not allow more than 2 dwelling units (private) per lot. Terrill Knight, planner for the applicants, discussed the covenants. He said they were adopted by Vail Associates with little review in 1963. In 1966 the Town of Vail was incorporated. In 1971 this property was annexed and in 1977 it was zoned Primary/Secondary. He added that the covenants met a lot of existing conditions. Terrill said that no engineer planned the roads in the subdivision and the roads would not meet today's standards. Levin asked what percentage of owners must agree to change the covenants, and Terrill answered that it would take 75% of the owners. Bill Pierce asked Terrill if there could possibly be a reduction in traffic with the new subdivision, and Terrill replied that there would be a reduction in traffic. Steve Scott, an engineer with Johnson Kunkel showed which areas were 40% or more and stated that he found more area of 40% or greater slope than Eagle Valley Engineering had found. Scott's survey showed that parcel A contained only 14,630 square feet of buildable area and parcel B only 14,795 square feet. Tom Braun stated that it was difficult three areas were the result of man made replied that the code says "natural or Eskwith stated that existing or natural topo before construction, so the staff valid. to be precise, because improvements. Levin existing." Larry topo referred to the interpretation was 7 Jim Schmidt of 401 Beaver Dam Road showed photos from his deck and stated that if construction were to occur on Parcel A, it would directly infringe on his property. Mary Ann Mullin spoke in favor of the project. Lyn Gross of 486 Forest Road spoke against the project as did Shirley Dews. Carol Schmidt spoke against the project and referred to 17.04.010 B. Ron Byrne spoke against the project. Art Abplanalp, representing the Ramsbergs who owned the property to the west of Roses', said that the 80 square feet ought to be buildable space. Ben Rose read a letter he had written to the neighbors. He also submitted two letters in favor of his project. Levin showed a map that was marked to show which neighbors were opposed to the project. . The Commissioners were asked their opinions. Pam Hopkins said she had trouble with the appropriateness and added that the experience with the Tennenbaum projects had made her "gun shy." Sid~Schultz was concerned with the purpose section of the- subdivision regulations and with the project's compatibility with surrounding land uses. He felt a lot on Beaver Dam Road could not be compared to one in east Vail or elsewhere in the valley. He was concerned that this would set a precedent for many lots in Potato Patch and in Glen Lyon. Diana Donovan had the same concerns and felt this proposal violated the basic guidelines "not to overburden land with structures." She added that the lower part of the lot was fragile and contained wetlands and that open spaces were important. Diana said that with this many objections, something was wrong with the proposal. Jim Viele felt that there had been a precedent established, but that this proposal did not meet the standards concerning conflict with adjacent land, protecting the value of surrounding land, and achieving harmonious, convenient workable relationship among land uses. Peggy moved and Sid seconded to deny the request because it did not meet the criteria of 17.04.010, specifically, sections 2,3, and 4 of 17.04.010 C. The vote was 5-0 to deny the request. 8 %~ Planning and Environmental Commission February 8, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Grant Riva Sid Schultz Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Tom Braun Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. Diana, Pam, Peggy, Jim and Grant were sworn in for new two year terms. Grant is a new member of the PEC. Diana moved and Bryan seconded to have Jim Viele continue as chairman. The vote was 6-0-1 in favor. A work session was held on the Vail Gateway (Amoco) project, led by Rick Pylman. 1. A request for an exterior alteration, a minor subdivision and a rezoning to Special Develo ment District for the Golden Peak House. Applicants: Catacombs, Ltd.; Golden Peak House Association; Vail Associates, Inc. Tom Braun reviewed the last meeting, when the project was first discussed. He stated that the staff position had remained unchanged (in favor of the project). Tom reviewed nine points that the Commission members had raised at the last meeting: 1. Concern about the size of the dining deck. The applicants have reduced the deck slightly and relocated the bike path to nearly its original alignment. 2. Concern for the need to restrict permitted uses within the ski base recreational facility. The applicants have not proposed any changes. 3. Concern about constructing five stories. Given the existing building mass with the mansard roof; the fact that building is condominiumized and a reality of redeveloping the building is the unlikelihood of altering the space within the 4th floor condos; the introduction of the desirable gabled roof and the improved sun/shade conditions, the staff supports the fifth floor element. 4. Concern with potential difficulties providing delivery nd loading service, especially to the ski base/recreation facility. The staff feels existing loading zones on Hanson Ranch Road and Bridge Street could service the project, or loading could be accmmodated through the Golden Peak House. rx 5. Concern over the seasonal enclosure for a portion of the dining deck. The applicants have not changed this element of the proposal, staff saw little concern given the enclosure's ability to retract both the roof and wall systems. 6. Desire to see both aspects of the project developed simultaneously. Staff suggested the PEC make this a condition of approval if they desire. 7. The dedication to the Town of the remaining portions of Tract E. 8. Questions were raised concerning the ski race finish area and the proposed gateway improvements to Vail Mountain. The revised site and landscape plan show improvements to this area including a ramp as opposed to a staircase. 9. Concern about the relationship of the building to the possible relocation of Seibert Circle. Staff feels that the design of the building can stand on its own merits regardless of whether or not the circle is relocated or stays in its present location. Peter Jamar, planner for the applicants, stated Ghat. he felt there would not be additional need for service and delivery, that the size of the deck-was comparable to those in other ski towns, that the design of the temporary enclosure. allowed the windows and roof to be retracted, that both parts of the project could be developed simultaneously, but that Tract E must remain in VA's control. He discussed uses, and stated that a certain amount of flexibility was needed to make the project work. He added that the Agriculture and Open Space zone was different from the Green Belt and Natural Open Space zone district in that a certain amount of development was allowed. John Perkins, architect for the applicants, showed a model of the deck enclosure and described the changes. Dave Yoder, a mechanical engineer, explained where the ventilation exhaust system would be placed and stated that the vent would not be larger than 6 square feet in size. Jim Viele acknowledged the receipt of many letters, some in favor of the project, and many opposed . He then asked for input from the public. Dick Georgie, representing a group of owners in the Golden Peak House, stated that they did not agree with parts of the proposal, though they were in favor of remodeling the building without any financial .gain to themselves. He referred to a letter from Keith Brown and stated that his group agreed wholeheartedly with Keith's letter. They were not in favor of 2- . .! the commercial area between themselves and the ski slopes. He mentioned that there were restrictive covenants pertaining to Tract E. He added that they were not against the underground development, but were against the deck enclosure, and the deck itself. Mr. Georgie stated that they also wanted to make sure the building was improved simultaneously with the commercial expansion. Elli Caulkins, a resident of Mill Creek Circle, protested the deck and the underground expansion. Laurel ?, manager of the Sport Stalker, spoke in favor of the expansion. Steve Berkowitz, a resident of Mill Creek Circle, spoke against the project, stating that the original covenants established Tract E as open space, and he felt the action would be precedent setting. Arnold Bessinger, an owner in the Golden Peak House, did not want to see commercial space in common green space. Teke Simmonett, manager of Vail Ski Rentals, spoke against the underground uses. Jack Curtin, representing Mrs. Hill, stated that he was hearing for the first time that Tract E was a developable piece of property. Pepi Gramshammer felt the building would crowd the area, would impact parking, it was too high, and the open space must remain. Bob Lazier from the Tivoli spoke against any development of Tract F which is next to the Tivoli. Ron Riley, one of the applicants, explained his viewpoints on the project . Mark Donaldson spoke in favor of the proposal. The Commmission then gave their comments: Peggy Osterfoss stated that she would like to see some significant landscaping on the front (Seibert Circle) side of the building. She felt the gateway had been improved. She felt the deck was positive in that it did give people a place to watch skiers. Peggy asked what percentage of the deck would be enclosed and Perkins told her it would be about 1/3. She stated that she would be happier if the deck were pulled back a little and made smaller. She felt the base facilities were positive. Bryan Hobbs abstained from comment. 3 ,R Jim Viele stated that at Land Use Plan meetings he had attended, there was strong support against upzoning. He felt the uses should be limited to those truly public, i.e., restrooms, ticket sales, etc. He felt the remainder of Tract E should be dedicated to the Town "as had been represented for. years." Jim felt that Tract E should be restricted to the current underlying zone district and felt that this was the essence of the issue. Diana Donovan felt. the problem to focus on was changing the underlying zone district. She added that if 47~ of the Golden Peak owners were against the proposal and could prevent it from happening, perhaps the PEC was wasting their time. Diana was concerned that the deliveries would increase with the increase density. She felt the two phases should either be done simultaneously or that the additions to the Golden Peak House should be done first. Diana was extremely concerned about the use of Tract E. Sid Schultz said his two main concerns were how to deal with the rest of the Golden Peak owners and the covenants on Tract E. He agreed there must be a master plan. Sid felt that this was the No. 1 portal to Vail Mountain. He felt some type of landscaping of the front of the building was needed. He still ~~ .had a problem with the 5 foot .increase in height of the .building .and felt .it was inconsistent -with the two and three - .stony buildings.around it:_ He.pointed-cut that the Golden Peak House had always been taller than. the buildings around it~®it was in need of a face lift, .but Sid felt the-face lift could be accomplished without an increase in height. Pam Hopkins agreed that planning is compromise, and was disappointed that there could not have been more compromise. .• She felt 5 stories was too high. S.he felt the uses of the underground space should be pure public uses.. She wondered if the Golden Peak House could add fewer units and maintain four stories. Grant Riva agreed•that the Golden Peak House was in need of upgrading. He read the purpose of the Special Development District from the Town zoning code. He was in favor of the suggested improvements to the building and pointed out that the increase in overall height was only 5 feet. Grant felt the _ gateway was a definite improvement for access.to the mountain. He felt that if the deck were entirely enclosed, he would be against the enclosure, but felt that haw•ing,•the open deck -outweighed having part of it enclosed. Tom Braun read the conditional uses for he .Agricultural and Open Space zone district and Peter Jamar pointed out that private clubs were allowed. Peggy asked Ron Riley if he were interested in reducing the size of the deck, and Riley replied -that•it would not be large enough as it was proposed. Peggy 4 f felt the issue must relate to the available space for the deck, not whether it was adequate to serve Vail Mountain. Peter Jamar pointed out other places where the applicants had compromised, such as restricting the use of the units, the uses underground, improving the land beyond their property. The following is-the motion and conditions of approval as recorded by the staff of the Community Development Department. The precise language of these conditions is subject to formal review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Jim Viele moved to recommend approval of the rezoning of Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing and Proposed Tract E- 1 to Special Development District No. 20. with the following conditions: 1. The size of the proposed dining deck and the seasonal enclosure of the deck be reduced by 1/2. 2. The uses permitted on Tract E will be limited to those allowed in the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. 3. Delivery and loading to Tract E will be provided through the Golden Peak House Building internally. 4. The construction of the Golden Peak Building and the ski base facility shall be done simultaneously, or the construction of the Golden Peak-House Building shall precede the ski base facility. 5. Vail Associates shall dedicate the remainder of Tract E to the Town of Vail. 6. A comprehensive drainage plan shall be submitted (and approved by the Town Engineer) and approvals for the relocation of utilities and easements shall be provided by affected utility companies prior to final DRB approval. 7. The developer is responsible for relocating the bike path (as generally shown on the site plan), and the two mature pine trees on the south side of the project shall be relocated in the area of Pirate Ship Park. In the event these trees die within ]:2 months of relocation, the applicant is responsible for placement of spruce trees of 20 feet high or more. 8. The Town of Vail presently maintains the lawn behind the Golden Peak House Building. The Public Works Department will require indemnification from the owners against any damages to the underground structure prior to resuming maintenance in this area. This area must remain useable to the general public - no roping or fencing off will be allowed. 5 9. Owners' use restriction as outlined in Section 17.26.060 of the Municipal Code shall apply to these 6 new units proposed in the Golden Peak House (or an equivalent number of units). 10. The inclusion of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the Golden Peak House may be incorporated into the approved development plan. Final determination as to the appropriateness of these trees shall be made subject to the outcome of the Vail Village Streetscape Conceptual Design study (to be completed in the summer of 1988). 11. The applicants' participation in public improvements shall be accomplished by participation in a "mini-special" improvement district to redesign and relocate Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district to redesign and relocate Seibert Circle if and when one is formed. An equitable manner of crediting the applicants' contribution for Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district for Vail Village will be established, if and when a Village-wide district is formed. 12. A construction schedule shall be submitted and approved by the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a building permit. The intent of this schedule is to minimize impacts on the Village during .construction. Diana Donovan seconded the motion. The vote was 6 in favor, none against, with Hobbs abstaining. Pam Hopkins moved and Grant Riva seconded to approve the minor subdivision. This approval was conditional upon Council approval of the SDD request. The vote was 6-0-1. Pam moved and Grant seconded to approve the exterior alteration. This approval was conditional upon Council approval of the SDD request. The vote was 6-0-1. 6 2. Appeal of a staff decision concerning a home occupation permit for Bowling Alley Pizza at 2754 South Frontage Road. Appellants: Darlene and Steve Schweinsberg Tom Braun stated that the applicant asked to table this item until the next meeting. Diana moved and Bryan seconded to table this appeal, and the vote was 7-0 to table. 3. A request for an amendment to a development plan in the Ski Base/Recreation zone district in order to construct a children's center in the area of the temporary children's center at Golden Peak ski base. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Pam Hopkins and Bryan Hobbs abstained from commenting on this project or on voting on it. Rick Pylman explained the request and said the staff recommended approval with two conditions and a note regarding Design Review Board approval. Jack Hunn, representing the applicant, discussed the proposal. He explained that the VMRD required that Vail Associates relocate two tennis courts and the volleyball courts. There was a possibility of locating the volleyball courts east of the soccer field. He showed site plans, floor plans, elevations and perspectives. Hunn stated that VA would provide $10,000 for control gates or will rough ~n the electrical elements for the control gates to be constructed at a later date by the Town. VA will also landscape from the corner to the bus stop. As far as contributing the the sidewalk on the north side of Vail Valley Drive, this could be dealt with in the same way as the control gates (with a cash contribution). Hunn pointed out that the contributions and improvements constituted 17~ of the budget for the children's center. Regarding using colored concrete for the sidewalk, Hunn stated that this was difficult to get the color to match when patching the concrete, so VA was not in favor of colored concrete. Sid stated that another alternative would be pavers. Jack felt that pavers were too expensive, and pointed out that there was no precedent for pavers in the area. Sid replied that the pavers could be extended with Phase II. Diana asked how VA would keep skiers from skiing into the newly relocated tennis courts. Jack stated that a rope. maze would be used and also perhaps use race fencing. Rick Pylman stated that the staff supported having the tennis court construction delayed for one year and putting money for the relocation into an escrow account. Bob. Lazier, owner of 7 •~ the Tivoli, was in favor of this approach, also. Diana asked about trees that were affected. Hunn replied that the major trees by the new building would be protected. He added that if the tennis courts were relocated, some trees would have to be moved. Diana wanted to see VA control the parking on Chalet Road. She wondered what would happen to the space in Phase II that was originally to be the children's center. Hunn said it had not been decided, but that there were many possibilities. This change would be looked at when approval for Phase II was brought in. Diana felt the berm between the two phases needed to be landscaped. She suggested that the bus stop at Manor Vail needed to be moved as well as Manor Vail's entrance and expressed the desire that the traffic in the area from the Ramshorn to the Vail Ski Club building be looked at more carefully and addressed before approval of Phase I by the Design Review Board. She wished to see sidewalks and lights in the area. Jim Viele had the same concerns the staff expressed in their memo. He recommended something other than cribbing if the tennis courts were constructed south of the existing courts west of the existing base building.. Viele felt interlocking pavers of high strength could be used at the pedestrian drop- off area in Phase I and this concern should be passed to the Design Review Board. Peggy was not in favor of the proposed relocation. of the tennis courts. ..She felt the sidewalk on the north side of Vail Valley Drive should be done now, rather than wait to construct it. She felt VA should consider Jim's suggestion of interlocking pavers. Hunn replied that he wanted to have the pavers as an option. Peggy felt the bus stop was unacceptable as proposed, and VA must make it aesthetically acceptable. Hunn replied that he understood. Grant Riva agreed with the comments. He wondered about the view impact and Hunn felt the view would be improved by removing the modulars and building an attractive building. Grant also seconded Peggy's feelings about the tennis courts. Jim Viele discussed the parking situation. He said that 48 spaces would be required for parking and that the Town was falling behind in required parking spaces. Viele asked for direction from the Town •Council regarding the ski base facilities and the need for parking. Hunn replied that the facility was somewhat unique in that it was a drop-off only. The building would hold 500 children, averaging perhaps 25.0 children, 40% of whom would come by bus, leaving 150 cars,. with 19 spaces. be provided. VA felt that this was an adequate number. 8 Viele stated that the total Golden Peak area was deficient in parking and pointed out that the children's center would be using 45 employees. Diana asked if the children's center would be used in a similar way in the summer, and Hunn replied that it would. Diana moved and Peggy seconded to recommend approval to amend the Ski Base/Recreation district with the following conditions: 1. That VA 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 regarding the pedestrian circulation and walkway areas of the bus stop regarding colored concrete or pavers. 3. That the Town of Vail and Vail Associates study the total traffic situation between the Ramshorn and Ski Club Vail prior to construction of the children's center. The vote was 5 in favor, none against, with 2 abstaining, (Hopkins and Hobbs). 4. Presentation of the final plat for the Victorians at 4415 Bighorn Road. Applicant: WSN Partnership Rick Pylman explained that this application, Special Development District #18, received final approval from the Town Council in August of 1987. Grant asked about the overhead wires possibly being buried in the near future. Rick replied that they had talked about getting together with other property owners concerning burying the lines, but could not accomplish this and this was not a requirement for final approval. He added that the electric lines on this property were underground. John Nilsson, applicant, added that they tried to bury the power lines, but couldn't get Holy Cross to participate.. Rick added that they had hoped to have the line buried all the way to Pitkin Creek Park Condos. Diana wondered if it would be appropriate for the Town Council to write a letter to Holy Cross. Rick said that it would be, and that this was not the only area that was of concern to the Town. Peggy asked about the bike path and Rick said they were not required to build one. Bryan moved and Diana seconded to approve the final plat. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 9 ,,. `°ti t . ~ ~~ I ,{' ~1. SOFTBALL COUNTRY CLUB ~~ 4ei Atlanta Houston ~~l9/ Lowell Douglas, Owner February 17, 1988 Town Planning 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Re: Golden Peak House Renovations Dear Sirs: Let it be understood that Mr. Ron Riley emphatically speaks for my ownership of unit #208 in the Golden Peak House of Vail. Ron has given us excellent ideas and forsight into the needs of our particular structure. We and Vail need the newly designed plans done by Mr. Riley completed to insure a safe and secure building. The new visual appearance will also significantly improve the Vail image of the Golden Peak area. Please consider Mr. Riley's proposal a us as owners, and for the town of Vail. Sincerely, !~ ~ _. ~,~ ~~ ; ~ , ! Lowell C. Douglas cc: Mr. Ron Riley 228 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 LCD/pp big plus for 3500 N. DECATUR RD. SCOTTDALE, GEORGIA 30079 (404) 299-3588 ., ~- DONALD H. WELCH DRAWER V EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 January 21, 1988 A. Peter Patten, Jr. Director of Planning 7'vi~Ti~ OF ViAII, 'P5 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81687 Dear Peter: Please consider this letter in your deliberation on the Golden Peak House/Catacombs Underground Project. I am in and around that area frequently and feel as it exists now, it leaves a lot to be desired. It is an old building and in sad state of dlisrepair. In fact, it creates a dangerous situation in walking on that side-slope between the buildings to get to the lifts. As I understand the project these problems would be corrected. Another factor to be considered is that there is not a sufficient area for people to store ski equipment or to change into their equipment at the base of the lifts. The Catacombs Project would make space available for this and other skier services. In my opinion, we need to be more sensitive to the needs of the visitors and to provide a super quality experience. I feel this i!'o j eCt N?:1»1 (1 u{' °• l^.n~ w?`~' y'~ .~'i%,~i^, :..GCJci:~'_ t ul'i thi$ pvai iy providing space for services where they are needed. I know there are some aspects of green space that are impacted; but, I also feel that through the expertise of you and your staff that through landscaping you can actually enhance the green space. I know how hotly debated these building expansions a,nd resulting loss of green space can be, but often perception and reality are quite different. Generally through careful and detailed planning their impacts can be mitigated. ., x A. Peter Patten, Jr. Page 2 January 21, 1988 I am also sure that some competitive concerns from adjacent businesses have been expressed. Being a small business owner I can appreciate their fear, but in my opinion, competition and a free market are always the best path to follow. I feel the benefits of the project far outweigh the negative impacts. I hope you see the merits of this project and recommend approval. Warmest regard to you and your staff. I remain, Respectfully submitted, C;,~ Donald H. Welch DHW/lw LOCKEWILL, INC. 1226 AMBASSADOR BLVD. SAINT LOUIS. MISSOURI 63132 W. GRANT WILLIAMS 11 PRESIDENT February 2, 1988 Planning & Environmental Coalmittee Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Members: As long-time homeowners on Mill Creek Circle, we have avidly supported the many good things that have happened to Vail. However, the proposed development and addition to the Golden Peak House, the deck expansion on the Green Belt--designated open space-land, and the V.A. permit to build underground facilities are clearly not in Vail's best interests. The encroachment and development of the open tracts presently estab- lished in Vail Village, no matter how completed, would be a fatal blow to Vail. The proposed changes would turn a charming, beautiful area into a junky, over-commercialized hodgepodge. It would be tragic, short-sighted, and inexcusable to allow this to happen. Please help us stop this development. Please don't allow."progress" to ruin our town. Cordially, L W. Grant Williams 3 2 Mill Creek Circle Vail, CO 81657 ~EC~p FEa 1 8 1~~8 U~~~, ~~ ~ ~.~ ~ . ~.c~., ~aA / ~r.«. yy u~ Cr G~~._- ~` y~° 2Z tiz ~ 7 ~ I QQ~ } P~z~~ /~~ ~ c` C c,t-fit f.G~ d f L. ~-i~..~E:L'/~Z~ LG' c~s~ • ~-' ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ c(~ -~ ~C.r~G~ ~ C~-c~~ c., L-~r LAC G ~'L ~SZ .~ , j c+t-G-t G iL{.~-~ ~i~{ cif /~{.i G~P.Z,G( L~'(.'~~ `` ~"`~ (n,~ ~,, Q, /~ ~-trv~ c~c.t.~~ ,uvi D-tx.` tit .~~ ~ ~ ~t-t c.~ ~S.,t ~ Lt,-~-i~ ~'~"~,~-t, ow, ,t:+.~ ~.~c<,,z,~ (sec ~ i '~ ~{ cis ~y ~.-c,~t,~ .vJ ~,__p ~. ~-~ 278 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail Colorado 81657 30 / 476-5667 CE / tl ~ ~C~ ~ ~ !' z ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ a: ~ -~ ~6YCGc.,i~ ~ Vim'-~-~' ~ ~~Z. ~ ' ~~ r ~ ~ ` ~u~ C~~Ti ~/li P ~ ~ C~ ,~ ~ ~~ '/~~ ~ ~~ O : ~~~ ~ i ^~ tf Cn / i /d /1 ~i1~ ~-~C ~~ ~n /~i S S i n ~ ~. '`-[GiL~p.it- -~ /`C Z.d/'~~. L-U'f"S A f ~ ~.7(OC~c 2-~ L.x-~ ~/,i~(dQ e i -: i'1 ~J ~ 1- Div vos c.Q( ~r~~ e c ~ S e. c~~ 7~o C o ,-,-.t~.•...c_ r~ ~ ~-o..;4c SL a.n c!•..'fc.c{~.,`aQ i.r.i~rv ve~i ,~., ~r~..~- co r-c_ v; CCsz~ .e ; y-G..~ o ~~ r'~-PY'~-~e~~s ~ ~ u`le~t~~c J,'o ~o.~%c~~/-.- ~~ `f-~.~. vr~'.~; ~~. ~v v~,..rk-,7'. vim- ~ S o Gi a~--t~S m~..Q~'. w~-~-G. (f-~ ~ "S e ff -~e/lS "' Zvi c( ~..~?v,-~ /3e,E.f~ o~~ S~tic..~.. w~alu.C...Q h~ : n..a,e^,~~u.,'~~d ~re.-cx..~ ~v ~~~~; ~. c~ r4~v~..Q b ~~iJ. Zo,,~ ~o~ ~f~•e ~EQ.~-~E.~n~~`~ v; ((.<~ e . C O ~,, ~>'u-~~ i '~'t9i PiV`P/~.y `-~ l'~pi~.4 ~A~f~- Go ~-..~. ~ Y`Q--C-4~ ~ i Z~ ~~ J'~Z~( G~ /`eG/'7 ~J CX'F "S Giti~ lil0 f" s ~ ~'~ (~ li/~ G~/+~C/1% ]~ ~c.~f cZ~ e co •-, o,.,i,; c_ n.C L e.4~i ~ ~ ~~ i., S c.~.~-c- ~1~-~- ~ c-~..C~' ~ s~ et~~et % e.~ csz_. ~l ~ a ~1L . l o o~ / 17 (a,,,, ~w,,Q ~ctA rem ~..~-~e_.~ r ~ ~S~f~ ~ S ~~ G~i ~`c~...,Qf - f o re. c.~..`~„ • `T1..~ o~~ ~ %., .~ ~C.in,~n.s a{~ V~.`Q c.N c~ s{~~( ~1.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~a.7- ~ cw,~w~-fi V~,C' ~s s o u ~.~e s ~.v o ~ re, ~o mss; dept ~l~s a,t -~o ~ ~ r~.~. ~-1,.~.t- ~~.-o -~'sz ~~ ~ D ~ ~ %u d cr, c~ ~ v~,~.i s s I ~ --~ -tom. ~./ G~,; S P rb j c. c~- c-c~-+'f ~'1 ~..c Lo,n.r•.c..u wl w,~( Go.,~.Y•~., ; ~ i -,'~vl ~ ~ ~. S e.~a:.'~~ S; ~ ~~ ~~. y ~~ $8 Charles A. Meyer 375 Mill Creek Circle Vail, CO 81657 February 5, 1988 The Planning Commission TOWN OF VAIL Vail, CO 81657 Dear Planners: 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 1 i berty of writing to you and Ron Phi 11 i ps and the Town Council. It may seem that three identical letters are a redundancy. Yet, you and Ron Phillips 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 with 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 ~ e.JAY A. PRECOURT 1560 Broadway, Suite 2000 Denver, Colorado 80202 February 4, 1988 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Members: I have just been informed of the proposal to create Special Development District #20 and the plans relating to it. I have been a Vail homeowner since 1973 and have lived on Mill Creek Circle since 1979. I would like to voice my concern and objec- tions to the proposal. The proposal would encroach upon the open tracts presently established in the greenbelt area of Vail Village. While I am sympathetic to all of the planning that has gone into this project, I feel it is unfair to the nearby property owners if this commer- cialization of Tract E is approved. Tract E is a very valuable open space area used by all age groups because of its general park atmosphere and destroying part of that Tract through commercialization would be a breach of faith with the people of Vail. If we compromise the designated green space set aside for Vail villagers now, where will it stop? Please reject the proposal to create Special Development District #20. Very trul yo , ' ay A. Precourt JAF' : PP Donna Meyer ~~ ~~?y~~~ _ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~v~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ Fitzhugh Scott Box 1773 Vail, Colorado 81658 February 4 , 19 8 8 Planning Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re; Golden Peak Building Expansion Dear Commissioners: My first reaction to the proposed addition to the Golden Peak House was favorable. I believe that the additions to the existing building and the basic architectural changes are well-conceived and will result in an aesthetic improvement, more compatible with the rest of Bridge Street. Also, my first reaction to Vail Associates' ski-related facilities below grade on the south side of the building was also favorable. I believe that what is good for V.A, is good for all Vail, and I recognize the financial advantage..„ of building on land owned by V.A. as opposed to negotiating with the U.S.F.S. for use of the land just west of Chair #1. However, I now believe that any encroachment on the land which the "Founders" of Vail reserved as open space sets a very dangerous precedent. When Caulkins and Higbie and Brown, Peter Seibert, Tweedy and Fowler, Dick Hauserman and myself approved the construction of the Golden Peak building, we, at the same time, established Tract E as permanent open space. We did it to create a park- like environment between the primarily commercial village and the residential area around Mill Creek Circle. To violate this concept is, in my opinion, not only a grave planning error, but an unpardonable breach of faith and a precedent for further violations in the future. I therefore respectfully urge you to reject any and all proposed construction on Tract E, including areaways, stairs, decks, etc. S~nc r rs, Fi z u h Scott cc: Vail Town Council 3~' " _+~4:, . - ~; qffi_ January 22, 1988 Planning Commission Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Dear Members of the Planning Commission: We have had the opportunity to review the plans for the joint venture between Vail Associates and the Golden Peak House and would like to support their development plan. We feel that it greatly improves that immediate area and, therefore, improves the image of Vail. The addition of a larger deck provides more area for apres ski activities in the winter, something that our guests really enjoy. •And we like the idea of more skier services right at the base of the mountain, as is found in LionsHead. We will be out of town during your Monday meeting but would like to support this project with our letter. Sinc~ere~ly, ~s~~ (/ , Helen anG~ Fritch Owners Sitzmark Lodge Year Around Resort Lodging r~~ ~~.,~ 183 Gore Creek Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476-5001 ~ ~'a:.l, ~l$Z~11~~~i Lodge ]H[ P B associates, L.P. 888 Seventh Avenue, New York, N.Y.10106 February 5, 1988 Mr. Tom Braun, Town Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Tom: We are strongly opposed to proposal SDD #20 concerning the rezoning of Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing and proposed Tract E-1 to Special Development District No. 20. We learned of the rezoning request before the Vail Planning Commission only today and we are appalled at the proposal's intent to remove open land intended for recreational or agricultural use and replace this space with commercial property. The proposed above ground terrace will replace a park that is one of Vai1's most attractive areas. It is a public meeting ground for mothers with young children and all of Vail's residents. If we make precedent of removing open land from the very heart of Vail, there is no way to stop future encroachment. As homeowners on Mill Creek Circle, we would be directly affected by the increased noise and traffic the commercial terrace would incur. As a Village resident, I am outraged by the blatant disregard for the open space commitment the Village planners foresaw. The alterations to Golden Peak House defy the Commercial Core guidelines. The proposers are asking for a readjustment of the restriction that mock the Village's demand that all applicants must adhere to the same guidelines. This infringe- ment of the Vail skyline is not a dire need as cited on page 9 of the Community Development Department's memo to you dated January 25, 1988. The Urban Design Plan did not intend for open space to become commercial space and your approval would be only the beginning of the commercial abuse of our Village. The increased traffic and noise are not small factors to be dismissed and since you are considering endorsing a plan outside all reasonable GRFA limits, we oppose this project. Mr. Tom Braun February 5, 1988 Page 2 We feel that our opposition is reasonable and just. We will be forced to pursue legal action if the Council rezones in favor of commercial abuse of Vail's open spaces. .The Planning Commission should not lend its approval to a project which is so destructive to the values of the community and the rights of the surrounding property owners. Your failure to enforce the existing regulations would send a message to future Vail homeowners that they cannot rely on the community's commitment to retain its natural space and beauty. '~-S~ncerely y s, - oward Beejr~k~o~wFitz Jud ~ Berko ' tz "~ q // ~ -teve Berkowitz February 5, 1988 Mr. Peter Patten Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Patten: My name is Ben Hambleton and I am the Chairman/CEO of Sport Stalker. We occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of space in the Golden Peak House in Vail. I attended your meeting of January 25, 1988, where after lengthy discussion, Mr. Riley's project was tabled. I have some comments relative to the project but felt that this letter might be better received than if I had verbalized these feelings during the meeting due to the lengthy discussion that had already transpired resulting in what appeared to be very fatigued ears. The Sport Stalker operates ski shops located at the base of almost every major ski area in Colorado and Utah. As a result, we are very familiar with what each of these ski areas is providing their customers in the form of base facility amenities. It is my opinion that Vail would rank dead last in this area of service. As we all know, the ski industry today is extremely com- petitive and all of the major areas in the Rockies are competing for the same customer. The area that offers the best total experience is the one that is going to capture a larger part of the market. My feeling is that the base skier service facility being provided by Mr. Riley's project is essential to the continued growth and competitive position that Vail must maintain. This appears to be the only chance that Vail will have to upgrade these necessary facilities. You cannot allow this opportunity to slip by. Also, you can be assured that the facility is not large enough to accommodate a full service ski shop and also provide the necessary skier services. Obviously, the remodel to the existing building would benefit our business. Therefore, my comments on that subject are less appropriate, but I must echo many of the comments made during the meeting that the building as it stands today is just plain ugly and the remodel cannot possibly be considered anything but positive for the whole community. The .expansion of the space, in my mind, is not even an issue simply because without the expansion it should be obvious to anyone that the economics of the project will not work. POST OF'FIC'E BOX 772968 S'CEAhiBOAT SPei~:cs. Coi.oe~no 80477, (303) 8 79-4536 y:} ::. =4; .r :~v. s: ._ ._~F.. rf. .... .f~_ _; }_ ~Y ~i,., ':~. ~_ __ ..~~. _ ::a __ :;~~ Mr. Peter Patten February 5, 1988 Page 2 I personally feel Ron Riley should be complimented for his perseverance and dedication to improving the Golden Peak House and his willingness to assume the inherent risks that a project of this magnitude has. I will close by officially stating that the whole Sport Stalker organization is in favor of the project and hope that a positive decision can be rendered in time for construction to begin this summer. Sincerely, ~/~l~ Ben Hambleton Chairman of the Board BH/kjr KEITH L. BROWN 2100 COLORADO STATE BANH BUILDING i6OO BROADWAY D ENVER. COLORADO 80202 January 29, 1988 Planning & Environmental Commission Town of Vail, Vail, Colorado Dear Members: I have just learned of the proposal to create Special Development District 4620 and all of the plans that are related to it. As an original founder of Vail Associates and a homeowner on Millcreek Circle since the beginning, I would like to give you my thoughts and concerns. Quite simply, I am concerned and strongly object to any encroachment or development on the open tracts presently established in Vail Village. Tract E is a particularly valuable open space, used as a children's play area, bicycle path, and general-park type environment, and I think any commercialization of the tract would be a terrible breach of faith with the people of Vail. Once the process of making exceptions starts, it is almost impossible to stop. Developers look at open areas with great yearn- ing and are very adept aC developing plans that for one reason or another, have great attraction. This present plan which combines a much-needed ski base/recreation facility with a blatent commercialization of Tract E, is an excellent example. It has obvious financial attraction to both Vail Associates and the owners of Golden Peak House, but it is unfair to adjacent property owners. I see no problem in permitting the Golden Peak House to remodel in accordance with the present zoning and that is certainly not anything that PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 29, 1988 Page 2, Continued concerns me. I also have no problem with per- mitting an underground development of Tract E for the ski base/recreational facility. These developments can both take place without the necessity of destroying part of Tract E by per- mitting commercial use. I would urge the Planning Commission to reject this proposal and not go down the path of com- mercializing our open space. This is an exam- ple of "the camel's nose under the tent" and will make it difficult, if not impossible, for future Planning Commissions to reject other "worthwhile" developments. Yours very truly, _ ~ i ~~ ,~~ %~ ~ I~~ith~L~ Brown/~` Z ~L. cmm Karl A. Hoevelmann 4207 East Columbine Drive #5 Vail, CO 81657 February 8, 1988 The Town of Vail Planning Commission Vail, CO 81657 Gentlemen: As an owner in The Golden Peak Condominium Association operating a business known as Karl's Hair Studio, and being unable to attend the meeting of The Planning Commission on Monday, February 8, 1988, this represents my official opposition to the plan of renovation of The Golden Peak House proposed by Ron Riley. ,;~,i ,~,/ -~ arl A. Hoevelmann, Owner n Join enancy wi~i: l~ Ursulla M. Hoevlmann, Owner Joint Tenancy H IGB I E FU ND~ STD. HARLEY G.~HIGBIE, JR. GENERAL PARTNER February 1, 1988 Planning & Environmental Commission TOWN OF VAIL, Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Commission Members: With regard to the proposal to create Special Develop- ment District ~~20, I wish to express my opposition to same. I am concerned since I have owned a home on Mill Creek Circle and I was one of the group that started Vail. Basically, I object to building on "open space." It is a violation of the planning process and should not be subjected to the special desires of individual interests. Thank you for your consideration. Sin erely, Harle G. Hj! bie, Jr. cmm 21~''O COLORADO STATE BANK BUILDING DENVER, COLORADO 80202 (303) 861-4230 Olson Industries Inc. 4550 Jackson Street Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone (303) 399-4623 February 2, 1988 Planning & Enviromental Committee Town of Vail Vail, CO 81658 Dear Memeber: I have just become aware of the proposal to create Special Development District.#20 and all of .the plans related to it. Rather than repeat my concerns about this proposal, I am attaching a copy of a copy of Keith Brown's letter which he had kindly forwarded to me. I completely support his point of view. I was in the original limited partnership and built a house on Mill Creek Circle in 1963. I was also a member of the first Board of Directors of Vail Associates Inc. I clearly remember the battles that. went on between developers and citizens concerned about enviromental amenities. Fortunately, we did preserve some open space and green belt areas which contribute to the ambaince of Vail. I strongly urge that you reject this proposal, and that you resist all attempts to destroy the limited and irreplaceable open spaces that many of us fought so hard to preserve years ago. Yours Sincerely, Richard H. Olson Divisions RobertsOPerfectionTip~Partrade . 4~ A K H pis ~ w ~ °~ d °,~ ~ Ar rtie Visra [iohn / v l 7 ~ ~ ~~Gl~L-~i ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~~:~.c'a FEB ~ 8 ~ga~ ~` ac aw ~G ~ ~~~'~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ e~ _ vJ~~ ~c..~c- !~•--C ~4~ .emu-?h~~ ~''~ ~~yv~~o~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~/~ ~ ~ - ~~~.~a~~~ ~~ti ~~~~~~~ ~~-~' `~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ l G~ G~~f ~~' ~ ,~G Q-C.~~ Gc ~¢~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Q~~: r ~~ ~ _ ~~ 278 Hanson Ranch Road. Vail Colorado 81657 303/ 476-5667 ~~~~~ / ~ G sj-~~/ s~7-LG~~J•'~G~-~ .~L~~-G~Lar~c-~:~ ~c.~fi~-~'f-C~ i ~ ,~ 7~._.~, l Y iy~ _ / -- ~`(.~-~ ~? ; -T'`-~` ~/Ct-cam / ~7LM" %~~G~~ ~jC~~.C1 GC~~~- o'Z ~~ /~ v -/, ' ~. .,C_. ~ ''iK-rc-'~.'~" /~ ~'.~f:.--~i •~NG~'G:1~~ ...EGG"~w~L Gc'4.~j~ ~,2 !~1 / ~~ ~ ~~'`-'~'~~ :~-mac?. ~/Gt~-tom GttQ ..~J~l~'C-~ ~,~ ~~.~LieG ~~tL'-~.~.L~'.~r/ ~ ~ .. G' ~G~~..., ~~ ~~ ~ .~ ~; ~.~ „~¢wc,t ~~u%~~-e~ PLC-u'7z-G~.~.~~~-G~l~ ~~Cr1 ,~-~.-C~c.fC,~~G ..~ L~iU-~ ~~ O 7 G~-'C~ - jj ~/`''~~/ C~i, f~ liC~.r~' ~ ~ ~Y/\/ CL'rIGG~ G r~rC~E~ ~pyJ(/J~~-C~c. ~~~ ,~-~i--~~!...~ l'~c.z.~, ~%x~ --~-,cam=~,.._~~ ~c%ac__ Gr-s~.c.~i,~i ~~~c-~ G%" ~~~~~ , 278 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail Colorado 81657 303/ 476-5667 / t ( .~ '~ p v,~ , 1 ~~ ~~ ~i ~.r ~~~ ~~ ~~ l ~ La~ ~' ~ v c~~ g. }~~l~'~J FEB 1 8 198- l ~ L ~g-~' ~, a ,~ ~ i "~. --s ~~ ~ ~ _~ •~~ `1 I -} - ~ ; 3 I C~ I ~ ~~.,aa.k L~w-rie-. ,~ N wlJra~.r- .1 . c ' y~ c~-'~ ~ a )o ! L ~ ~ 1 ' ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~', 4 O _ ~ c~,~.,, C. In l 1 ~( , U 3 1 ~ ~ ~ -ate ~~...-.-. ~..~.s,.~-....-~ ~.. f ~ ~ '~ ~~ ~ ,~fi~~~ ~ ~~ ~,~~ ~ ~ ~ .,~. ca- ~. ~ c..~-vim , ,.1~-~~._h.m-~t1,c.-~.o ..a...~ i V ,1v-'~-~ vr.~~~- ~ ~-~ w-;_ , t~ emu'...- ~ . ; ~; ~ / ~-~-~- ^--~ ~ a~.,~-t.~ c.cs-~.r q~ -~,, -ems ~~.~.o.~. `'~ o~,~,~ . ~> F .,.,.. •,~r r„r: r; j, K,( l'cl1l. r :n!'Nr/r„ti, „-. .-:;r,~'. ~ .,J,ji . ^ z_ ~ r~~~ ~ s w.Lo --~ ~ ~ ~~,. dam- w ~~ ~.. ~~-~ ~.~}..~..~,~.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o~~~~ ~ ~ ~- 1%C~...-t.. ! J wu ~ c~ ~-t-~.- 1't~-a~,a~ ~ o..c_e. 1~.~-~s~-- ~~.P~ t~:~ ~ ~j A L u~ }7 ~Lc. UJL- . - ~' ~'`' ~c/J ~ .~.d w' ~ !~-~ ~2,~,~.c~ ~.U "~''V ~ ~1 ~ Gig OG..~ /~ G'~.c~- , o¢~ ~~l-2,cnscJJ °~ ~ t ~ ~ s (/ /~. ~ ~s tom. -- ~~-- ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '_ -~- ~~~ ~~ ~1~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ jam. k.u.. (Q ~ w ~~ /°~ ,~ ~ f ' f i/ (~ 1 !/J 'Ls- ~ O ~j } :1-le~ -t ~ /d~J~-cJ--Q~.~.~ 0-'L. f.~ U.c~ /~'~`~ Z.k-t.-t.e~ -mac,.-C ~t-~-~ (/-~.~, 1~C.t.c~L..~..~ Lo a c~.~ .Q.c.~r. ~. c.._ ~ G~-~a~. ~ Q.~.,-~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~~ [~L-~ ~ ~U L ~ CIi-ti ~ ~ V ~C.a1-Cf d ~~ Gam- L,c-.. °~Z-~ ~Lt-c~L_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~Ca--~ 2.d ~ ~.9c..+~-Y Gv e~L L Qom- L ~t~. ~P~- v vLC1~ Llama..-~UY~ ~c.v-~~cc ~ rx.. ~~.~~c. ~ w ~ C,~.. c. /JGu~ ~~,,.~~, 0 V f~ ~. .~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ,. ~'~ - y - J ~- f~ ~ P~t,.,LT .t,c. v f.~- ~ ~ ~ ~.~.: t ~ j qc~ /~.t,~. f'~-~ Jl,C,1~7 it c....~ _ J /t- ~~ c~. ti o Lc~ ct,,, v ~ f f c c~ e. ~~ ~.LCU~Q L-cn. ~ ~~~ ~~ wed ~ -~- ~L~ ~~ l ~ l /~" Gu.~ cv c~~ ~ ~a~ C~v~w~,.,~.,~S Gc~~a~, b c-c~.~~ ~.:._ ~J y1,C C1~c.~.-.- ~Q.t~t.. ~K~. ~Gt a~tcx. G ~~~~ vim/ ~ ~. ~ `` ~'.~',~ . r- kl ~~. ~.- J Ow ~ l.Li,.~-~ r ORDINANCE N0. 7 Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE REZONING (PROPOSED) TRACT E-1 FROM AGRICULTURAL/ OPEN SPACE TO SKI BASE/RECREATION AND ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 20 FOR (PROPOSED) TRACT E-1, VAIL VILLAGE FIFTH FILING AND LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal code authorizes Special. Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, application has been made for Special Development District approval for .certain parcels of property within the Town known as (proposed) Tract E-1, Uail Village Fifth Filing and Lots A and 8, 81ock 2, Vail Village First Filing to be known as Special Development District No. 20, commonly referred to as the Golden Peak House; and WHEREAS, the rezoning of (proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing from Agricultural/Open Space to Ski Base/Recreation is necessary in order to allow for the range of uses and activities proposed for SDD No. 20; and WHEREAS, the proposed development plan is consistent with both the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended approval of the proposed Special Development District No. 20 with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish said Special Development District No. 20. NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report. The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for SDD No. 20. Section 2. Rezoning of (Proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing. t ~ (Proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of .287 acres, more or less, is hereby rezoned from Agricultural/Open Space to Ski Base/Recreational. Section 3. Special Development District No. 20. Special Development District No. 20 and the related development therefore, are hereby approved for the development of (proposed) Tract E-l, Vail Village Fifth Filing, and Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of .4457 acres, more or less. Section 4. Purpose Special Development District No. 20 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail, to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the Town, and to provide recreational related facilities to serve residents and guests of the Vail. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and meets all applicable design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special Development No. 20 which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of-the development standards in either the Commercial Core I or the Ski Base/Recreation zone district. To further respond to the unique aspects of this special development district, SDD No. 20 is delineated by Development Area A and Development Area B. Development Area A of SDD No.20 shall generally apply to Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Development Area B of SDD No. 20 shall generally apply to (proposed) 'Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing. SDD No. 20 is compatible with the upgrading . and redevelopment of the community while maintaining its unique character. Section 5. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD No. 20 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development of Areas A and B within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by John M. Perkins, Architect, and consists of the following documents: 1. Site plan, dated January 4, 1988 2. Typical floor plans and roof plan, sheets 2 through 8 3. Elevations, dated January 4, 1988. 4. Vicinity Map, sheet 10 2 5. Finish area vicinity map, sheet 11 6. Preliminary landscape plan, dated 10/6/86 7. Environmental Impact Report and Development Proposal as prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. B. The development plan shall establish parameters for the following development standards: Setbacks Setbacks shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above. Height Building heights shall be as indicated on the elevations and roof plan listed above. Coverage Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above. Landscaping The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as generally indicated on the preliminary landscape plan listed above. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for final approval. Parking. Parking demands generated by this development shall be met by payment into the Town of Vail parking fund as established in Section 18.52.160 B of the Municipal Code. Section 6. Density Existing development on the site consists of ZO dwelling units and 9,861 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area.. The approval of this development plan shall permit an additional 6 dwelling units, consisting of 6,114 square feet of GRFA. Total density permitted with the approval of this development plan consists of 26 dwelling units and 15,975 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA). Section 7. Uses A. Permitted, conditional and accessory uses for Development Area A shall be as set forth in the Commercial Core I zone district. B. Development Area B of SDD No. 20 is primarily intended to provide for the recreational base facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain. In addition, year around community events and activities, along with summer recreation uses, are encouraged to achieve multi-seasonal use of this facility. Permitted, conditional and accessory uses for Development Area B shall be as follows: 3 Permitted Uses - Lower Level The following uses shall be permitted within .the main structure at the lower level within Development Area B: 1. Lift ticket sales 2. Ski school lesson sales 3. Ski and boot locker rentals 4. Employee lockers 5. Ski storage facilities 6. Basket storage facilities 7. Ski repair 8. Ski and sport equipment rental 9. Recreational related accessory sales 10. Candy, snack, and sundry sales 11. Meeting room facilities 12. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities 13. Ski training center 14. Guest business and communication center 15. Children's Center 16. Host reception/reservation center 17. Public restrooms and changing areas 18. Special/community event center 19. Company offices--accessory to permitted and conditional uses, not to exceed 25% of the gross square footage of the facility. Permitted Uses, Upper Level A. The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the upper level of Development Area B: 1. Lift ticket sales 2. Ski school lesson sales 3. Ski and boot locker rentals 4. Employee lockers 5. Ski .storage facilities 6. Basket storage facilities 7. Ski repair 8. Meeting room facilities 9. Ski training center 4 10. Guest business and communication center 11. Children's center 12. Host reception/reservation center 13. Public restrooms and changing areas 14. Special/community event center 15. Company offices--accessory to permitted and conditional uses, not to exceed 25% of the gross square footage of the facility. B. The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the upper level of Development Area B provided the total floor area of these uses does not exceed 25% of the total gross footage of street level of Development Area B: 1. Ski and sport equipment rental Z. Recreational related accessory sales 3. Candy, snack and sundry sales 4. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities 5. Kitchen/food preparation facilities Permitted Uses, Deck Level The following uses shall be permitted on the deck level of Development Area B: 1. Restaurants in a seasonally enclosed facility as per approved development plan. 2. Cocktail lounges and bars in a seasonally enclosed facility as per approved development plan 3. Outdoor dining decks Section 8. Amendments Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by the Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. Section 9. Expiration The applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 18 months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work 5 toward completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District within the time limits imposed by the proceeding sub-section, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the Special Development District. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the approval of the Special Development District be extended, that the approval of the Special Development District be revoked, or that the Special Development District be amended. Section 10 Conditions of Approval for Special Development District 20. (These conditions of approval include only those conditions recommended by staff. Conditions recommended by the Planning and Environmental Commission are reflected in the cover memo dated March 1, 1988.) 1. A comprehensive drainage plan shall be submitted (and approved by the Town Engineer) and approvals for the relocation of utilities and easements shall be provided by affected utility companies prior to final DRB approval. 2. The developer is responsible for relocating the bike path (as generally shown on the site plan), and the two mature pine trees on the south side of the project shall be relocated in the area of Pirate Ship Park. In the event these trees die within 12 months of relocation, the applicant is responsible for placement of spruce trees of 20 feet high or more. 3. The Town of Vail presently maintains the lawn behind the Golden Peak House Building. The Public Works Department will require indemnification from the owners against any damages to the underground structure prior to resuming maintenance in this area. This area must remain useable to the general public - no roping or fencing off will be allowed. 4. Owners' use restriction as outlined in Section 17.26.060 of the Municipal Code shall apply to these 6 new units proposed in the Golden Peak House (or an equivalent number of units). 5. The inclusion of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the Golden Peak House may be incorporated into the approved development plan. Final determination as to the appropriateness of these trees shall be made subject to the outcome of the Vail Village Streetscape Conceptual Design study (to be completed in the summer of 1988). 6. The applicants' participation in public improvements shall be accomplished by participation in a "mini-special" improvement district to redesign and 6 relocate Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district to redesign and relocate Seibert Circle if and when one is formed. An equitable manner of crediting the applicants' contribution for Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district for Vail Village will be established, if and when a Village-wide district is formed. Section 11. 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. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Uail 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 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 7 INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of . 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 8 RESOLUTION NO. 5 Series of 1988 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE 1988-1992 WHEREAS, the Town of Vail adopted an initial Transit Development Plan in 1978 and Plan Updates in 1981 and 1986. WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Highways, Division of Transportation Development requested that the Town revise its plan; and WHEREAS, Colorado Department of Highways approval of this plan is required as a condition precedent in applying for Federal and State transit assistance; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Department of Public Works/Transportation completed a Transit Development Plan Update 1988-1992, forecasting ridership demands and fleet requirements through 1992; and WHEREAS, the Transit Development Plan Updated 1988-1992 has been reviewed by the Town of Vail Transportation and Parking Task Force made up of representatives from: Vail Town Council Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Vail Associates Vail Resort Association Colorado Department of Highways Eagle County Citizens-at-Large Vail Town Staff NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that: The Town Council hereby recognizes and adopts the Town of Vail Transit Development Plan Updated 1988-1992. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 1988. Kent Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk .j, .. ~:, ~ , T,bursday, February 25, 1988 -.i ~:. • ~ Vall ad campalg~ on hold as voters. kill , busin e~~ tax . By Henry pubroff ~ :De~~a- Pose susfneas w~~~e- ing a vote on a sales tax to replace. the defeated license fee.-But pros- Voters in Vail .defeated a special business tax, freezing the ski' ' ' pects for winning another vote and "getting a campaign rolling this town s. plan to launch a $600,000 publicity effort. , summer arefading fast, one Den- yer advertising. executive said. "I By a 305-231 margin, ~ voters . Tuesday turned down a pxoposed , think,, hey're going to be ham- strung for the summer." business license: fee' that Would have financed a campaign to pro- Even if the ~ad campaign is re- ' , mote the resort during the summer months. The percentage ,margin vived, it s likely to be much small- er than originally planned. "In? all . l was 57-93 ikelihood the town of Vail will. find ° ' The special-election result will something: The• question is from what source: and for how much?" cause .headaches for a number of , Denver ad agencies hat spent , said Ilan Christopherson, head' of Christopherson& Co a bidder for , thousands of dollars putting togeth- er bids for the campaign. The bids w ' . ., the contract.`"Sales. taxes are 'not the easiest things to accomplish " ere due 24 hours before Tues - day's vote ,, ~ . t '.• Other bidders included a team Vail businessmen who su orted ~ PP the effort are thinking about seek- led. by `Vail Associates, J. Walter Thompson's Denver office and see- e .. rai llenper advertising agencies. THE DENVER POST ~: lowo of uai '~ 75 south frontage road office of the town manager vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 February 24, 1988 Mr. David Sage Chairman Holy Cross Electric Association P. 0. Box 250 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 RE: Offer to Purchase Dear Dave: After discussion of your counter offer to sell the entire Holy Crass Electric Association site on the South Frontage Road between the Vail Associates shops facility and the Vail Professional Building to the Town of Vail for 100% of appraised value, the Vail Town Council wishes to offer $508,500 for the entire 53,856 square foot parcel with a down payment of $50,000 and the balance to be financed over twenty years at an interest rate of 6% per annum. This offer is for 90% of the appraised value of the land. The Vail Town Council believes the 10% discount for the Town of Vail is justifiable because Holy Cross Electric Association will not be required to pay the customary real estate sales commission of 10% in this transaction. This offer would be subject to final approval of the written contract by the Vail Town Council at a public Council meeting. The next Town Council meeting is Tuesday, March 1, 1988, and we would appreciate your response by that time if possible. Since y, Rondall U. Phil ips Town Manager RUP/bsc cc: Ed Grange, General Manager Vail Town Council associates, L.P. 888 Seventh Avenue, New York, N.Y.10106 February 24, 1988 Mr. Kent R. Rose 2905 Booth Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Rose, You are being asked to approve a V.A. proposal to rezone open land reserved for agricultural or recreational use to commercial space. We are strongly opposed to this plan to commercialize Vail's public spaces. It was the intent of Vail's founders to preserve the beauty and integrity of the land and not to completely commercialize the Village. The proposers' actions would be the beginning of the elimination of this buffer zone and would allow commercial pursuits for private profit on land that has been preserved for public use for 25 years. As Village residents, we are outraged by the blatant dis- regard for the open space commitment that the Village founders foresaw. Do we want an open air saloon 10 feet from the pirate ship park (a major playground for young children)? Will the bike path that would have to be rerouted be too close to the park to safely accommodate the children who play there? Are the maintenance and delivery vehicles needed to service these facilities so numerous that it would further clog our already overcrowded streets? Will the garbage pickup turcks become-even more of an eyesore and obstacle in walking the streets of the Village? Letter to Mr. Kent R. Rose February 24 Page 2 If this zoning change is approved, the precedent for re- moving Vail's open spaces from the public domain will be established and we will then have to seek court redress against every attempt at enroachment. If we make an exception in this area, we will have opened the door to total development of all of Vail's open land and closed the door on the preservation of beauty in our Village. It is disturbing that this proposal includes three separate and distinct parts, the merits of which should be discussed independently. The renovation of Golden Peak House is certainly desirable, but at what cost to the Village in the form of a large and unique gift to the .developer. The increased square footage equals 1780 of their alloted GRFA; an unparalled gift worth millions of dollars. The expansion of base lodge facilities may be desirable, but why underground and why a substantial proportion of the planned space being devoted to commercial pursuits. Vail citizens should not vote to support V.A. retail pursuits on public land. The Town Council should not lend its approval to a project which is so destructive to the values of the community and the rights of the existing property owners. Your .failure to enforce the existing regulations in the absence of urgent need, which clearly does not exist, would send a message to future Vail homeowners that they cannot rely on the community's commitment to retain its natural space and beauty. Sinc e ,c-c./" Howard Ber..l~owit -sudy Berkowitz - ~~ ,~J~/ ~ l'--~ '~ Steve Berkowitz i ~~~~ REC~[l FEB 2 6 19B8 Barbara M. Osborne, M.D. 2014 Sea Cove Court Houston, Texas 77058 February 24, 1988 Vail Town Council Vail Colorado 81657 Dear Council Members: This is to indicate in writing that as a property owner, tax payer and frequent visitor in Vail, I believe that the green area now under consideration for development should not be violated. I have spoken with a number of property owners in the town of Vail, and understand that this opinion is the majority point of view. I firmly believe that valley already is over developed, and that from an esthetic point of view, any existing green areas should be preserved. Sincerely, Barbara M. Osborne, M.D. BMO:vm ~IO~'ABD AND MA$THA FIEAD POST OFFICE BOX B vAIL~ COLORADO 81658 ~EC~ FF~ ~ ~ 198 February 18, 1988 Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Members: My wife Martha and I strongly oppose any development of the park area between the Golden Peak House Lodge and the Vista Bahn known as Tract E. The matter of zoning has been critical to Vail de- velopment, its citizens, and its guests. Special Development Districts negate the underlying zoning and the Vail Village guidelines on property located in Commercial Core I. The development at Golden Peak House would not only be an outright violation of the present codes but would inevitably lead to further exceptions. Are we now considering "spot" zoning for the core area of Vail Village? I am sure that that is not your intention. We urge you to vote "NO" on Special Development District #20. Sincerely, Howard Head if PARIS, February 1st, 1988 TOWN COUNCIL Town of VAIL , 75, S.Frontage Road - VAIL, CO .81657 U.S.A. , _i . Dear Sirs: ,. We are taking this opportunity to express our sincere thanks for your - dynamic support and your warm welcome to the 2nd TROPHEE REVILLON last January. The TROPHEE was a, great success, and we would have been unable to realize the event without your help, the support of the Town of VAIL, the tremendous work brought into play by V.R.A., and everybo- dy involved in the race. We enjoyed very much working in VAIL, a most charming resort and a very dynamic resort: We shall carry out its reputation overseas. We hope to be able to work with ycu again in the future, and awaiting the pleasure to visit VAIL again, we wish you a very successful winter- season. Once again, thank you for your collaboration. - Best regards, Sylvie DOUCE-SANDOZ Jean Rene NICKLES G2, ~--o ~"==-~°~ 69, rue de la Tour 75116Paris (1) 45.03.21.26 - Telefax (1) 45.03.40.04 ' Siege Social : 69, rue de la Tour, 75116 PARIS - Societe Anorryme au capital de 250.000 F -RCS Paris B 332378355 = S1RET :33237835500017 -Code APE :7707 (SIR 21) To: Ron Phillips From: Tom Brain 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. ~~'0 MAR - ~ 1988 ..~_ ~~. .u. ,; {. x~.. ~~ ,;y.. ~- .„~~> ~:. ~• °'F; dr ::~ r~: z~, : ~~; R -~~„ ,~: y~. ~. :~` . ~:.~R„. .~ -~= ~~ >Y ~~ x,~. ~~ ~ti . _a~ Craddock Development Company 1670 N. Newport Road, (P.o. Box 17000 80935.7000), Colorado Springs, Colorado 80916 (303) 637-4000 February 26, 1988 City Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council: Re: Golden Peak Expansion Linda and I are sorry we can't appear at your Tuesday meeting in person to voice our opinion and give you our input on Ron Riley's proposed upgrading and remodeling plans for the Gold Peak House. First of all I would like to say we are strongly in favor of the plan as submitted and in all likelyhood the project impacts our house at Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Filing #1 (325 Millcreek Circle) the most of any one individual owner except ,perhaps Cristy Hill. We have been and continue to be long term supporters and part time residents of Vail. We have invested in and enjoyed Vail for over 20 years. We do that because of the "Vail Experience." In recent years the town as we knew it 20 years ago has matured and improved and that iitprovement comes at a rice. In short, we've looked at the economics of the project and unless Ran's project or one like it is approved the renovation will never take place. The developer is putting "at risk" a good deal of money to put the base area into a configuration to benefit the "entire "town and bring back the "Vail Experience" to our visitors. The impact on the common areas is minimum and in fact upgrades the area immensly. . ++~, rtr February 29, 1988 Page Two t- .~. ~~~ ~~~` `~ We would like to say the minor inwnvenience the project causes us is more ~.- , ~~:~~ ~,. than offset by the big picture benefits to our town and our visitors. .: Cordially, ~_ ~ `- inda & Berry addock ` ~~ .~ 325 Mill Cr Circle ~: ~~ .: f u ~. ,..F j, y, ~[~`. ;ci st> .} _r ,r ;:~;, ~~- ;~? y. a y - Y MARGRETTA B. PARRS P. O. Box 1284 Vail, Colorado 81658 (303) 476-3671 March 1, 1988 Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Members: As one of the original twenty-five investors in Vail and as a twenty-five year commercial property and residential property taxpayer in the Commercial Core I area, I am writing in opposition to the three requests by the Gold Peak House Condominium Association, Catacombs, Ltd. and Vail Associates, Inc. currently before the Town Council. Although these requests are packaged as a "take it or leave it" proposition, it is my belief that there are three fundamentally separate issues involved. The three separate issues are as follows: I. First Issue: The request to enlarge and beautify the Gold Peak House Building. I approve the intent of improving the existing appearance of this building, however, the 178% increase over that presently allowed in the Commercial Core I area is totally unfair to others in the same area and, if passed by the Town Council, must be considered special and spot zoning. If it is time to expand or update the zoning laws for the Commercial Core I area to keep up with progress or competition from other major ski developments in the world (an argument put forth by the proponents of this proposal), then all Commercial Core I area owners should be included in the revision and updating of the zoning codes in order that all may benefit equally. Any improvements to the Gold Peak House Building should then follow the new guidelines and "improved" zoning codes. Town of Vail Town Council March 1, 1988 Page 2 II. Second Issue: The request to build a 3200 square foot extension of Los Amigos' deck over land zoned as open-space and green belt. I disapprove of this request because it violates the original intent of the founders of Vail and sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Vail Associates sold land for adjacent home sites and commercial sites with the understanding and commitment that the open-space was to be perpetuated. To allow one private commercial bar-restaurant to operate on this land would be a violation of the use intended by the original founders. Their intent was to ensure quality open space for the community that could not be encroached upon for commercial use. If one owner is allowed to encroach on open space, under what logic can the Town object to other owners, adjacent. to the same open space, encroaching in the future. III. Third Issue: The request to build a commercial facility below land zoned as open-space and green belt and subject to restrictive covenants that limit the use to recreational uses only. I disapprove of this request because of the reasons stated in the Second Issue above, it violates the restrictive covenants of record and is unfair to existing Commercial Core I area merchants. Although I understand that the Town cannot enforce private restrictive covenants, it seems foolish and unfair of .the Town to ignore the intent expressed in such covenants and relied upon by so many people over the years. If the Town is prepared to tamper with the open- space, it, as a minimum, should restrict the uses of any underground facility to truly "recreational" facilities and not commercial uses to the detriment of other Commercial Core I area merchants. From the viewpoint of an adjacent commercial property owner, I have included below a list of special concerns that should be considered during this process: Town of Vail Town Council March 1, 1988 Page 2 1. The view from proposed east-facing fifth floor condominium balconies would be completely blocked by the construction of a fourth floor on any expansion of my building (Cyranos) which is permitted under existing Commercial Core I area regulations and codes. 2. The enclosed balconies shown on the Gold Peak House model are unprecedented and unnecessarily restrict the view to the west. 3. The mechanical rooms' (flue, air exchange & vents) venting and air exchange systems need to be addressed as to my building. 4. The potential of increase in service vehicles and traffic congestion needs to be formally addressed. 5. The potential of increased cost to the Town of bringing in snow removal equipment, front loaders or trucks to daily remove snow, rather than bulldozing it up the slope toward the Vista Bahn needs to be formally addressed. In conclusion, I believe that the three requests, if approved, would result in a deterioration of green belt, open-space and would be detrimental to the entire Vail community. Therefore, I ask of you that such requests be denied. MBP/cdb 3/1/88 Note to Town Council - I received a call this afternoon from Penny Maryland. She wanted you to know she is in renovation of Golden Peak, is concerned but of the green belt, but is very much against bar and restaurant because of the additiona create. Hubbard of Baltimore, favor of the neutral on the issue the expansion of the noise it would /bsc / „~ ,. ~9/~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ G~i~ :/ / "~ ~'i,~T ~ ~ 7/~ ~~8~~ y~ ~ C/ l ~~~~~~ ~f ~~~ ~! ~~/~~ ~. ~~ ~~~. %~ / `~ `~ r ~~~~~ ~~ .1~~ ~ ~ ~~ d a ~ ~ % ~i~~ i~~~ ~~ ~~ -~,~~ ~~~~ 9 ~ ~j. ~j %~' ~~~'.~ ~G/G ~L ~ L~~ 3yL ~/>-Ci Li%%.~l,G ~~ ~i ~ L' _ll%YYL~~ f% ~'~`' `' //~ ~~ ~~~' ,~c-~ ~ -~~`~ ...~-q lei . ~ ~~ -.~~ ~, ~~~ G~ > ,_,/ •~ L~~,~ . /, l/ ~~ ~~ ~'~~ C ~~ ~,~rt~ c~'.~ %~ c ~ ~G~.~~~'~i ~ <<.t~-cam/~ % ~ ~- ~ / i/ ~~ C~F~2G-Cc ~ ~ RECD MAR - 1 19$8 March 1, 1988 Kent R. Rose, Mayor 2905 Booth Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mayor Rose: My husband, Ray Kelley, and I have been property owners and tax payers in Vail since 1966. We bought our land and built our house at 992 E. Vail Valley Road with the understanding that the beauty of the valley would be pireserved by strict zoning. We have supported the commercial growth in Vail as we appreciate and applaud the necessity of profit making ventures to support the development o~F the town . However, the present encroachment on green belt space is a concern to us as a forewarning of changes that could endanger the very fragile environment in this narrow valley. Therefore, we wish to go on record as opposing SSD #20. S~i ncerely, M<~ry B. Kelley /~' ~c -~ f~}R I L SVCE CENTER PO BOX 742 K.ILAIEA HI 96754 O1AM 1-000029IOb1 03/01/88 TWX ESL62908841 GWLB TDWX KILAIER HI ~~ RON PHILLIPS C/O TOWN OF VAIL 75 SO FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 I { (, © 0 • ~ • C'D MAR - 1 X988 ~ C (. I STRONGLY OPPOSE RNY BUILDING ON GREEN SPACE ESPECIALLY TRACT E SOUTH OF GOLDEN PEAK. MRS. JOHN A DOBSON 00:25 EST rfGS~corfP C t ~ ~ C ~; ~ ~' C C - ~. C ,~, ~. ~ ~` V b _ ~ f 1 V P TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM MESSAGE, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL -FREE PHONE NUMBERS KENNETT R. KENDALL, JR. `~~'~ MAR - ~ 9988 3 DARTMOUTH LANE ROCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03867 ~~ .a~~ ~~~ Cs~ ~~~ C, o~~ ~~ ~~x ~.~~ ~x ~:~~ ate---~ .~.~~~ ~~~- ~ ~ ~~~~~ Q~r~ lJ . a- `" ~ - ~ ~ _ n C [a~~ ~J~C"~- 7'~'~ U ~l~d S~~r~ ~ C3- Sv~~Gt~.~.. Qe ~~~~.~ U~.~~ 5 ~~~ v v~ -~ 1 ,~ ~~-~ -~ ~::- ~,,.~~ G~~ ~: ~~ Cs~t~-~~~-.rte ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ REC'J FE8 2 9 1988 /_ COL O R A D O AT~VAILaBEAVER CREEK P.O. BoX 1108 Vail, C:0 81658 February 26,1988 Members of the Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council: The Board of Directors of Bravo! Colorado would like to personally thank you for your support of our organization. We believe that in order to effectively promote the Vail Valley, an organization such as Bravo! was necessary. Four endorsement of our efforts is a major contribution to our program. Our mutual objective is to enhance the image of the Vail community and to .position Vail as a year round world class resort. We are confident that the residents of Vail will benefit from this investment in the perception of Vail as amulti-dimensional destination for years to come. Vail has always represented quality. Bravo! Colorado is pleased to have the opportunity to be instrumental in creating a rich environment of performing arts for our community to enjoy as well as a top quality product to be marketed for the benefit of all. We look forward to all of you joining us March 7th far our first experience with the Masters of Music! Cordia y ours in the support of Vail, The Board of Directors Brava! Colorado at Vail "Beaver Creek encl/ DM/ahs HOLY CROSS ~L~CTRIC ASSOCIATION, 3799 HIGHWAY 82 P. O. DRAWER 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 February 29, 1988 ' M:r. Ron Phillips Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Holy Cross Electric Site Dear Ron: Many thanks for your letter of February 24, 1988. The Holy Cross Electric Association Board is willing to accept a sale .price of $536,500 for its 53,856 square foot. site on the South Frontage Road, with a down payment of $50,000 and the balance amortized over 20 years at 7.5~ interest. The Board does not feel that the .57 per square foot reduc- tion of the Voliter Sale (Sale 3) in the Reeves appraisal is appropriate, since. the Voliter Sale is the lowest of the three comparables to start with and since it is the oldest sale. If anything, Sales 1 and 2, being more recent and. for higher prices per foot, reflect an increase in market acti- vity, not a decrease. The Board, therefore, calculates a market price of 53,856 square feet x $11.07 per foot, or $596,185.92.- Subtracting lOg for the real estate commission, we arrive at a price of $536,567.33, rounded to $536,500.00. The Holy Cross Board is agreeable to a 20 year note, although it originally specified 15 years. It is unwilling to accept a 6~ interest rate `because it recognizes that the collateral for the Note, after the Town of Vail deeds the take to the Highway Department, will be substantially less than the face value of the .Note ;.° hence, more risk and the 7.5$ interest rate. T'he Board recognizes that the proposal is subject to final approval of the written contract by the Vail Town Council at a. public Council meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, --- _._.~ _~-~-- David age INC. AREA CODE 303 945-5491 L-S/jt . j. 1 O The Vai[ Tian = Febn.ia-y z~ 19168 1 ' ~ ~ f~-rarn.-land ma ::ca : _. ~stif~Y rice: O , _ p .. 3': :._ p. By SCOT BERSGAARD The project's proponents speak as if the construction of a new ofd ramp and traffic sig- nals in Vail is practically a done deal, but the opposition refuses to think of it that way. Moreover, the town has yet to reach an agreement for the purchase of .3 acres from Holy Cross Electric that is necessary if an offramp is to be con- structed. Holy Crossowns 1.23 acres at the site; and Holy Cross gen- eral .manager Ed Grange says Holy. Cross does not want. to sell just part of its property .- "I think the net effect of seI1- ing athird of an acre for an ofd ramp is that our property would be destroyed. We would like to have them buy. the whole thing," he says. "Owning property in Vail is not ~ liability. for us, and the property would also be an asset for the town," sags Grange. "If -they just buy a little piece of it we- will not have._ a_ .viable property left." He says he problem with selling just a -sliver is that the remaining lot would be right next to an off-ramp, making access to the remaining land almost impossible.' "We would need a new entrance to our .land, and `the highway de- partment would surely. object to that. -There is all sorts of trouble associated with selling "just; a piece:' He says the town should buy all the land and landscape what isn t needed for the off- ramp as an attractive entrance. to the town. "If they buy it all, they can put it to its best use, to enhance the beauty of the town:' Grange says Holy Cross would love. to give the town a good deal on the land, but cant. "We are owned by more than 20,000 members and there is no way we' can subsidize Vail at the- expense of our members," he says. "Everybody that pays an electric bill in this area is part owner of this property. Our members are not receptive to. giving this land .away to Vail. We have to get market value." Besides the responsibility to its members, Grange says there is a mortgage on the property; held by the Rural Electric As- sociation, and that REA would have to.:approve: the terms. of any sale. -:, All of a sudden, he says, the town and the state highway department are putting .the hurry on this project. "We started negotiations last year, , and they just never got back to us. Tm not blaming them; there is a tendency not to do things. until you have~to. Even if we were to come to an agreement ,' the winter and they want to go today, though, we would have and dump more traflic.on it. I to send the proposal to Wash- wish they'd run the off-ramp ~ington (the REA office) ,where through the middle of someone it would end up in a stack of else's property." paperwork. Grange said he was bothered "We don t have any reluc- by the fact that most of the tall fence to work with the town," site would have fir trees on the Grange says. "We don't want . ~ be cut for the ofd ramp.. to be a fly in the ointment." Grange says Holy Cross is reluctant to become a pawn in _ a poltical situation. "There are still people in Vail-who are op- posed to this project and we are trying to be careful not to ~~Our members -are get crossways with the town. ' -not receptive to t want to be used as a We don lever one way or the other. gLUln~' tZLLS ZCLnCZ "A lot of.people think this is awQry tp ~TILlZ. ~~ not a good project, others are -Ed Grange putting pressure on to get this .thing-going. - "We could just say this is not for sale and let them. condemn it. That would take two years. I wish people in Vail would just come out of the woodwork and get this resolved as to whether Holy Cross bought the land the, people want an off-ramp in 1969 and originally intended there ° ~ to build an office there, but in- Personally, Grange says he stead has used the land fora doesn't think the Holy Cross storage yard. At some point, parcel is a good place for an when the market conditions " ~ r oll-raTIlp.- lhatd lll~t 411e Ideal w~ w,. a~ Hol,. n. are iagla Y, uc 5aiu J va v3S location for an ofd ramp, but had hoped to develop the land it's none of my business. The in such a way that the trees Frontage Road is not safe in would not be destroyed. ~~~ kEC'i F E ~ 2 ,~ . 6 1988 .~.~_ 241 E. Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Febuary 23, 1988 Mr. Ron Phillips Town Manager 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Ron, Once again, I would like to thank the Town of Vail for all their help and support during the Governor's Cup lOK Cross Country Race. The event was a success with over 500 entries ranging in all ages from 5 years to 70 years old. Most important it was a major step towards the awareness that Vail is not only for Alpine Skiers, but we have fantastic Nordic facilities as well. We hope to make this an annual event and on March 4 I will meet with the Governor's Council to propose that it will come back to Vail next year. The Governor's Council have expressed that they were very pleased with the facilities and the organization of the event so I am confident that I can convince them that Vail would like to see this develop into an annual event! Ron, I would like a special recognition to go to Jim Sanders and Barb Masoner, who have very instrumental in the organizing and the executing of both the Trophee Revillon and the EMS Governor's Cup Cross Country Race. Jim has spent many hours over this last couple of months both, setting special tracks for each event and helping set the course for both races. I have received nothing but compliments on what a tremendous job he has done making sure the track was in tip top shape for both races. He has also been right there to help me in any other respect to make sure that the races were well organized and ran smoothly. It has been reassuring to have his professionalism to carry through these special events. Barb has also put in many long hours making sure that these events ran as smoothly as possible. She has very strong organizational skills that cover every detail of the event. Barb also has her hand in everything whether she is picking up trash or helping set up banners, she sees what needs to be done and does it! I have enjoyed working with both Jim and Barb and look forward to working with them with future events. It makes my job so much easier when I have this support and professionalism. Sincerely, ~• Shelbi Williams Manager Chamber Services/Special Events cc CENTRAL RESERVATIONS • (303) 476.5677 Pat Dodson MARKETING/CHAMBER SERVICES • (303) 476-1000 • Denver Line 595-9488 Ben Kruger RECD F E B 2 9 1999 Karl A. Hoevelmann 4207 East Columbine Drive #5 Vail, CO 81657 February 27, 1988 The Town Council Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 Gentlemen: I am an owner in the Golden Peak House Condominium Association and operate a business known as Karl's Hair Studio. I am not opposed to the remodeling of The Golden Peak House itself, but I am strongly opposed to the use of the green belt behind The Golden Peak House for commercialization. ~~~~~'- Karl A. Hoeve ann, Owner in Joint Tenancy with: ;~~ ~~ ~ Ursul a M. Hoeve ~~ p/~~ c~,~-J Cann, Owner/Joint Tenancy REC'~ FEB 2 9 ~gaa ~~ ~ fjtJassG~ ~O S . ~C~QIYIS min v~r~ C 0 ~'oouo a S r~,~,-ua~-~ t g~~ ~iWh. Cotc.n G i f ~i~ a~ i~a. ~ l v~,C0~i6s~ ~~ ~nGi l mem~b~--S ~~~ ~vP~~r-,, vw~ ~tSfriG~ ~.ZO • `7~ ohs ~ i't m off( cL~ , /1 ~/ w~ ~-lJ c c~-~ ~~a.-,~ ~du.S2.._ 52-efr- i r~ ~ i w7 ~. r ~. V I ~ /~- tvp ~-a,d '~.q a~,~~ •~~ d a~F? • y~C,-~" Gan ,~ h uP.s\ i ~, ~ U/~Q C~i-e . 1 .l `~ ~e ~ ~?LVC G~Pir' `~ `~'Fr0'-'~.~ ~y .. ~"~ ~ ~ P~ G~OcCG~i rh ~r~" dY // ~ ~ ~ ~ `{one (~Q ~~- ~-Cus w-~-~.~aC ~~ • ( ~- ~~ Q CGS G~/Y"Q .$5~.vwr c ~ ~ ~ti~i~.nrn- ~-ua,Q~~ ~~rr~.t.~ tee. '~i~ 1/a` ~ Q~,"'r ~''"~ ~o ~- DI ~ w -~p q r v~ ~3 vr5 i~a~rs av~.~ re5 ia~ewfs Q~5 a. (/~ ~t,~r-~c Qw~. c/ ~ ~~ U 4~ ~' ~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ce 'p FEB. 2 9 X988 FRAN K H. WYMAN 375 PARK AVENUE NEw YORK, N. Y. 10152 (212) 759-6355 February 25, 1988 Town Council Town of Va i I Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: During a recent visit to Vail l learned of the proposal to Create Special Development District #20. I first visited Vail in 1961 before any develop- ment had started and vividly remember the beautiful unspoiled valley. l have been a property owner in Vail since 1963 and hope that my comments will carry as much weight as those of people who have only recently arrived and who are trying to blatantly exploit the beauty preserved by the early settlers. It would be an unpardonable breach of faith with all the people and home- owners u~o made Vail possible to encroach upon the open space which had been dedicated at the very beginning for the enjoyment of all the residents of the valley. I find it hard to believe that the sale of Mexican fast food could ever be considered a ,•.r~creational activity and that the Council would even consider the partial destruction of a beautiful park for, among other things, the sale of alcoholic beverages for profit. The people who built the Golden Peak House built a lousy building. The Town Officials who issued the building permit did a lousy job. The people who subsequently bought the Golden Peak House knew that they were buying an ugly building. It is ludicrous for the present owners to demand var- iances and for the Town Council to grant them as the price of improving a building wfiich in its present form should not have been built in the first place. If the residents of Vail cannot look to the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission to protect them from commercial exploitation and environmental desecration by people whose sole motivation is a fast buck, then the future of our Village is dim indeed. Your Council was elected to protect all the residents of Vail not just a few developers wfio are here today and gave tomorrow. The time to draw a line at any encroach- ment of our open spaces is at the first attempt. If the unacceptable -2- demands made in District #20 are granted, they will be followed by others and the Town Council will find it increasingly difficult to live with any precedents established now. There is, as you know, a great deal of opposition among the residents of .Vail to District #20. There is no doubt that if you vote favorably on this proposal that your decision will be contested in the courts and l among others will support a court action. There is no objection to remodeling the Golden Peak House in accordance with the present zoning. It is also acceptable to develop an underground ski base facility as long as it does not involve any extraneous commercial activity. I urge the Council to reject all other parts of the proposal. Very truly yours, FHW: s l 'may G~,-y. Frank Hi Wyman 2/29/88 Note to Town Council - Robert and Virginia Wier of Wilmington, Delaware phoned this morning to state their objection to the proposed Golden Peak House use of the green belt. They are strongly opposed to building on the land by the Vista Bahn and further encroachment onto public land. They feel it would benefit only a few to the detriment of the majority, and this would be a terrible precedent to set. /bsc i I i MRS. EDWARD B. WASSON ~r~ FEB 2 9 1988 8781 S. GILPIN STREET ENGLEWOOD. COLORADO 80110 +~ - _. _. ....~. t ~ -~2~.~.._ 1 r~wnc ~ ~ ~~ '~ do c~S , ~ am wc~~c~o~~-z, ~o~ -t2~ encsron~v~~on-~-v ~.~~<<~.~ oc~.o s~`Q 8~ -Fe.~a. ~a~~c.vt ~~' l-~vvsn t~~vv~nu~' ~¢'°le~'~ Wh~~v`~.vc~ u..ss~~o.u~ ~~ .~-- ~',~e~ c~ ~ ~o~ns ~~b.~',1d~~2 V ~ `~ .~ '~. ~,_ J V~C-AS 11uC -t~yg Rana ~+<' n~ ~" wllne7~cn -{p ~~1~ N ~ o ~ pos.9 ~e~n-t"~wsanwr~ ~a e~.. a pm ~ ~~. e-~+ll ~„~ leo c~: way v~~s . ~t n caaQ~~~ W ~~oll cTONE S & FOS TER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS FLAGLER CENTER TOWER 505 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE couNSEL ELEVENTH FLOOR WILLIAM A. FOSTER P. O. DRAWER E WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA 33402-3475 LARRY B. ALEXANDER DANIEL M. BACHI TIMOTHY E. MONAGHAN JAMES M. MUNSEY , {305) 659-3000 GEORGE H. BAILEY T. RENEE MUSSETTER KEVIN C. BEUTTENMULLER WILLIAM A. NORTON FAX: (305) 832-1454 MINDY R. BLUMENTHAL RICHARD J. OLACK MICHAEL D. BROWN BRUCE M. AAMSEY JAMES R. COLE ANDREW R. ROSS MARGARET L. COOPER STEVEN J. ROTHMAN ALAN C. ESPY PETER A. SACHS L. MARTIN FLANAGAN SUSAN M. SEIGLE HANNARD O. GAY ROBERT L. SELLARS THADDEUS D. HARTMANN JOEL T. STRAWN SCOTT G. HAWKINS SIDNEY A. STUBBS, JR. NEIL J. HAYES GEORGE P. SUPRAN THORNTON M. HENRY ALLEN R, TOMLINSON PETER S. HOLTON JOHN S. TRIMPER MARK B. KLEINFELD MICHAEL P. WALSH CHARLES B. KOVAL MONTV q. WARREN MICHAEL T. KRAN2 C. CALVIN WARRINER III DIANA LEWIS TIMOTHY L. WHALEN JOHN 8. MARION IV WILLIAM S. WILLIAMS - - JOHN BLAIR McCRACKEN PAUL C. WOLFE DANIEL C. METRE February 24, 1988 The Town Council Vail, Colorado As Trustee for 305 Mill Creek Circle, Vail Re: Los Amigos Extension Dear Sirs ; OTHER LOCATION 551 S. E. 8th STREET, SUITE 701 DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 I would like to place on record that I oppose any change in the green belt area., not just in the area ad-7acent the Vista Bahn, but along the entire Vail Valley. It is my understanding that only the property owners immediately adjacent to any proposed changes are required to be advised, but as any changes affect the future format of the green belt, I would request that notice be forwarded to me in the future. Very truly yours, JONES & FOSTER, P.A. ~ l ~/b/~~ °L- A L C. WOLFE, Tru tee PCW/ch