Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-01-24 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session~,;~~
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1989
2:00 p.m.
at the Holiday Inn, Homestake I Room
AGENDA
1. Long Range Planning Discussion
2. Planning and Environmental Commission Report
3. Information Update
4. Other
VAIL TOhlN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1989
2:00 p.m.
at the Holiday Inn, Homestake I Room
EXPANDED AGENDA
2:00
Ron Phillips
Charlie Wick
1. Long Range Planning Discussion
Action Requested of Council: Establish long range planning
and goal issues.
Background Rationale: Periodic and ongoing process of the
Council in order to establish significant policy priorities.
Staff Recommendation: Review the follow-up to the last long
range planning session and review the community survey to
assist the Council in establishing current and future
planning and goal issues.
4:00
Kristan Pritz
4:10
Ron Phillips
2. Planning and Environmental Commission Report
3. Information Update
4:15 4. Other
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 23, 1989
SITE VISITS PUBLIC HEARING
2000 PM 3x00 PM
1. Approval of minutes of 1/9/89.
2 2. A request for a zone change from Residential
Cluster to Primary/Secondary and a request
for a variance from minimum lot size in
order to construct a second dwelling unit on
Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Intermountain
Subdivision.
Applicanto William Pierce, Lynn
Fritzlen
1 3. A request for a side setback variance in
order to construct additions to a residence
on Lot 3, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Harriet and Robert McCue
~ade 1]~1 vL1 e17'e ~~`~~~ l~T-j, ~~ ~.°.()i.TIl~~i'
FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT REC•~ J AN 1 719~~,
888 CHAMBERS ROAD
BOX 597
EAGLE, COLORADO 81831
303-328-8373
JUDGE _
ROLAIdD L. GERARD CLERK
January 13 , 19 8 9 IRENE CARLOW
FIROOZ E. ZADEH, d/b/a WORLD THRU VIDEO, Plaintiff
vs.
TOWN OF VAIL, Defendants.
Case #87C311
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
1. The Court finds that Plaintiff began video taping in
December 1985, and continued through P•Iarch 1987, in Dobson
Arena. This began through a casual conversation between
Pat Dodson, Manager of Dobson Arena and the Plaintiff that
Scott i~amilton was performing and would he like to video this
show; being advised there ~ti3s riU money budgeted by the Town for
this, but there might be some later for a marketing tape if
Council budgeted for videoing.
2. There was no written or oral contract between parties,
although the Plainfiff seemed to think he was
exclusive right to video at the Arena< From theotestimony, the
Court finds this is untrue. The Plaintiff was at the Arena on
several occasions; he stated he saw others taping events.
3. A seven minute tape of events was put together by Plaintiff
taped at the Arena from December 1985, through summer of 1986,
and shown to mctnbcrs of Council in August 1986, at which time
it was rejected by Council, and the rejection was shown to
Court at the trial. It was described as rough and dirty by
Plaintiff's witness on Cross Examination. At this meeting the
Town Council did budget $2,000.00 for a promotional tape to be
let on bids. The Plaintiff attended this meeting and knew this
was the case. Even then the Plaintiff taped other events expecting
to be paid.
4. The Court finds the Town of Vail was not unjustly enriched
and that the Plaintiff take nothing from his claim. Court
orders the Town to return copies of the seven minute tape to
Plaintiff.
Part have fifteen days to appeal.
BY /rli~~ Cour
Juc~' Ro
L. Gcrar
RLG/kr
n ._ o .~
1989 WORLD ALPINE SKI CHAA4PIONSHIPS DAILY SCIiEDULE
SUNDAY, JANUARY 29
* WOMEN'S COMBINED SLALOM BEAVER CREEK RESORT 10 A.M,/12:30 P.M.
See America's Tamara McKinney begin her quest for l~orld Championships gold.
McKinney won the combined slalom at~~the 1987 World Championships in Crans-Montana,
Switzerland en route to the bronze medal. Switzerland's Brigette Oertli captured
the women's Olympic combined slalom in Calgary while Austria's Anita Wachter
collected the Olympic combined gold.
~ OPENING CEREMONIES GOLDEN PEAK/VAIL 6 P.M.
"A Night of Dreams", the formal Opening Ceremonies of the 1989 World Alpine Ski
Championships, combines lasers, fireworks, music, and lights into a magical
salute to the athletes of the world. Entertainment begins and gates open at the
6,000-seat Golden Peak Stadium at 6 p.m. A festive parade, led by 40 rhythmic
gymnasts and the U.S. Air Force Academy Drum and Bugle Corps, leaves Crossroads
Shopping Center and wends its way through the heart of Vail Village, delivering
the athletes and honored guests, including former President Gerald R. Ford and
pop star John Denver, to the Opening Ceremonies Stadium.
* JOHN DENVER IN CONCERT DOBSON ICE ARENA/VAIL 9 P.M.
The man who musically helped put Colorado in the international spotlight will
kickoff the three-event World Championships Concert Series with a special
performance at 9 p.m..in Dobson Ice Arena. A major musical force in the 1970's
with songs such as "Rocky Mountain High", "Leaving On a Jet Plane", and "Annie's
Song", Denver has accounted for a total of 26 albums; his latest, entitled
"Higher Ground", having recently been released in the U.S.
MONDAY, JANUARY 30
* MEN'S COMBINED SLALOM BEAVER CREEK RESORT 10 A.M./12:30 P.M.
Austria's Bernhard Gstrein captured the World Championships combined slalom two
years ago in Crans-Montana, Switzerland while Luxembourg's Marc Girardelli took
home the overal-1 combined gold..:-_ In_.Calgary, it w.as Switzerland's Paul Accola~ --
with the combined slalom victory .whirlE Hube.rt._Stro_lz:-.o.f..:Austri.a,m,ine.d;~verall:, ,:,, ; - .-. -
combined Olympic gold. Watch ,America!s,-.Felix. McGrath~=;a:-thi~d;_p~ace,com_bi_ned:;___._
slalom finisher in Crans-Montana.-. ~ -- --- -_ - ~ --. - - _
* WOMEN'S DOWNHILL TRAINING VAIL 11 A.M.
The world's best female skiers test themselves against the International Course
on Vail Mountain. Free to the public, downhill training is a great opportunity
to match the racers attempt to find the fastest "line" on the course in
preparation for race day.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 31
~ MEN°S DOWNHILL TRAINING BEAVER CREEK RESORT 11 A.M.
The world's premier men's downhillers get their first look st the redesigned
Centennial Course in preparation for race day. Since the course had major
modifications during the past summer, the men are essentially starting over
again in terms of getting the right line.
¢ WOMEN'S DOWNHILL TRAINING VAIL 11 A.M.
The jockeying for position continues as the downhill women seek to shave hundredths
of seconds off their running times. The mind games also continue in terms of
going all out or holding back, but just a little.
~ SNOWSHOE TOURS VAIL GOLF COURSE 10 A.M.-3 P.M.
Scheduled every hour from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., explore the Vail Golf Course as
you have never seen it before. Starting from the Vail Nordic Center, tours
are for ages 10 and up. Cost is $S for adults and $4 for children 12 and
under. The price includes one hour of snowshoes rentals, lessons, and a guided
nature walk. Never-evers are welcome and a 24-hour pre-registration is required.
For information and sign-up, call 479-2261.
AMERICAN GRAFFITI PARTY DOBSON ICE ARENA/NAIL, B P.R~.
Ta e a trip bac in time to the 1950's with the American Graffiti Party in
Dobson Arena. The decor will resemble a 50's malt shop, with a soda fountain,
juke box, and vintage autos on display. Beer, hotdogs, pizza, popcorn, and
malts will be served. Music will be provided by the Legendary Nikators after
an warmup set by Fools Gold. The party is open to the public and tickets will
be available at the door. Be there or be square.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1
* MEN'S DOWNHILL TRAINING BEAVER CREEK RESORT 11 A.M.
The men's downhillers continue in their quest to take the bite out of "Rattlesnake
Alley". Free to the public, downhill training is often the best opportunity
to see your favorite racer up close and personal. Watch from the bleachers
or stand by the side of the course to feel the speed.
* WOMEN'S DOWNHILL TRAINING NAIL 11 A.M.
The final tuneup prior to the women's combined downhill. Now is the time to
make final decisions regarding where the racers want to be on race day. The
final training run can often be very prophetic.
* CROSS COUNTRY SKI TOURS NAIL GOLF COURSE 10 A.M.-3 P.M.
Scheduled for every hour from 10 a. m. to 3 p.m., these tours will run from the
Vail Nordic Center. Cost is $S for all participants and is open to those ages
10 and up with some cross country ski experience. Cost includes guided tour
and ski rental package for one hour. Pre-registration 24 hours i~n advance is
necessary. Call 479-2261 for more information.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2
WOMEN'S COMBINED DOWNHILL NAIL 11 A.M.
Switzerland's Michela Figini will be looking to repeat her 1987 World Championships
combined downhill win while France's Carole Merle hopes to repeat her Calgary
Olympic triumph. Swiss ace Ttaria Walliser and teammate Brigette Oertli could also
be in the running for the overall-'combined gold if either have good slalom results.
* DSEN' S DOWNHILL TRAINING ~. -- ~ --BEAVER CREEK ,RESORT 11 A.M. ~ . _ ~ ~-- --
One final chance or the men's downhillers~~~o-.~fiZrd -tha_telusive,.~~re3lth-~-o~LL_a-~:=:-~==-
second that could mean the difference betw~~n; ;w„inning and; 2QSing-;in. the .combined; =-.. ;
downhill. Run~from the combined start; the final-training-run will closely - -
approximate race day conditions and strategy.
* ART GALLERIES RECEPTION NAIL/AVON 4-8 P.M.
View the best r~orks of local Vail artists as art galleries throughout the Vail
Valley dill collectively host a reception open to the public. Local artists
mill be featured and refreshments~~ill be served.
~ WOMEN'S COMBINED A{~ARD CEREMONIES NAIL VILLAGE 4 P.M.
Salute the best overall women's st~i racers with the formal medal presentation,
for the women's combined, which couples the results of Sunday's slalom and today?s
combined doe~nhill.
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3
* MEN'S COMBINED DOWNHILL BEAVER CREEK RESORT 11 A.M.
Will Swiss superstar Pirmin Zurbriggen repeat his 1987 World Championships and
1988 Olympic combined downhill wins or will Luxembourg's Marc Girardelli or
France's Franck Piccard take home top honors on the Centennial course. If
American Felix McGrath places well in the combined slalom, look for him to pull
out the stops in today's downhill.
. Q S~OMEN' S pOV~NHILL TRAINING VAIL 11 A.A~.
Edith the combined downhill behind them, the women can now concentrate on running
the International Course from the top start in preparation for Sunday°s second
downhill showdown. Mistakes must be corrected and advantages remembered.
* MEN'S COMBINED AWARD CEREMONIES VAIL VILLAGE 4 P.M.
The formal medal presentation or the men's combined, with gold, silver, and bronze
going to the best overall performers from Monday's slalom and today's combined
downhill.
* AVON WINTERFEST SKATING PARTY NOTTINGHAM LAKE/AVON 5-8 P.M.
The Town of Avon has scheduled its annual winter carnival to coincide with the
1989 World Championships. The festivities will begin tonight with a skating
party on Nottingham Lake, followed by a spectacular fireworks display over the
lake. Don't miss the hot air Balloon-glow, featuring Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse.
* VAIL EXPRESS HOCKEY VS AIR FORCE ~BSON ICE ARENA/VAIL 8 P.M.
Fast paced action on the ice as the Vail Express Hockey Team tackles a tough
opponent in the Cadets of the Air Force Academy.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4
* MEN'S DOWNHILL BEAVER CREEK RESORT 11 A.M.
One of the most glamorous and exciting events in all of sports. The battle between
Swiss teammates. Peter Mueller and Pirmin Zurbriggen continues. Mueller is th e
reigning World Champion in downhill while Zurbriggen slipped past his teammate in
Calgary to grab Olympic gold. Mueller may well have the edge, having captured one
of the two World Cup downhills run at Beaver Creek last March as part of the American
Ski Classic, but don't count out Franz Heinzer of Switzerland or Franck Piccard of
France.
* WOMEN'S DOWNHILL TRAINING VAIL 11 A.M.
~Ihile the men go for the gold at Beaver Creek, the women downhillers set the
stage for their matchup tomorrow in the women's downhill. All that now remains
is the long gait for race day.
* PREN'S DOWNHILL AWARD ~EREMONIES_.;._,,, _-PAIL:-1J-ILLAGE-:• -.-_:---:-__- 4 P_M_.. :.--___.__
The formal medal ceremonies to Brown-the=;-k~ng_~f-_the-_~ountain, .-~:;.~- =:;.~ :::--:~ •~.. _.-- --._
* AVON WINTERFEST .. ~_::_:._~_NOTTINGHAM PARK/AVON 2-6 P~:M:;;;~,~y= =-=---_~_
Avon's annual winter carnival continues ~r~i~~-activities for the.-en-t~.re ~faauly,=;-,.---::-::
In addition to ice skating on Nottingham Lake, winter in the West comes alive
Frith ski jouring and a mountain man rendezvous.
* ITZHAK PERLMAN IN CONCERT DOBSON ICE ARENA/VAIL 8 P.M.
The designation of best in the world will not just be relegated to the race course
today as internationally renowned concert violinist Itzhak Perlman works his
musical magic in Dobson Arena as the second offering in the World Championships
Concert Series. Perlman's recordings regularly appear on the best-seller charts
and have r~on him numerous Grammy Awards. His vast repertoire encompasses all the
standard violin literature as Drell as music by contemporary composers9 whose
efforts he has championed.
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 5
* WOMEN'S DOWNHILL VAIL 1 P.M.
America's Pam Fletcher will hope history repeats itself when the world's fastest
women take to Vail Mountain for the women's downhill. Fletcher, a World Cup
downhill winner on the International Course in 1986 will have to outdistance the
likes of Austria's Sigrid Wolf, who captured both World Cup downhills in 1987,
as well as Swiss teammate Maria Walliser and Michela Figini, 1987 World Championships
gold and silver downhill medalists. If the Swiss knock each other off on the way
to the awards ceremony, watch for Canada's Karen Percy, the Olympic bronze medalist.
4 WOMEN'S DOWNHILL A~1ARD CEREA~NIES VAIL VILLAGE 4 P.M.
The opportunity to formally regard today's victors with medals of gold, silver,
and bronze.
~ AVON WINTERFEST NOTTINGHAM PARK/AVON 2-4 P.M.
The festivities continue at Nottingham Park as the Old West comes alive with
a mountain man rendezvous village and ski jouring. Give yourself time to take
a spin around Nottingham Lake with the family on ice skates.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6
* WOMEN'S SPECIAL SLALOM BEAVER CREEK RESORT 10 A.M./12:30 P.M.
Switzerland's Vreni Schneider will battle Yugoslavia's Mateja Svet for the gold
today in the women's special slalom. Schneider, who captured the Olympic slalom
gold in Calgary, is coming back from a late season knee injury, while Svet, World
Championships slalom bronze medalist and Olympic silver medalist in slalom coulde
well be ready to dethrone the powerful Swiss. If America's Tamara McKinney is
"on", she could be tough to beat.
* MINTURN MADNESS MINTURN 3-5:30 P.M.
Businesses and restaurants will open their doors to the public for a town-wide
block party in the true Western tradition. Starting at 3 p.m., the bridge near
The Saloon restaurant will be closed to traffic, providing a large area on the
north end of the town for the events. A western motif will be set with hay bales,
horses, and mules tethered. A gunfight, ropers, hayrides, and stagecoach rides
will be available as part of the entertainment for guests. At S p.m., a western
barbecue in the railroad barn will feature venison, elk, and beef, along with
baked beans and cornbread.
* ICE SHOW DOBSON ICE ARENA/VAIL 8 P.M.
Olympic medalists will also take to the ice of Dobson Arena for a skating
extravaganza. Headed by Calgary Olympic silver medalist Brian Orser of Canada,
the review will also include performances by Rosalyn Summers, Elaine Zyack, and
Toller Cranston. - _.. ._
* WOMEN' S SLALOM AWARD CEREMONIES___ .: ,- VAIL_ VILLAGE. __:_ _:.,_,_- .;. _ _ 4 P,: M. -
The presentations of the World C-hampionshzps; _medals ,to: tod_ay.'s _~_op_-,tTree -wome_n~_: _.. -
in the special slalom. y=;- -_ -_Y _ __ _, _ _~_ --.._
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7
* MEN'S SUPER GIANT SLALOM VAIL 11 A.M.
A cross between downhill and giant slalom, Switzerland's Pirmin Zurbriggen, the
defending World Champion; will go head-to-head with France's Franck Piccard, who
claimed France's first Olympic gold medal since~.Jean Claude Killy in this event
in Calgary. Not to be overlooked will be Luxembourg's Marc Girardelli and
Austria's Helmut Mayer, the reigning ~forld Championships and Olympic silver medalists,
while Italy's Alberto Tomba could e~ell make his t~orld Championships debut today.
¢ MEN'S SUPER-G AWARD CEREMONIES VAIL VILLAGE 4 P.M.
Gold, silver, and bronze medals will be presented to today's top three Super-G
racers.
* ICE SHOW DOBSON ICE ARENA/VAIL 8 P.M.
The ice skating spectacular continues tonight as Canadian Olympic silver medalist
Brian Orser leads an all-star cast into Dobson Arena. Grace and beauty mixes
with power and speed to produce a memorable evening on ice.
1~lEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8
~ WOMEN'S SUPER GIANT SLALOM VAIL
11 A.I9.
Olympic gold medalist Sigrid Wolf of Austria battles reigning World Champion
Maria Walliser of Switzerland while Swiss teammate Michela Figini rounds out
the powerful trio, with silver medals in both the Calgary Olympics and the
1987 World Championships in Crans-Montana, Switzerland. In 1986, America's
Pam Fletcher was three gates away from a World Cup Super-G victory on this same
course before hooking a gate. Today could easily be "Fletch's" day.
*WOMEN'S SUPER-G AWARDS CEREMONIES VAIL VILLAGE 4 P.M.
Salute the world's best women skiers at the formal medal presentation for this
morning's Super-G competition.
* ICE SHOW DOBSON ICE ARENA/VAIL 8 P.M.
Olympic stars will shine one final time on the ice of Dobson Arena as Rosalyn
Summers, Elaine Zyack, and Toller Cranston join Calgary Olympic silver medalist
Brian Orser for magic on ice.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9
~ MEN'S GIANT SLALOM VAIL 10 A.M./12:30 P.M.
The battle heats up between Italy's Alberto Tomba and Switzerland's Pirmin
Zurbriggen. Two years ago in Crans-Montana, Tomba collected the bronze medal in
this event. Last year in Calgary, he was golden while Zurbriggen, the reigning
World Champion, settled for Olympic bronze. Sentimental favorite today should
be Sweden's Ingemar Stenmark, who has more career World Cup victories than any
skier in history and has called the International Course one of the best giant
slalom hills in the world.
* MEN'S GIANT SLALOM AWARDS CEREMONIES VAIL VILLAGE 4 P.M.
The top three finishers in today's giant slalom climb to the top o~ the victory
podium to accept their medals.
~ WESTERN ATHLETES PARTY DOBSON ICE ARENA/VAIL 6-10 P.M.
Mingle with the best ski racers in the world as the Old West comes alive tonight
in Dobson Arena. Open to the public,. the Western.-Party, ~ill_feature-.west:ern---;...-._..,__._
food and entertainment by the Gatlin ;Broth,ers_ :- In,:addition„.the party.=wi-11_ also-. , -.-
:" .. - -
include a steer roping contest and :rfldea..,_Ticket-s_.wil.l_.,be:.avai.l:ahle-.at the. door., ._,: ;
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10 - --"""- "~------" ""
MINI BIATHLON VAIL GOLF COURSE 11 A.M.
The event will feature a 3 kilometer cross country race, followed by a 2 kilometer
snowshoe competition. The $S entry fee includes rental equipment and the race
gill be divided into age categories. Pre-registration is necessary. For
additional information, contact 479-2261.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 11
WOMEN°S GIANT SLALOM VAIL 10 A.A~./12:30 P.M.
Will Switzerland's Vreni Schneider make it three in a row, having already mined
gold in this event at the 1987 World Championships in Crans-Montana, Switzerland
and Olympic gold in Calgary. If the third time proves not to be the charm for
Schneider, look to Yugoslavia's Mateja Svet or Schneider's Swiss teammate Maria
Walliser. If America's Diann Roffe can rekindle the fire of 1985 that brought
her to a World Championships gold medal, she and teammate Tamara bfcKinney could
be a potent one-two punch.
WOMEN'S GIANT SLALOM AWARD CEREMONIES VAIL VILLAGE 4 P.M.
One final opportunity to honor the best women ski racers in the world with the
last women's medal ceremony.
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS FINAL CONCERT DOBSON ICE ARENA/VAIL 8 P.M.
Rock to one of ,today's top superstar performers as the World Championships
Concert Series comes to a close. Dobson Ice Arena may never be the same again
after tonight.
' a a "
' SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 12
~ MEN°S SPECIAL SLALOM VAIL 9 A.M./11:30 A.M.
The final act of the 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships drama will be played out
on the steep faces of Vail Mountain's International Run. Italy's Alberto Tomba
will continue his quest for gold while West Germany's Frank Woerndl will be out
for Cai~gary revenge, having to settle for Olympic silver, while trying to continue
his World Championships reign. Ameiica's Felix McGrath will have his moment to
shine, finishing third in the final 1988 World Cup slalom standings, but the
infamous "Austrian Face" into the finish could well get the best of many of the
competitors.
* MEN'S SLALOM AWARDS F, CLOSING CEREMONIES 4 P.M.
One last opportunity to honor the world's best athletes, both from today's final
race as well as all the competitors over the past 15 days. The World Championships
flag will be passed to Saalhach, Austria, the host for the 1991 World Alpine Ski
Championships and the Vail Valley will say farewell and thank you to the athletes
of the world. But, despite the fact that the torch will be passed to Saalbach,
the spirit of the 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships will live on. This is
not the end, but rather, the beginning.
In addition to the planned events and activities, various forms of street entertainment
will take place at different locations throughout the Vail Valley on each of the
Championships days. Be sure to check out the World Championships display at the
Colorado Ski Museum in Vail Village, which will feature material from both the 1950
World Championships in Aspen, Colorado and the 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships
in Vail and Beaver Creek.
The overall look and feel of the Vail Valley will also exude a festive atmosphere
with a banner and lighting design theme. Three thousand strings of white lights
were donated to the World Championships Organizing Committee by Noma International
and Ace Hardware to help "Light :Up The_ Valley!'_ while .Vail. Valley_.residents._ and:_- _ . -_ __ .
businesses have also been encouraged_;t~ _purchase, ,the _white .lights._.for_ ad_ d_ it_ i__on_ a_ 1-. _
decorations. ----- --
Banners will be positioned along the South Frontage Road in Vail and through Vail
Village as well as from Avon up to Beaver Creek. Snow and ice sculptures will also
be positioned in Vail, Avon, and Beaver Creek.
T6~E ~~RL® ALPINE SKI CIiAh1PI4PISFIIPS
Vai 1 /. Beaver Creek
The FIS WORLD ALPINE SKI CHAMPIONSHIPS has an excellent location for transportation. The
site is two hours on the Interstate (EXPRESSWAY) highway system from DENVER'S STAPLETON
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. The Colorado Highway Department is very experienced with snow
handling and rarely does the traveler encounter difficult driving conditions.
Numerous signs will direct you to Vail /Beaver Creek. Snow sculptures are also located along
the scenic 100 mile route. You will travel through some of the historic mining areas and pass
near six other ski areas.
Vail /Beaver Creek each have three exits from INTERSTATE 70 (Locals say I-70). Over 60
buses serve the ski areas on a regular basis. The number of buses has nearly been doubled and
parking areas in "THE VALLEY" have been increased 50 ~. All parking lots are within one mile
of the normal access points to the mountain and are accessed on all weather roads. The following
points should be kept in mind for your transportation needs.
9 . FOUR BUS ROUTES: RE®, 6REEb. BLUE A1;9® ORANGE l~BLL OPERATE FROP`I
X4:30 AP9 TO ~ ~ :30 Pled AT il5 B'~IFIUTE If~1TERVALS. THE OFFICIAL 6U1DE SHOl~S THE
ROUTES. BOTH SCCB AREAS, B'90ST SHOPPBI~6 AND RESTAURAl~TS ARE LOCATED OBd THE
ROUTES. ALL BUSES ARE FREE.
2. ALL PARI<IW6 AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC ~ITHIId 500 YARDS OF THE VABL
FBHBSH, BEAVER CREEK FIC~ISH AND HEADQUARTERS ARE BE1N6 USED FOR SPECIAL
PAR~BN6 FOR THE FBS OFFBCBALS AID JURY, TEAIMS. TIt91N6- COh11MUNICATI01yS-
PO~AER, ABC-EBU-ESPN~DALBERT -SELECTED HEDIA, SPONSOR REPRESENTATBVES,
AF3D SELECTED ORQ;A6~BZ81~6 COBMBMITTE~ IMEPI6ERS. EACH VEHICLE iMUST HAVI=.
IDEtrdTBFBCATION TO ENTER THE VEPIUE AREAS;-AND THEIR ASSIGNED PARKtN6 AREA. =-. -- ~..- -: -.
3. YOUR TIME TO REACH AN EVENT BS SH~2TEST BY Q1SIIm6 THE BUS-SYSTEIM,.I1=~.....,..:_.-
BEYOND ~AL~If~f DBSTANCE. EXPRESS t3US ROUTES BET~/EEN VAIL AND BEAVER CREECC
SCtO CENTERS NORI`9ALLY ~lBLL TA6~E ONE HOUR BUT COULD TACCE D-4/2 HOURS ON
DAYS OF I'~AJOR EVEB~TS.
4. ~E ARE ASICBIr~6 ALL GUESTS ~BTH CARS TO LEAVE THERM tBd THEIR
RESPECTBVE SI:B AREAS BF YOU DO PLOT HAVE ASSIGNED SPACE IN THE RESTRICTED
AREAS. BT SILL BE FASTER TO TABLE THE BUS ALL THE ~dAY FROIM VAIL. VERSUS
DRIVIId6 TO AVOf~/BEAVER CREEK PARKBP06 AND TABLING THE SHUTTLE TO BC SCI
AREA. THE SAIME BS TRUE FROIM BEAVER CREE~O AVORI TO VAIL.
5. BF YOU ~lANT TO 60 TO ONE OF THE I~EI6HBOR1N6 TOtYR1S FOR DINNER, SIGHT
SEEBCd6 ETC.. TAXB ADD 0 OR VAId SERVBCE IS AVAILABLE AT REASONABLE RATES.
~. tF YOU ARE BtdVBTED TO A(~ EVEN11~6 SOCIAL FUNCTION. YOU bIILL BE
PROVIDED PIEARBY PARECIla6 AND/ OR BUS AND VAIV TRARdSPORTATI0IV.
Information booths are located in Denver Airport, Vail and Beaver Creek if
you need assistance. Enjoy your stay with us 1n THE VALLEY.
THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
1/17/89
IRESTRB~TE® PAR~II~G PASS SEEECTI0~1-- ll ®ll ~®S9
The process of selecting the holders of restricted area parking permits is nearly complete. The
transportation Committee seeks your cooperation in helping to explain the system to others.
Obviously everyone cannot have parking next to the stadiums, Likewise all cannot arrive at the
same time. We urge you to demonstrate patience to others and enjoy the beautiful scenery.
SEAbER CREECC: ORANGE PASS
The venue contains 4 parking lots; Service Center and Chapel, Village Hall Lower, Village Hall
Upper, Poste Montane. A total of 350 parking spaces are available for assignment.
BAIL: GREEN PASS
There are 5 restricted lots; Golden Peak (not available until 1 /31 ,passes will be honored at
Soccer Field 1 /29 & 30),Mill Creek Circle, One Yail Place, Soccer Field (includes some YA
parking), Lower Level of Village Parking Structure.
~fESTI~ I-IOTEE: ~Et9E PASS
We have 50 parking spaces on the first level. Parking on the second and third levels is
controlled by the Westin and Cascade Club and will be first come first served basis. The 50
spaces will be roped off and controlled by security. Also, we have 20 spaces West of the Cascade
Club, Westhaven, commonly referred to as the "Ruins". These are specifically assigned to Race,
Medical, VA.I & 0/C primarily for use for the Captains meetings. Some 0/C press will use this
lot during the day. There will be a combination lock except immediately before and after the
meetings, when an attendant will manage the lot. Otherwise, assigned people will need to open &
close themselves. The bike trail will be cleared of snow to Donovan Park and press, teams -for
Captain's meetings, a majority of EBU and others will utilize this lot. It will also be open to the
public.
®ROP PASSES: PURPEE- FOR ALL bEf~IUES.
These will be issued for those people having their own vehicles to deliver people and products
without leaving the vehicle. We are not issuing drop pass to ski equipment companies because of
their past flagrant disregard for procedures. Instead we have assigned a reasonable number of
passes near the venues.
a~SSIG~P~E~TS:
We have completed an assignment of all available spaces plus 5~ attaches list contains the
assignments with the exception of teams and YYIPs. After we have agreement on these with the
person responsible, there will not be any new passes without a written request approved by the
person responsible for the unit and Bob Krohn. Revisions to the current list will be made by Mc
Ilveen, Funk, Metcalf, Vroman 8~ Krohn.
Lee Metcalf will head the staff present at the registration desk to handle all parking permits and
transportation questions.
®AY PASSES:
We will issue special day passes for unique situations or when not needed for the entire event.
These will be issued early morning of the valid date. They will have unique markings and permit
passage through security only once. This will help us make more efficient use of space plus
satisfy some limited requirements.
bQo ~~ ~~~~ n~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ran ~r~r~n
THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
~E~~~~ ~~~~ ~~RCC ~ ~ f~S~E~
YOU ARE THE HOLDER OF A RESTRICTED PARKING PASS. A SELECTION PROCESS DETERMINED
WHO WOULD RECEIVE THE RIGHT TO PARK IN RESTRICTED AREAS. PLEASE FOLLO`N THESE
RULES.
1. YOUR PASS MUST 6E DISPLAYEG ON THE REAR VIEW MIRROR, NUMBER OUTWARD WHEN
YOU ENTER THE AREA AND WHILE YOUR CAR IS PARKED IN THE RESTRICTED AREAS.
2. TRAFFIC PATTERNS MAY CHANGE BEFORE AND AFTER EVENTS. POLICE AND VOLUNTEER
SECURITY WILL DIRECT YOU THROUGH THESE CHANGES.
3. YOUR PASS WILL NOT PERMIT PARKING EXCEPT FOR THE VENUE AND LOT DESIGNATED.
4. YOU SHOULD ALLOW ONE AND ONE-HALF HOURS TO DRIVE FROM VAIL TO BEAVER CREEK
BEFORE AND AFTER MAJOR EVENTS. LARGER THAN EXPECTED CROWDS MAY CAUSE ADDITIONAL
DELAYS. PLAPd AHEAD1414
5. PARKING ON ROADS OR PRIVATE DRIVES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. HOLDERS OF DROP
PERMITS MUST NOT LEAVE VEHICLES UNATTENDED. bl®LATORS MILL ~E 7®~fED ADD
6~ERP'91TS ~fITIiDRA~9~ I~P~EDIATELV. VAIL AND BEAVER CREEK BOTH RELY ON
PEDESTRIAN AND BUS MOVEMENTS. NARROW STREETS REQUIRE THAT THEY BE OFEN FOR
SAFETY VEHICLES AT ALL TIMES.
L~S~ ~~~SES ~9LL ~®~ ~E ~E~L~CE®.
~~• I~
baw~ o
it ~ ~ V
75 south frontage road
vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Larry Eskwith
FROM: Susan Scanl
DATE: June 15, 1987
ot4ice o4 community developmen4
SUBJECT: Lease Rates for Outdoor Dining Areas
I. INTRODUCTION
Several weeks ago I was asked to research the rates charged
by other municipalities for the leasing of city owned land.
This was to apply more specifically to land leased for
outdoor dining areas or decks. Apparently the request was
made so that a feel could be gotten for what an equitable
rate would be. In May of 1987, the Town Council re-
evaluated the lease price for each of the local popcorn
wagons and decided to charge $2 per square foot per month
or $24 per square foot per year.
II. RESEARCH
In order to get a fair perspective on what an equitable
rate would be I contacted several cities who do lease
property for outdoor dining. Below are the results of
those contacts:
(1). City of Aspen, Contact: Mr. Larry Thoreson,
accountant/auditor for the finance department 925-
2020 ext. 242
Last year Aspen charged $1.69 per square foot/month
for mall lease spaces. Their recommendation to
Council this year was to raise the price to $1.79 per
square foot/month.
The Council however, decided to increase the lease
rate to $2 per square foot/month. This rate is
charged only f.or the months that the outdoor dining
area is in operation and must be paid prior to the
start of the season. If for some reason the deck does
not operate for the entire period the rent is rebated.
The City has very strict specifications and guidelines
for the use of this lease area. I do have a copy of
Aspen's lease agreement and attached you will find a
copy of some past lease amounts.
(2). City of Boulder, Contact: Ms. Ellen Flannely, Real
Estate Open Space office 441-3440
The City of Boulder does allow the leasing of city
property of outdoor dining areas. The lease rate
charged for these areas is dependent on the location,
whether it is in a residential area, downtown or in
the mall area. In order to determine the lease rates,
a rough appraisal is done of the surrounding property
values (purchase price) and the lease rate is
calculated using a figure of 8-10% return per year.
For example, in the downtown area the purchase price
is $20 - $40/square foot and the lease rate is $3/per
square foot/year. The lease price for residential
areas is lower because of lower prices for property.
Any dining areas in the mall area have lease prices
set by a code lease.
(3). City of Denver, Contact: Ms. Merle Miser, Denver
Partnership of 16th Street Mall 534-6161
The lease rates for outdoor dining areas in the 16th
Street Mall area and downtown Denver were set
approximately 5 years by City Council. The rate is
currently $250 per month or approximately $.83 per
square foot. Ms. Miser indicated that they are
currently trying to double this figure to
approximately $1.65 - $1.70 per square foot/month.
.'
.~.
_ _ l.~
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development
DATE: May 5, 1987
SUBJECT: Vail Village and Lionshead Popcorn Wagon Lease
Negotiations: Owner, Village Popcorn Wagon, Ms. Ila
Buckley; Owner, Wagon on the Mall, Lionshead, Mr. Dan
,_ - Mulrooney, Mr. Ross Davis, Jr. and Mr. Carl Dietz
I. APPLICANTS'REQUEST
The owner of the Vail Village popcorn wagon, and owners of the
Lionshead popcorn wagon are interested in negotiating new lease
rates with the Town Council. At this time, the Lionshead
popcorn wagon has a lease which began in February 1985 and
extends until January 1990. The five year lease requires a
minimum rent of $40,000.
The-Village popcorn wagon was relocated on Town of Vail
property when the Plaza Lodge remodeled during the summer of
1986. Due to the remodel, the popcorn wagon could no longer be
located on Plaza property, as Christy Sports expanded on the
west side of the building. The Founders° Plaza was designed
to allow for the popcorn wagon to be moved into this area. On
July 4, 1986, the popcorn wagon opened for business on Town of
Vail property. The staff is in the process of arranging a
lease with Ila Bulkley.
In a letter dated March 13, 1987, Ross Davis explains the
owners' request for a lease renegotiation:
°°o...The Wagon on the Mall operation has grossed $41,000
and $37,000 in its two years of operation. The numbers
are consistent with the historical revenues of the Vail
Village Popcorn Wagon and based on the experience of the
operators, gross sales should stay within these parameters
over the next few years.
Enclosed herewith please find copies of the balance
sheets, statements of earnings for the Wagon on the Mall
for the years 1985 and 1986 which reflect the current cost
of lease in excess of twenty percent of the gross revenues
of the operation.
As you know, Fair~Market Percentage rents in the Town of
Vail for a restaurant operation rarely exceed 8% of gross
for rental, and the ground rental on a square foot basis
exceeds two hundred dollars per square foot per year,
We at this time request that the Town Council in
connection with setting the rental rates for the Village
v
Popcorn Wagon, reassess and renegotiate the lease charged
for the Wagon on the Mall Lionshead Operation to make the
lease comparable and equitable.
As the Town pays the utilities on the Lionshead operation
_ and does not pay them on the Village location, the rents
on the Lionshead operation should exceed that charged to
the Village operation by approximately $500 (our estimate)
- or the Town's calculation of actual costs for providing
those services.
- Sn..:connection with entering into the original lease
- agreement with the Town, the Wagon on the Mall paid tap
_- fees and: hook-up fees in the amount of $16,752.61, as well
- -~`•as-paying a security deposit of $2,000 to the Town of
- Vail.
- _ The•rental-rate was set at $8,000 per year which at the
time was reasonable based on the estimation of gross
revenues of between $80,000 and $120,000 per year.
_::~- Experience has shown that the business did not sustain
_~-~--those gross revenues,-and the fixed rate entered into at
Jy; that time did not: coincide with the ability of the
~= =business=-to pay rent. - -=~ ... :. . .
• - We would--respectfully request that the--Town Council
consider setting this matter for consideration at a work
--- session along with the determination of the rents for the
Village Popcorn Wagon so that the two businesses which are
so important to the character of the Vail experience can
`• be operated in a smooth and economical manner and continue
to benefit the overall community.... (Please see the
enclosed letters.)
II . BACKGROUND RESEARCH . - • - - - - - -- - _ _ .. ... - -
In order--to` make_ a-reasonable- decision on this request,.-the _ _
staff decided to contact--several other ski towns and cities
that have vending operations on public property. Below are the
results of this research:
3~=-~Town-of=Aspen,- Contact: Mr. Larry Thoreson
• : auditor for the finance department (?~~ _ a~~ account
- Mr. Thoreson stated that they do have a popcorn wagon
in Aspen, hoGaever, it is located on private property.
--- -The-only comparable figure that Aspen had for a use
- such as the popcorn wagon was an amount that the city
`_ :_ -charges- for outdoor dining decks which extend out
-=from restaurants onto the mall area.- The city
charges $2 pez• square foot per month. This charge
V equals $24 per-square-foot per year: At this time
-•-•-the-City-Councii is thinking of changing the dollar
_ / ~ .
amount per square foot. Their opinion is that it is
too low. The $2 amount was arrived at by calling
other restaurants that had outdoor dining space on
private land. The staff made a determination of what
that space was worth. One reason for the lower price
was that the deck space is usable only during good
weather. -
Example: Wagon Area = 240 sf
per month lease. (12'x20') x $2 = $4g0
Year leas e= $5,760
-?~ Town of Steamboat S rin s, Contact:
- ~ Danmier, accounts revenue clerk Ms° Michelle
- Steamboat Springs does not allow any vending on
public property due to the competition it would
create with merchants. The only applicable
_~- ~ comparison was a Sno-Cone cart which was allowed to
operate in one of their town parks. The Sno-Cone
`~=°operator was required to pay $100 per month
.__ °--paid for a sales tax license and peddler's licenseshe
'~-~~° ~ 'own 'of Crested Butte,• -Contact: Ms. Carrie Folger,
- Town Clerk
In Crested Butte, they have~~a license called a
t_-- "busi-ness occupation licensing tax" BOLT .
is based on the numbers of employeesCthat)theThe tax
- business has. This type of tax is a
food vending. The vending of other itemsdisnnotto
- allowed-. As an example, two employees requires $100
_: -per year, three to seven employees $270 per year,
- eight to 15 employees, $475, and 16 to 24 employees
::` $1,000 per year, Each BOLT is reviewed b '
- ,=• ~ourrcil~~.~s:_~he tax mone Y the Town
Commerce. Y goes to the Chamber of
~, `__ There is no change in rules if the
1, ~_ - . ` "-_- ~ ~ _ ~ope-ra"t ion- :is~ on public or private` land.... -
-1~~ ~~`~S° "4-~ •` Keystone, contact: Ms. Dorie Jenson, commerci
operations for Keystone Development Corporation
•Keystone`requires l00 of gross sales for a
Wagon which is located at the base of the crepe
The crepe wagon owner pays for her own utilitiesln.
small° deck is- also located around the.. `~
"- - _.._ _ ." _ .. crepe wagon.
Example: $39,000 average gross x a10 = $3,900 er
year .._. _ ..---- ~ - ._. ... P- ~ - _
5. Town of'Telluride, contact:_Ms, Leslie Sherl
Clerk - ? .-. ..... ._ ock Town
;.
6.
7.
8.
Example: 12 ..months x $60 =.$720/year
Telluride allows for five vending operations on
public property. The vending operations are small,
pushcarts approximately 3'x5'x7'. Food vending has
included burritos, hotdogs and hot potatoes. The
applicant is required to pay for a business license
which is usually around $100 and is based on the
number of employees. The owner is also charged $60
per month f_or the lease space on public property.
The operation must be inspected by the health
inspector. The carts are removed every night. The
owner must also provide liability insurance. The
vending -operations are approved by the Town Manager.
The Town Manager determines if the cart is attractive
and contributes to the ambiance of the Town. The
Town Manager may deny the request if it is felt that
the operation will detract from the Town.
Town~of DuranQO; contact: Mr. Cliff Bilyew, Building
Inspector d~'~`}-_ Sb;~~--
Vending-oYi-Tocm-property is not allowed.
City of Boulder, contact: Ms. Mary Smario, Parks
Department : ~lt~, 3l3 I
The Parks Department handles all vending operations
on the Boulder Mall. The vending operations are
actually reviewed by a five member Mall Commission.
Applications are taken from January to February each
year. VPermits'are awarded in March and are normally
fora three year period. The charge for the permit
is $144 per. month in June, July and August. The
wagons.are required to be in operation during this
.period if they receive a permit. During the off-
season from September through May,-the carts do not
have to operate and are charged only $33 per month.
Tfre-Ni~11. Commission reviews menus, design of the
carts;`and hours of operation. After three years,
the business is required to reapply for .another three
:year permit.-~Presently, Boulder has 8 vendors (2 per
block and the mall is 4 blocks long),
Example: 3 months x $144= $432, g months x $33 =
.$_297...__$729 total yearly rate
City of Denver, 16th Street Mall, contact: Denver
Partnership ,M Ms. Merle Miser ~~.~_ b~~
~.
~.} u s
b Y
The Denver Partnership manages all vending on the
16th Street Mall. Carts are charged $150 per month
for a lease area. In January and February the charge
is $100.
Example: 10 months x $150 = $1500, 2 mths x $100
=_$200 $1700 total yearly lease
- 9.
Restaurant lease prices in Vail
According to one real estate office, enclosed
restaurant. space within Lionshead ranges from $15 to
$20 per square foot. In the Village, it was
estimated that the maximum amount was approximately
$30.per square foot.
Another real estate firm estimated that in the
Village the lease rate for restaurant space is
approximately $20-25 per square foot or 70 of the
gross sales,__whichever is greater.
Additional real estate research cited a Lionshead
restaurant rate at $15.62/sq ft. Village restaurant
rates varied from $7/sq ft, $15/sq ft, to $30 s ft
depending on location and level of the restaurant
within-fhe-buiding. _
It is difficult to compare retaurant rent rates to
the popcorn wagon, as improved, enclosed restaurant
space is more expensive.
III.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Given this, informatzon,._t appears that there are. many ways t:o
handle setting.the_.:lease price for both.wagons~. Presentl
Town requires.that the Lionshead popcorn wa on y~ the
amount for_ a _ five:: year. lease. re g pay a total
decision was.made -. g~rdless of-the gross. This
,.in._part, due to the fact that it is often
difficult to.verify_gross.sales of this-.type of. business. It
was felt that it would_be much easier to agree upon a total
lease amount and then require that amount to be paid over the
period of the lease.
Staff would recommend that 2
$ per square foot per month or $24
per square__foot per year be the lease rate for the wagons.
This will lower the annual amount from $8,000 to $5,760 and is
supported by the Aspen experience.. A slight difference in the
rate for the. two wagons may be warranted given the. fact that
the owner _o:f_~tYie--Vlhage wagon. pays all ~. her own utilities.
.~ ~~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ yu~~ ~ ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~~~
O
o~~
0 ~~~ ~ 91989
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
FOR JANUARY 18, 1989
3:00 P.M.
SITE VISITS
2:15 P.M.
1. 352 East Restaurant Awning & Sign
Vail Athletic Club (Final)
Motion-Gwathmey Second-Hopkins
VOTE 3-0, Approval
1 2. Lodge Directory Sign
Vail Village Information Booth
Motion-Gwathmey Second-Hopkins
VOTE 3-0, Approval - Final
2 3. Steitz Residence (Final)
Lot 17, Resubdivision Buffehr Creek
Motion-Gwathmey Second-Hopkins VOTE 3-0
Conceptual approval only - reschedule for
February 1, 1989. (Final)
4. Borne Duplex (Final)
Lot 18, Block 5, Bighorn 5th Filing
Motion-Gwathmey Second-Hopkins
VOTE 3-0, Approval
5. Lund Residence, Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd
443 Beaver Dam Road: Conceptual Review of
Garage Separation.
Conceptual Review:
Garage separation.
Approval for Primary
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ned Gwathmey
Pam Hopkins
Kathy Warren
STAFF APPROVALS:
MEMBERS ABSENT•
Roy Sante
Dan Leary
Cos Bar of Vail, Sign - 188 Gore Creek Dr.
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
CIVIL ACTION N0. 88 CV 328
ANSWER BRIEF
CRAIG HOLZFASTER, d/b/a BEST WESTERN VAIL GLO LODGE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado Municipal Corporation,
Defendant.
The Town of Vail, through its attorney, Lawrence A. Eskwith, submits the
following Answer Brief.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal brought pursuant to Rule 106(a)(4), C.R.C.P. The Plaintiff,
Craig Holzfaster, is appealing the decision of the Town Council of the Town of Vail
issued at a regular Town Council meeting on May 17, 1988 denying the Plaintiff a
variance from the Town of Vail sign code regulations.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On March 2, 1988, the Plaintiff filed an application for a sign variance. The
Plaintiff is the .owner of a lodge located in the LionsHead area of the Town of Vail
called the Best Western Vail Glo Lodge. The Plaintiff in effect requested relief
from three provisions of the Vail sign code:
1. He wished to place a fifty-four (54) square foot sign on an exterior wa11
of the Vail Glo Lodge and this entailed relief from a section of the Vail Municipal
Code which provides that no wall sign shall exceed a size of greater than twenty
(20) square feet.
2. The Plaintiff wished to place the wall sign on an exterior wall of the Uail
Glo Lodge approximately thirty-five (35)~feet above grade. The Vail sign code
provides that no part of a wall sign such as the Plaintiff's shall extend above
twenty-five (25) feet from the existing grade.
3. The Plaintiff wished to place a freestanding sign at approximately ten (10)
feet above grade. The Vail sign code provides that no freestanding sign shall be
more than eight (8) feet above existing grade.
The Town of Vail sign variance procedure requires two (2) hearings. The first
hearing is before the Town's Design Review Board. Within twenty (20) days of the
closing of the public hearing, the Design Review Board "may recommend approval of
the application as submitted, or may recommend approval of the application subject
to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purpose
(of the zoning code), or the Board may recommend denial of the application." The
criteria for approval of a variance is set forth in 16.36.070 of Chapter 16.36 of
the Vail Municipal Code which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 16.36.070
clearly places the burden of proving physical hardship on the applicant and sets
forth several criteria the applicant must meet before a variance can be granted.
The ordinance provides in Section 16.36.080 that the recommendation of the Design
Review Board shall be promptly transmitted to the Town Council. There is then a
second hearing before the Town Council to review the recommendation of the Design
Review Board and then either approve, modify, or deny the application.
The Plaintiff's hearing before the Design Review Board was held on April 20,
1988. After the hearing, the Design Review Board voted unanimously to recommend a
denial of the Plaintiff's variance request to the Town Council. The recommendation
was forwarded to the Town Council, and on May 17, 1988, at a regular Town Council
meeting, after a full hearing at which the Plaintiff was present and represented by
counsel, the Town Council unanimously voted to deny the variance request.
-2-
ARGUMENT
I. THE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO NAME INDISPENSABLE PARTIES AS DEFENDANTS IN
TIIT (` A!`TT/1 AI
The Defendant named by the Plaintiff in this action is the Town of Vail, a
Colorado municipal corporation. A Rule 106(a)(4) action is for the purpose of
determining whether an "inferior tribunal ... has exceeded its jurisdiction or
abused its discretion." C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). The Town of Vail is clearly not an
inferior tribunal, and consequently is not the proper Defendant in this action.
When the Plaintiff is challenging a zoning decision made by the Town Council of the
Town of Vail, the appropriate Defendant is the Town Council. Tri-State Generation
and Transmission Company v. Cit of Thornton, 647 P.2d 670, (Colo. 1982); Dahman v.
City of Lakewood, Colo. App., 610 P.2d 1357 (1980).
II. THE EXTENT OF REVIEW.
In a Rule 106(a)(4) proceeding, the scope of review granted to the
District Court is very narrow. It is limited to the inquiry as to whether or not
the inferior tribunal, in this instance the Town Council, has exceeded its
jurisdiction or abused its discretion. City of Colorado Springs v. District Court,
519 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1974); Thatcher v. Board of County Commissioners, 314 P.2d 607
(Colo. 1957); Clary v. County Court, 651 P.2d 98 (Colo. App. 1982). A reviewing
court may not interfere with an administrative judgment merely because there is
ground for difference of opinion. Industrial Commission v. Bennett, 441 P.2d 648
(Colo. 1968); Jaeger v. Stephens, 346 F. Supp. 1217 (D.C. Colo. - 1971); June Oil
and Gas, Inc. v. Andress, 506 F. Supp. 1204, aff. 717 F.2d 1323, certiorari denied
104 S. Ct. 2169, 466 U.S. 958, 80 L. Ed. 2d 552 (D.C. Colo. - 1988); Gildner Way,
Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of Adams County, 529 P.2d 332 (Colo. App. 1974). A
District Court may not substitute its judgment for or disturb the exercise of the
-~-
Board's discretion in zoning matters unless such discretion is clearly abused.
Monte Vista Prof. Bldq., Inc. v. Ci
of Monte Vista, Colo. App. 531 P.2d 400
(1975).
To overturn the decision of the Town Council in this zoning matter, the
court must find that there is no competent evidence supporting its decision. Bower
v. City of Wheat Ridge, Colo. 513 P.2d 203, (1973); Civil Service Commission v.
Doyle, 424 P.2d 368 (Colo. 1967); Mayor Lee v. Civil Service Commission, 738 P.2d
1198 (Colo. App. 1987); Jimerson v. Prendergast, 697 P.2d 804 (Colo. App. 1985).
The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to prove that the Town Council in
this instance lacked jurisdiction or abused its discretion. Clary v. County Court,
Supra; Corper v. Cit_y and County of Denver, Colo., 552 P.2d 13 (1976).
III. THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE TOUlN OF VAIL
In his brief, the Plaintiff complains that he was denied fundamental due
process by the Town of Vail. In particular, he states that the Town failed the
afford due process because the hearings in question were extremely informal and that
there was no procedure available for really adducing evidence. He states that
witnesses were not sworn, that he received no formal notice of the hearings, and
that he did not receive a.copy of the staff recommendation prior to the hearing
before the Design Review Board.
Although a zoning hearing before an administrative board or agency or a
Town Council should be conducted in an orderly manner, it need not strictly conform
to the rules of procedure and evidence necessary in a judicial proceeding. Monte
Vista Prof. Bldg., Inc. v. City of Monte Vista, Colo. App. 531 P.2d 400 (1975). In
the absence of a statutory requirement that witnesses be sworn, it is not error for
an administrative body to hear testimony from unsworn witnesses. Monte Vista Prnf
Bldg., Inc., Supra.
-4-
The Plaintiff's objection that he was not properly notified is surprising
since this was a variance hearing in which the application for the variance was
submitted by the Plaintiff, and the date set for both hearings was done in
conjunction with the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was present at both
hearings with his attorney, and the record discloses that no objection was made to
the adequacy of notice. By fully participating in the hearing and failing to object
to any notice provisions, the Plaintiff waives any right to later claim these
defects constituted a violation of his due process rights. Zavala v. Cit_y and
County of Denver, 759 P.2d 664 (Colo. 1988); Hendrickson v. Department of Revenue,
716 P.2d 489 (Colo. App. 1986); Mattingly v. Charms, 700 P.2d 927 (Colo. App.
1985). The Plaintiff goes on to object to the fact that he received no copy of a
staff recommendation prior to the hearing before the Design Review Board. Again,
the record is devoid of any objection made by the Plaintiff or by his attorney in
the record of the Design Review Board proceedings of his failure to obtain a copy of
any staff recommendation. In fact, it is clear on page 6 of the Town Council
proceeding that Plaintiff's attorney had reviewed the staff recommendation prior to
the Town Council hearing. Reeser v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of
Weld, 620 F. Supp. 632, 635 (D.C. Colo. 1985).
IV. VARIANCES SHOULD ONLY BE SPARINGLY GRANTED.
Variances should not be granted readily. The courts' general attitude
concerning the granting of variances is well summarized in McQuillin Municipal
Corporations.
"Variances ... are to be granted sparingly, only in rare instances and
under peculiar and exceptional circumstances. Authority for the granting of
variances does not confer upon the property owner any legal right to a variance.
The power to grant variances or exceptions is given only for relief in specific
instances peculiar in their nature. Otherwise, zoning regulations would be
-5-
emasculated by exceptions until all plan and reason would disappear and zoning in
effect would be destroyed. ... A variance should be strictly construed and granted
only in cases of extreme hardship where the statutory requirements are present.
Indeed, because a variance affords relief from the literal enforcement of a zoning
ordinance, it will be strictly construed to limit relief to the minimum variance
which is sufficient to relieve the hardship." McQuillin Mun. Corp. Vol. 8 Sec.
25.162, p. 573.
"The power to grant a variance in the application of established zoning
regulations should be exercised charily ... the obvious reason is that unless great
caution is used and variations are granted only in proper cases, the whole fabric of
zoning will be worn through in spots and ravelled at the edges until its purpose in
protecting property values and securing an orderly development of the community is
completely thwarted." Murray v. Board of Adjustment, Larimer Count 594 P.2d 596,
(Colo. 1979), quoting Heady v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 94 A.2d 789 (1953).
U. THE T06JN COUNCIL'S DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST WAS SUPPORTED BY
COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
The Plaintiff states in his brief that he will concede without the
necessity of citing authority by the Defendant, that the applicant at the hearing in
front of the Design Review Board and the Town Council had the burden of showing
hardship as stated in the ordinance. The Plaintiff is only partially correct. The
Plaintiff not only had the burden of proving hardship, but he was also required to
prove that his variance request met the four (4) criteria A through D set forth in
the ordinance. Monte Vista Prof. Bld ., Inc. v City of Monte Vista, Supra.; Kinder
Care Learning Centers, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of the City and County of Denver,
721 P.2d 162, (Colo. 1986). A review of the record of proceedings before the Town
Council shows that the testimony presented by the Plaintiff is contained in a
narrative by the Plaintiff's attorney found on pages 5 through 7. In his narrative,
-6-
the Plaintiff's attorney states that there are two events which constitute the
Plaintiff's hardship. The Plaintiff's attorney goes on to state that when the I-70
overpass was constructed to the east of the building, a large berm was built which
obstructs the view of the Plaintiff's sign. The second event was the construction
of the Enzian Lodge to the east which obstructs and detracts from the Plaintiff's
lodge.
No where in his presentation did the Plaintiff ever deal with the issue of
how the circumstances he mentions are unique to his particular business or
enterprise, and not applicable generally to all the businesses or enterprises in the
area as required by criteria 16.36.060 A. The Plaintiff never addresses the issue
of whether or not the relief requested would be materially detrimental to the
persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the
neighborhood, or to the public welfare, as required by the criteria set forth in
16.36.070 C. Finally, and most importantly given the ultimate finding of the Town
Council, the Plaintiff's evidence never demonstrated why the Plaintiff needed as
great an exception to the sign size limitation as was requested in his variance as
required by 16.36.070 D. The sign code allows wall signs a maximum square footage
of twenty (20) square feet, and the Plaintiff wished to place a wall sign on his
building which was fifty (50) square feet. Criteria 16.36.070 requires that the
Council find that any variances requested not depart from the provisions of the sign
code any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. No
where in the Plaintiff's testimony is there any evidence whatsoever presented on the
requested relief from the height limitation for both the wall sign and the
freestanding sign.
Rick Pylman, Town Planner, presented the evidence in opposition to the
requested variance. His testimony is found principally on pages 2 through 5 of the
Town Council record of proceedings. In his testimony, Mr. Pylman discusses each of
-7-
the required criteria set forth in the variance ordinance. On page 3, he discusses
the criteria set forth in 16.36.070 A. He states, "that in looking at the building,
there are no special circumstances, conditions which really restrict the
effectiveness of the signage that they have now, the size of the signage they have
now, to require a variance to the degree that they are asking." On page 3, he also
addresses the second criteria by stating that he does not feel there are any special
circumstances not created by the applicant which warrant a variance to the degree
that the applicant is asking for. Finally, on page 4, Mr. Pylman discusses the
fourth criteria, that the variance applied for not depart from the provisions of the
sign code any more than required to identify the applicant's business or use. He
states, "I think we understand their desire to upgrade the existing signage, ahh, we
feel they should be able to upgrade the existing signage, but not to this degree of
variance, this degree of nonconformance."
As previously stated, the applicant had the burden of proving that the
variance would avoid unnecessary hardship and would meet all the criteria required
by the variance ordinance.
Even if all opposition testimony were disregarded, the Plaintiff did not
meet his burden of proof in this matter. The decision of the Town Council is
supported by competent evidence and must be upheld.
VI. THE TOWN COUNCIL MADE ADEQUATE FINDINGS TO SUPPORT ITS DECISION TO DENY
THE UARTANCF
The motion to deny the variance requested by the Plaintiff was made by
Councilmember Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal. Her motion is contained on page 30, and it
contains the finding that, "I don't think there was adequate proof of physical
hardship, and I think the variance applied for does depart from the traditions of
our title and is more than is required to adequately deal by the applicant's
business ..." The motion referred to two (2) of the specific criteria contained in
-8-
section 16.36.070 of the sign variance ordinance. Specifically, that the applicant
must prove physical hardship and 16.36.070 D. that the variance applied for does not
depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the
applicant's provision or use. Although Mrs. Lowenthal uses the word traditions
instead of provisions, this is obviously either a verbal or typographical error.
The criteria referred to is easily identifiable.
Holding a lay board such as the Town Council to strict legalistic findings
would be highly technical. The Court has before it a very complete record
supporting the Town Council's decision to deny the variance by competent evidence.
Sundance Hills Homeowners Association v. Board of County Commissioners, 534 P.2d
1212 (Colo. 1975). The absence of expressed findings by a lay board does not affect
the validity of the decision where the necessary findings are implicit in the action
taken. Hudspeth v. Board of County Commissioners, 667 P.2d 775 (Colo. App. 1983).
The applicant argues in section 4 of his brief that the denial of the
variance request appears to have been based upon considerations other than the
ordinance. A review of the proceedings before the Town Council indicates that this
was clearly not the case. The questions asked of the Town Council and the
statements made by both staff members and members of the Council are replete with
concern about the size, height and placement of the signs which were the key issues
to be considered in this variance proceeding. The applicant states in paragraph 5
of his brief that the record submitted by the Town is insufficient since it does not
contain elements necessary to make a complete record. The Town of Vail would be
happy to supplement the record with anything requested by the Plaintiff.
VII. THE ORDINANCE IS NOT VAGUE OR OVERBROAD.
There are three (3) sections of the Town of Vail sign ordinance pertinent
to the applicant's variance. The first section relates to size. The first one
deals with the size of wall signs and it states, "a maximum of twenty (20) square
-9-
feet will be allowed for a building identification sign." The second provision of
the sign code deals with the height of wall signs. That section states, "height, no
part of the sign shall extend above twenty-five (25) feet from existing grade."
The third section of the sign code deals with the height of freestanding
signs. It states, "height, no part of the sign shall extend above eight (8) feet
from existing grade." There does not seem to be anything vague or overbroad in
these provisions. Certainly, the prohibitions of the regulations are sufficiently
defined so as to give fair warning of the type of conduct that is prohibited and
contain adequate standards of application, and therefore meet the two part test set
out in L.D.S., Inc. v. Heal 589 P.2d 490 (1979) for determining whether a
regulation is void for vagueness or overbreadth.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof in this matter and come forward
with evidence sufficient to prove the criteria set forth in the Town of Vail sign
variance ordinance. The decision of the Town Council to deny the Plaintiff's
variance is amply supported by competent evidence and should be upheld by this
Court.
Respectfully submitted this ~f~ da of ~e ~ lggg.
~- Y t----~!L-~u~ ~Z -f ~ ~,
J J
Lawrenc A: Eskwith, No. 5976
75 Sou Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 479-2107
-10-
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this ~ day of E~-1~u11.-~.~_~ ,
1989, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer Brief was pla ed in the United
States Mail, postage prepaid, to Hugh R. Warder, Attorney at Law, P. 0. Box 1738,
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602.
-11-
Exhibit A
VARIANCES
Chapter 16.36
VARIANCES
Sections:
16.36.010 Purpose-Limitations.
16.36.020 Application.
16.36.030 Fee.
16.36.040 hearing.
16.36.050 Notice of hearing.
16.36.060 Action on application.
16.36.070 Criteria for approval.
16.36.080 'Town council action.
16.36.010 Purpose-Limitations.
A. In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties
and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the
objectives of this title, variances from the regulations may
be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a
structure, or the location of the structure, from topographic
or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate
vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations,
or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or
inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance
with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a
variance.
B. A variance may be granted with respect to any regulation
contained in this title.
(Ord. 4(1975) §.2(L)(1): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(1).)
16.36.020 Application.
Application for a variance shall be made upon a form
provided by the administrator. The variance application shall
include the application for a sign permit and shall also state the
applicant's reasons for requesting variance in accordance with
the criteria set forth in Section 16.36.070. (Ord. 4(1975) §
2(L)(2): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(2).)
259
S1GNS
16.36.030 Fee.
The town council shall set a variance fee sufficient to cover
the cost of town staff time and other expenses incidental to tl-e
review of tl-e application. The fee shall be paid at the time of
application and shall not be refundable. (Ord. 4(1975) §
2(L)(3): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(3).)
16.36.040 Hearing.
Upon receipt of a variance application, the administrator
shall set a date for }ieari-~g before the design review board. (Ord.
4(1975) § 2(L)(4): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(4).)
16.36.OS0 Notice of 1-eari-ig.
Not less than fifteen days prior to the date set for the
hearing, the administrator shall cause a copy of a notice of tt-e
time and place of t}-e }ieari-ig to be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation in the county. (Ord. 4(1975) §
2(L)(S): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(S).)
16.36.060 Action on application.
Within twenty days of t11e closing of a public hearing on a
variance application, the design review board shall act on t}ie
application. The board may recommend approval of the
application as submitted, or may recommend approval of the
application subject to such modifications or conditions as it
deems necessary to accomplish the purpose of this title, or the
board may recommend denial of the application. A variance
may be revocable or may be granted for a limited time period.
(Ord. 4(1975) § 2(L)(6): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(6).)
16.36.070 Criteria for approval.
Before the board acts on a variance application, the
____..... applicant must prove physical hardship, and the board must
find that:
A. There arc special circumstances or conditions applying to
the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures
260
l
VARIANCES
or otl~cr matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent
right-ot=way, which would substantially restrict flit
effectiveness of the sign in yuestion; provided, however,
that such special circumsta-~ces or conditions are uniyue to
flit particular business or enterprise to w}iicl~ tl~e applicant
desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all
businesses or enterprises;
B. That such special circumstances were not created by the
applicant or anyone in privy to tttc applicant;
C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony
with tl~e purposes of this title, and will i~ot be materially
detrimental to the persons residing or working in tl~c
vicinity, to adjacent property; to the neighhorhood, or to
tl~e public welfare in general;
D. The variance applied for does not depart from the
provisions of this title any more than is required to identify
the applicant's business or use;
E. Such other factors and criteria as the design review board
t deems applicable to the proposed variance.
(Ord. 4(1975) § 2(L)(7): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(7).)
16.36.080 Town council action.
The recommendation of the design review board shall be
promptly transmitted to the applicant and to the town council.
At its next regularly scheduled meeting following receipt of the
recommendation of the design review board or as promptly as
practicable at a subsequent regular meeting of wliicl~ tl~e
applicant is given written notice, the town council shall Fold a
hearing to review the recommendation of the board, and shall
either approve the application as submitted, approve the
application subject to such modifications or conditions as it
deems necessary to accomplish the purpose of this title, or deny
tl~e application. If the council deems insufficient information is
adduced at the hearing to provide the basis for a sound decision,
it s}iall continue the hearing to one or more subsequent
meetings. The council shall render a decision on tl~e appeal
within sixty days after the final Bearing, unless additional time
is required for good cause, and serve a copy of its decision on
the applicant by mail to the applicant's last known address.
(Ord. 4(1975) § '?(L)(8): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(8). j
261
,. 'Y~r
FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT REC•~ JAN 1 ? 198,
885 CHAMBERS ROAD
BOX 597
EAGLE. COLORADO 81831
303-328-8373
JUDGE
CLERK
ROLAND L. GERARD January 13 , 19 8 9 IRENE CARLOW
FIROOZ E. ZADEH, d/b/a WORLD THRU VIDEO, Plaintiff
vs.
TOWN OF VAIL, Defendants.
Case #87C311
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
1. The Court finds that Plaintiff began video taping in
December 1985, and continued through P•Iarch 1987, in Dobson
Arena. This began through a casual conversation between
Pat Dodson, Manager of Dobson Arena and the Plaintiff that
Scott Hamilton was performing an~:.icvould he like to video this
show; being advised there ~•.as r~~~ money budgeted by the Town for
this, but there raight be some later for a marketing tape if
Council budgeted for videoing.
2. There was no written or oral contract between parties,
although the Plainfiff seemed to think he was promised the
exclusive right to video at the Arena. From the testimony, the
Court finds this is untrue. The Plaintiff was at the Arena on
several occasions; he stated he saw others taping events.
3. A seven minute tape of events was put together by Plaintiff
taped at the Arena from December 1985, through summer of 1986,
and shown to members of Council in August 1986, at which time
it was rejected by Council, and the rejection was shown to
Court at the trial. It was described as rough and dirty by
Plaintiff's witness on Cross Examination. At this meeting the
Town Council did budget $x,000.00 for a promotional tape to be
let on bids. The Plaintiff attended this meeting and knew this
was the case. Even then the Plaintiff taped other events expecting
to be paid.
4. The Court finds the Town of Vail
and that the Plaintiff take nothing from
orders the Town to return copies of the
Plaintiff.
Part~(eJs have fifteen days to appeal .
BY /r~4~ Cour
Juc;~ Rol nd L. Gcrar
was not unjustly enriched
his claim. Court
seven minute tape to
RLG/kr
~-'~+
-• STATEMENT OF REASONS
IN SUPPORT OF TOWN OF VAIL APPEAL OF DECISION NOTICE AND
FINDING OF. NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR VAIL LAND EXCHANGE
PROPOSAL DATED NOVEMBER 8, 1988
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 31, 1986 James F. Torrence, Regional Forester, issued his
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact relating to a land exchange
between the Western Land Exchange Company ("WLEC"), acting as an agent for the Lodge
Properties, Inc. ("the Lodge"), and the National Forest Service ("Forest Service").
On March 7, 1986, the Town of Vail, Colorado ("the Town") filed its Notice of Appeal
appealing the decision of the Regional Forester and requesting an oral presentation
of its appeal. On April 15, 1986, the Town filed its Statement of Reasons in
support of its appeal. On May 17, 1986 the Regional Forester withdrew his January
31, 1986 decision for the stated purpose of analyzing and clarifying new information
which was presented in the appeal process. On June 19, 1986 the Forest Service
issued a new Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact as well as a new
Environmental Assessment ("EA"). The Town appealed the June 19, 1986 Decision
Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 29, 1986 and requested to have
the decision of the Regional Forester supporting the issuance of a patent to the
Spraddle Creek parcel and the Lodge parcel in exchange for acquisition of three
hundred eighty-five (385) acres in the Eagles Nest Wilderness area under the
authority of the General Exchange Act of 1922, as amended, and the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976, overturned.
After oral argument by the parties and an administrative review to
determine whether the Forest Service action was in conformance with applicable laws,
regulations and policies, the Chief of the Forest Service found that the Appellants'
concerns about the lack of specific property values was supported by the record.
The Chief remanded the land exchange back to the Regional Office so that appropriate
• ~ . _.,~
appraisals could be done on the Federal and non-Federal parcels. On September 17,
1987, Gary E. Cargill, Regional Forester, issued a new Decision Notice and Finding
of No Significant Impact once again authorizing the exchange. The Town of Vail
filed its Notice of Appeal of this Decision Notice on October 9, 1987. They filed
their Statement of Reasons in support of their appeal on the first day of December,
1987. At the oral argument on the appeal of this Decision Notice by the parties in
Washington, DC and an administrative review to determine whether the Forest Service
action was in conformance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies, the Chief
once again remanded this matter back to the Regional Office with instructions that
the Federal properties be reappraised. With specific instructions that the
reappraisal and any adjustments in the exchange as proposed "must be handled
pursuant to Forest Service policies and procedures governing land exchanges."
Specifically, the Chief ordered that the Lodge property be appraised as though a
private ownership, not government ownership; that the estate be appraised in fee
simple limited possibly by only one reservation and that the estate appraised should
not give legal status to the conditions of the June 19, 1986 and September 17, 1987
Decision Notices. The Chief instructed that "the zoning should be addressed as if
it were the same as existing and/or potential zoning of nearby similar or adjoining
private properties."
On November 8, 1988, Gary E. Cargill, Regional Forester, issued a new
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. In his decision, he states
that, "the appraisals comply with the remand order and the appraisal instructions.
The approved appraisals indicate the value of the Lodge parcel is nine hundred
fifteen thousand dollars ($915,000) and the value of the Spraddle Creek parcel is
three hundred ninety thousand dollars ($390,000) as separate parcels. The total
value of the Federal lands as a single property is one million two hundred
sixty-five thousand dollars ($1,265,000) while the value of the non-Federal lands is
-2-
• ,,~ ., a;
seven hundred seventy thousand dollars ($770,000). The difference in approved value
is four hundred ninety-five thousand dollars ($495,000) or thirty-nine percent (39%)
of the value with the Federal lands. Therefore, the exchange as proposed is not in
compliance with Section 206(b) of FLPMA which requires the value of the lands
exchanged to be equal, or if they are not equal, the value shall be utilized by the
payment of money not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the value of the Federal
lands." Because of the failure to comply with Section 206(b), it was the Regional
Forester's decision to drop the Spraddle Creek parcel from the exchange and to
proceed with the exchange of the Lodge parcel for the non-Federal lands. The Town
of Vail filed its Notice of Appeal on November 18, 1988. The Town incorporates
herein its Statements of Reason previously filed on April 15, 1986, July 29, 1987,
and December 1, 1987, as well as all previously filed Comments on the Responsive
Statements of the Forest Service. The Town incorporates herein by reference the
review appraisal of the Bishop Appraisal Group dated December 16, 1988 and the
appraisal of the Lodge parcel prepared by the Bishop Appraisal Group dated December
16, 1988.
II. ARGUMENT
A. THE SHELTON ASSOCIATES, INC. APPRAISAL OF THE LODGE PARCEL ("THE
SHELTON APPRAISAL") FAILS TO FOLLOW THE APPRAISAL INSTRUCTIONS SET FORTH BY THE
NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE FOR SELECTING THE ZONING OF THE LODGE PARCEL FOR APPRAISAL
PURPOSES.
In his decision dated June 16, 1988 remanding the Lodge at Vail land
exchange back to the Regional Forester for reappraisal, the Associate Deputy Chief
sets forth specific instructions for the reappraisals.
"The Lodge property, consisting of 2.5094 acres, more or less, should
be appraised as though a private ownership, not government ownership. The estate to
be appraised is fee simple, limited possibly by only one reservation, i.e.,
-3-
'v ~ ~
reservation for right-of-way for ditches and canals under the authority of the Act
of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391). The estate to be appraised should not give legal
status to the conditions of the June 19, 1986 and September 17, 1987 Decision
Notices. The zoning should be addressed as if it were the same as existing and/or'
potential zoning of nearby similar or adjoining private properties."
On July 8, Donald E. Howell, ARA, issued appraisal instructions for
revisions of the Vail exchange appraisals which I have attached as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference. In paragraph 5 of those instructions entitled
"Zoning", Mr. Howell states:
"Both parcels must be appraised as if zoning and potential zoning is
similar to that existing on adjacent or nearby similar private properties. That is,
the appraisal should consider that such zoning is already a fact, rather than
considering time and expense would be necessary to accomplish such zoning.
Potential for upgrading the zoning on the subject parcels will be considered to the
extent that potential for upzoning is currently reflected in the existing zoning on
adjacent or nearby similar properties. If highest and best use is different than
this zoning, then time, expense, and risk to get the necessary zoning variations,
changes, etc. must be considered and supported."
Thus, in accordance with Howell's instructions, if the highest and
best use can be found in existence on nearby or adjacent property, then neither the
time, the expense, or the risk to get a zoning variation can be considered by the
appraiser.
In his discussion of his choice of zoning on page 10 of the Shelton
appraisal, Mr. Hart states that the adjoining property to the west is zoned
Primary/Secondary Residential district and to the north Commercial Core I district.
He chooses to ignore the fact that much of the adjacent property to the north is
zoned High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) as can be seen from a review of the zoning
map found on page 11 of the Shelton appraisal. Mr. Hart's first error in his zoning
-4-
,, ~ ~
discussion is that he fails in any way to deal with the fact or even mention the
fact that there is adjacent property zoned HDMF, in violation of the appraisal
instructions. Further, Hart justifies his decision to go with Primary/Secondary
zoning on the basis that there is no evidence of a reasonable probability that the
Town of Vail would zone the subject parcel in the Commercial Core I district. While
acknowledging that the subject property is presently zoned Greenbelt Open Space and
that the applicant certainly has no right to have the zoning amended to Commercial
Core I district and that a real risk exists that such zoning would not be obtained,
the appraisal instructions specifically state that unless the highest and best use
is different from the nearby or adjacent zoning, then time, expense, and risk to get
the necessary zoning variations, changes, etc. must not be considered.
Clearly, the predominant zoning to the north of the Lodge parcel is
Commercial Core I and HDMF, not primary/secondary.
B. THE SHELTON APPRAISAL FAILS TO FOLLOW NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE
APPRAISAL INSTRUCTIONS IN CHOOSING PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL AS THE HIGHEST AND
BEST USE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
In paragraph 4 of the appraisal instructions of Donald E. Howell, Mr.
Howell states new appraisals should show that the highest and best use is
physically, economically, legally, and politically possible. Conversely, if it is
deemed that higher uses are not feasible, the appraisal should strongly demonstrate
that higher uses are either not physically possible, not economical, or not legally
or politically feasible. Moving from the appraisal instructions to the Town of Vail
zoning map, it can be seen that there is property located in three (3) different
zone districts adjacent or nearby the Lodge parcel. The first zone district is
Commercial Core I (CCI). The CCI zone district allows numerous and varied permitted
uses. While many of the uses are either retail or commercially oriented, CCI does
allow as a permitted use multi-family residential dwellings on any level of a
-5-
• •,-
building above the first floor (18.24.040 and 18.24.050 of the Vail Municipal
Code). The HDMF zone district provides as a permitted use in 18.20.020 C
multi-family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and
condominium dwellings. Contrary to the instructions he received, Mr. Hart never
does any economic, legal, or political analysis of the feasibility of a high density
multi-family use.
Moreover, if he chose the zoning properly as directed in the
instructions of the Associate Deputy Chief and Mr.
that the subject parcel would be zoned either HDMF
lodges, apartments, and condominiums as a matter o
the HDMF zone district in his analysis nor does he
utilizing the subject property for the development
condominiums.
Howell, the assumption would be
or CCI zone districts which allow
fright. Yet, Hart never mentions
ever analyze the potential for
of multi-family apartments or
In paragraph 4 of his appraisal instructions, Howell states, "the
removal of the various encumbrances together with the provision for relocating the
road and access easement on both parcels remove some of the physical conditions
limiting the use of both parcels in previous appraisals. Hence, with these
encumbrances removed, highest and best use and intensity of use must be reanalyzed
on both parcels." In spite of this instruction, Hart never analyzes the Lodge
parcel with the access road removed. On the contrary, on page 15 of the Shelton
appraisal under paragraph A entitled "Physical Feasibility" Hart uses the access
road as the primary physical impediment standing in the way of developing the
subject land for a freestanding hotel.
C. THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS IN THE SHELTON APPRAISAL IS FILLED
WITH FACTUAL ERRORS, ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS, AND FAULTY CONCLUSIONS.
On page 15 of the Shelton appraisal under the paragraph entitled
"Physical Feasibility", the appraiser states that extensive grading, contrary to the
-6-
~ ~~
Town's Design Review standards would be necessary, and goes on to cite Section
18.54.070 M of the Town of Vail Municipal Code in support of that contention. The
Town's concern as expressed in Section 18.54.070 M is not with the grading itself,
but with insuring that landscaping and revegetation are properly accomplished.
Section 18.54.070 M of the Municipal Code, attached hereto as Exhibit B, deals with
the right of the Design Review Board to require a bond to allow the Town to complete
such things as required landscaping and revegetation if they are not properly
completed by the developer.
Further along in the same Section, the appraiser concludes that
building a hotel or other structure over the existing access road would be not only
cost prohibitive, but that it would probably be physically impossible to insulate
the impacts of road noise to a degree acceptable for luxury hotel standards. As
pointed out on page 2 of the Bishop review appraisal, Hart's discussion fails to
consider the possibility of tunneling under the access road rather than building
over it. Hart's conclusion that it was physically impossible to insulate the
impacts of road noise to a degree acceptable for luxury hotel standards ignores the
fact that there are luxury hotels and condominiums adjacent to the roadway now and
that they maintain a very high market value. As Mr. Bishop pointed out in his
review appraisal, it is mystifying why Hart spoke with a local real estate attorney
and an engineer rather than the property owners who are adjacent to the roadway
themselves to reach a determination of how extensive the impact of the road use
actually was.
In the paragraph of the Shelton appraisal on page 3 entitled
"Political (Legal) Feasibility", Hart improperly equates the word political with the
word legal. He further states on page 3 that the subject land is zoned
Primary/Secondary when it is actually zoned Greenbelt Open Space.
-7-
`y ''
The Shelton appraisal's section on economic feasibility commencing on
page 18, ignores reality. The appraiser states that the hotel market in Vail is
oversaturated and that the potential for growth and demand is negligible since most
or all existing hotel projects are losing income and cannot support themselves. He
goes on to state that the hotel business is far too low in the non-ski season. If
Hart is correct, it is truly amazing that the exchange proponent, Lodge Properties,
Inc., has been fighting so long and so hard to obtain land from the United States
Forest Service to be used for the express purpose of building more hotel rooms. One
wonders why the appraiser did not interview the land exchange proponent to find out
why additional hotel rooms on the subject land are so desirable. Certainly, the
proponent has wished to build additional hotel rooms on the subject property for
some time. As pointed out in the Bishop appraisal on page 14, in the early 1980's
Lodge Properties, Inc. retained the Ruoff Partnership Architects of Vail to design a
proposed addition to the Lodge at Vail. The architect even constructed a schematic
design showing the siting of the hotel rooms on the property.
Mr. Hart spoke to Kolberg, Kravis, and Roberts Company of New York
City who are leverage buyout specialists and not hotel authorities, about the
feasibility of utilizing the Vail Village Inn for a hotel site. However, Mr. Hart
never questioned representatives of the Westin Hotel chain about the desirability of
additional hotel rooms in Vail even though an additional one hundred forty (140)
hotel rooms were built by the Westin Hotel chain onto the existing Westin Hotel in
Cascade Village. Further, Hart never mentions the fact that a new three hundred
twenty (320) room Hyatt Hotel is presently under construction in Beaver Creek and
that a small forty (40) room lodge, the Inn at Beaver Creek, has just been sold for
a price of five million six hundred fifty thousand dollars ($5,650,000) representing
a per room price of one hundred one thousand two hundred fifty-one dollars
($101,251).
-8-
Hart totally fails to take into consideration the fact that the
existing skiable terrain on Vail Mountain has been increased by one hundred percent
(100%) and this increase will create more demand for hotel space. As pointed out in
the Bishop appraisal, plans for the expansion have been publicly available for more
than a year.
On page 23 in his highest and best use summary, the appraiser states,
"the appraiser has conducted considerable analysis of potential or alternative uses
of the subject property." However, the appraiser never conducted any analysis of
the possibility of using the property for a high density multi-family use. This is
in spite of the fact as previously mentioned that adjacent property is zoned HDMF
and CCI, both of which zone districts allow high density multi-family housing such
as condominiums as a matter of right. These zone districts in fact allow up to
twenty-five (25) condominium units per acre. (Section 18.20.010 and Section
18.24.130 of the Vail Municipal Code attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein
by reference.)
Mr. Hart's choice of primary/secondary residential use as the highest
and best use cannot be supported by any reasonable analysis. As noted on pages 13
through 15 of the Bishop appraisal four MAI appraisers have made review appraisals
of the subject parcel and all have concluded or concurred that the highest and best
use of the property was for the construction of a hotel or high density residential
in the form of condominiums. The departure between these MAI appraisers in their
opinions was a result of differences of opinion of the time it would take to
complete the development, the expenses involved, and the discount rates used. But
again, as noted by Mr. Bishop, the appraisal instructions provided by the NFS state
that, "the appraisal should consider that zoning is already a fact rather than
considering the time and expense that would be necessary to accomplish such
zoning." Mr. Hart, who is not an MAI appraiser and does not have the training of an
-9-
v'
MAI appraiser, is the only one of five appraisers to reach a conclusion that the
highest and best use of the property is for primary and secondary residential
housing.
D. THE LAND VALUE ANALYSIS IN THE SHELTON APPRAISAL IS INACCURATE.
The statement in the land value analysis section of the Shelton
appraisal that there have been declines in the market value of property located in
the Vail Village mountain location is incorrect. The Bishop review appraisal on
pages 8 and 9 gives ample documentation to indicate the inaccuracy of Mr. Hart's
conclusion. As further noted by Mr. Bishop, Mr. Hart should have made substantial
positive adjustments in favor of the subject parcel. The Town concurs with the
Bishop review appraisal that Mr. Hart apparently does not understand
primary/secondary zoning and that this misunderstanding results in an improper
adjustment of listing no. 5 in the Shelton appraisal report. Without being
redundant, the Town fully concurs that there have been numerous additional errors in
the land value analysis as pointed out by Mr. Bishop in pages 7 through 14 of his
review appraisal.
E. THE DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS IN THE SHELTON APPRAISAL IS ERRONEOUS.
If one accepts Mr. Hart's premises that a single primary/secondary lot
should be valued at seven hundred sixty thousand dollars ($760,000), it is difficult
to accept that if a property owner subdivides that lot into two parcels, the parcel
the property owner keeps is worth six hundred twenty thousand dollars ($620,000)
while the second parcel sold on the open market would have a value of only two
hundred ninety-two thousand eight hundred twenty-one dollars ($292,821). As set
forth in the Bishop review appraisal on page 15, if Mr. Hart had used the same
techniques in valuing the second lot as he had used in valuing the property as a
single unsubdivided single family site, the result would have been a value of five
hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for the second lot.
-10-
;,~
Even if one were to accept the Shelton appraisal's choice of highest
and best use for the subject property as primary/secondary residential, the errors
in his land value analysis and development analysis result in an unreasonably low
valuation of a single family site at seven hundred sixty thousand dollars ($760,000)
and a subdivided site containing two (2) primary and secondary lots of only nine
hundred fifteen thousand dollars ($915,000).
F. THE OPINION OF VALUE SET FORTH IN THE BISHOP APPRAISAL OF FOUR MILLION
TWO HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($4,260,000) IS FAR MORE REASONABLE AND PROBABLE
THAN THE CONCLUSION OF UAIUF SFT FORTH TN THE CHFITON APPRATCAI
Mr. Bishop in his appraisal followed the appraisal instructions of the
Associate Deputy Chief Forester and Mr. Donald Howell, ARA. Mr. Howell directs that
the appraisal should consider the zoning chosen is already a fact than considering
the time and expense which would be necessary to accomplish such zoning. He also
states that if highest and best use is different than this zoning, then time,
expense, and risk to get the necessary zoning must be considered and supported. Mr.
Bishop explains in his appraisal that the highest and best use must be based on
zoning that is similar to the properties to the north unless it can be demonstrated
that the highest and best use of the subject property is different. As stated by
Mr. Bishop, the subject property is suitable for the development of the types of
uses which are permitted by the zoning adjacent to the property to the north. As
previously stated, the zoning of the property to the north is either Commercial Core
I or High Density Multi-Family, and either one of those zone districts would allow
the development of apartments or condominiums on the subject land of up to
twenty-five (25) units per acre. This zoning would allow as a matter of right the
development of the thirty-seven (37) condominiums proposed on the site by Mr. Bishop
on page 16 of his appraisal.
-11-
As mentioned above in this Statement of Reasons, the Town fully
understands that the subject property is now zoned Greenbelt Open Space and that
there is risk and cost involved in attempting to obtain an amendment to the Town of
Vail zoning code which would allow either hotel rooms or thirty-seven (37)
condominium units to be constructed on the property, but the appraisal instructions
require that this risk not be considered in reaching a determination of value for
the Lodge parcel. Consequently, Mr. Bishop's opinion of aggregate net present value
for the subject property of four million two hundred sixty-three thousand dollars
(4,263,000) is more appropriate and reasonable than that reached in the Shelton
appraisal.
G. BOTH THE FEDERAL LANDS AND THE NON-FEDERAL LANDS INVOLVED IN THE
EXCHANGE NEED TO BE REVALUED.
According to Section 5430.43-5 of the Forest Service manual, an
exchange may be completed only if there are approved appraisals of the Federal and
non-Federal parcels which are not over one (1) year old. The valuation date set
forth in both the appraisal of the Federal land and the appraisal of the non-Federal
land is May 15, 1987. Obviously, more than one (1) year has passed since the
valuation date of the appraisals and both parcels need to be appraised again with a
new valuation date.
FSH 5.40.13 - Land Acquisition Handbook Section 37 allows the parties
to a land exchange to lock in an appraisal valuation date if they enter into an
exchange agreement which commits both parties to accept as final the approved
appraisal values. The exchange agreement, in order to comply with Federal
regulations, must identify the estate to be exchanged and the conditions and
reservations placed on the land. Forest Service Manual, 5430.43-5; 36 CFR 254.11.
Lodge Properties, Inc. and the National Forest Service entered into
what purports to be an exchange agreement on May 11, 1988, but in fact, this
-12-
agreement does not meet the requirements of the manual or 36 CFR 254.11. In the
first instance, the agreement does not commit both parties to accept as final the
approved appraised values because there are numerous conditions contained within the
agreement which could render the agreement void. For example, paragraph 11 provides
that at the time of the closing provided in paragraph 14 between Lodge Properties,
Inc. and Vail Associates, Inc. shall be in effect. Paragraph 13 of the so called
exchange agreement sets forth additional conditions. Further, the land that is
being conveyed by the NFS to Lodge Properties, Inc. is no longer the property
described on Schedule B of the agreement. The Spraddle Creek parcel is no longer
involved in the exchange and the Lodge parcel has been reduced in size. In
addition, the conditions and reservations contained in the agreement are no longer
the conditions and reservations set forth in the most recent Decision Notice.
Finally, the approved appraised value of the Federal land is no longer nine hundred
fifty thousand dollars ($950,000) and consequently the cash equalization of one
hundred eighty thousand dollars ($180,000) is no longer accurate in view of the most
recent appraisal of the Lodge property and the exclusion of the Spraddle Creek
parcel from the exchange.
H. AN EXCHANGE OF THE I nnr,F PARC'FI FRAM TNF FnRFCT CFRi/T (`F Tn i nnr_r
PROPERTIES, INC. IS A VIOLATION OF THE TOWN OF VAIL'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
The Town of Vail Municipal Code, in Section 17.08.210 defines
subdivision as "a tract of land which is divided into two (2) or more lots, tracts,
parcels, sites, separate interests (including leasehold interests), interests in
common, or other division for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer
of ownership, or for building or other development, or for street use by reference
to said subdivision or recorded plat thereof ..." Obviously, any transfer of the
Lodge parcel from the Forest Service to Lodge Properties, Inc. results in the
division of one (1) parcel of land owned by the Forest Service into two (2) parcels
-13-
of land. This is a subdivision pursuant to the above set
requires the Forest Service to go through the appropriate
Town prior to exchanging title of the Lodge parcel to Lod
failure to obtain the appropriate subdivision approval in
procedures of the Town of Vail renders the transfer void.
Town of Uail Municipal Code.
III. CONCLUSION
Once again, the approved appraisal of the Lodge
forth definition and
subdivision process of the
~e Properties, Inc. A
accordance with the
Section 17.04.020 of the
parcel is inadequate.
There was a complete failure on the part of the appraiser to follow the appraisal
instructions of the Associate Deputy Chief of the Forest Service as contained in the
remand instruction to the Regional Forester and the appraisal instructions set forth
by Mr. Howell. Given the instructions, the zone district chosen for the purposes of
appraisal by Mr. Hart is erroneous as is the conclusion that the highest and best
use of the property is for primary/secondary residential. In addition, Mr. Hart's
value analysis and development analysis are seriously flawed. The opinion of value
reached by Mr. Hart is unsupportable. Additionally, both the Lodge parcel and the
non-Federal parcel need to be revalued as more than a year has passed since the
valuation date of May 15, 1987. The attempt of the NFS and Lodge Properties to lock
in that valuation date by the use of a so called exchange agreement is invalid.
Finally, any effort to dispose of the Lodge parcel from the Forest Service to the
Lodge Properties, Inc. is a clear violation of Town of Vail subdivision law. For
all these reasons, the Decision Notice of the Regional Forester should be
overturned.
The Town of Vail hereby incorporates by reference the Statement of Reasons
submitted by Mossman and Cooper and the Intervenor Statement of the Lodge South
Condominium Association, Inc.
-14-
t~ ~~ 1989.
Dated this _~~' day of _ ~2.««~LE_;~_ ,
~/
r ~~ .
Lawrence A. Eskwith, No. 5976
Town Attorney, Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 479-2107
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this day of ,
1989, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Statement of Reasons in support of
Town of Vail Appeal of Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for Vail
Land Exchange proposal dated November 8, 1988 was placed in the United States Mail,
postage prepaid, to:
Emmet A. Mossman
David Cooper
1430 East Bates Avenue
Englewood, CO 80110
Charles B. 4lhite
Kirkland & Ellis
1999 Broadway, Suite 4000
Denver, CO 80202
Daniel E. Pike
Western Land Exchange Company
1884 Gaylord Street
Denver, CO 80206
Larry D. Henson
Associate Deputy Chief
U.S. Forest Service
USDA
South Building
12th and Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20013
Gary E. Cargill
Regional Forester
Rocky Mountain Region
U.S. Department of Agriculture
11177 West 8th Avenue
Lakewood, CO 80215
/~
-15-
r .
Exhibit A
1. Revise each appraisal report to reflect an independent, self-supporting
estimate of value.
2. Retain original valuation date.
3. Revise the Estates Appraised. Both the Lodge parcel and the Spraddle Creek
parcel should be appraised as if free and clear except for reservations made by
the U. S. Therefore, the Estate Appraised for each parcel should be revised to
exclude aII encumberances from special-use perrnlts, etc. ''
' •• °
lode. Parcel - 2.5094 acres:
Fee simple title subject to reservations to the U.S.:for:
a. A perpetual easement for public access on the existing 1~1i1i
Creep Road (FS Development Road No. 710).
b. A perpetual easement for public vehicular and foot access on
the existing road to ski area facilities at One Vail Place. .
Provided, ho~dever, thee, upon agreement by the Forest Service, the
Lodge Properties, Inc., shall have the right to relocate said access
easements at the Lodges sole expense.
c;~addl Creek Parcel - 40.12 acres;
Fee simple title subject to:
a. The existing easement for Interstate 70 11.52 acres)
b. Reservation to the U.S. for a perpetual easement for public
access on the existing Spraddle Creek Road (FDR No. 737). Lodge
Properties, Inc., upon agreement by the Forest Service, shall
have the right to relocate said access at the Lodges sole
expense.
c. Reservation to the U.S. for 7.7 cfs first priority crater
rights in Spraddle Creek.
4. Reanalysis of Highest and Best Use. The removal of the various
encumberances, together with the provision for relocating the .road and access
easements on both parcels, removes some of the physical conditions limiting the
use of both parcels in previous appraisals. Hence, with these encumberances
removed, highest and best use and intensity of use must be reanalyzed on both
parcels.
'^J
. . `l 1
The appraisal reports must explore the possibility of higher or
more-intense use resulting because the parcels are now less encumbered.
For example, would the removal of the various encumberances on the Lodge
parcel permit a free-standing hotel or some other form of commercial use
higher than that for which previously appraised? Possibly, since the
easements could be moved, tha parcel could be developed as two homesites
even if higher commercial use would not be possible. On the Lodge Parcel,
this might entail examination by a development engineer to determine the
feasibility and practicality of moving the easements or other economic and
feasible mitigation measures.
Also, would the provision that the location of the Spraddle Creek road can
be moved change the potential use of this tract to allow more homesites
than as previously appraised?
The new appraisals should show that the highest and best use is physically,
economically, legally, and politically possible. Conversely, if it is
deemed ttra~ higheP uses are not feasible,~tfi e appraisals should strongly
demonstrate that higher uses are either not physically possible, not
economical, or not legally or politically feasible.
5. Zoning:
Both parcels must be appraised as if zoning and potential zoning is similar
to that existing on adjacent or nearby similar private properties. Thzt
is, the appraisal should considar that such zoning is already a fact,
rather than considering lima and expense would be necessary to accomplish
such zoning. Potential for upgrading the zoning on the subject parcels
will be considered to the extent that potential for upzoniny is currently
reflected in the existing zoning on adjacent or nearby similar properties.
If highesfi and best use is different than this zoning, then time, expense,
and risk to get the necessary zoning variations, changes, etc., must be
considered and supported.
The parcels are to be appraised as if in private ownership. No
consideration should be given to the Town of Vail's zoning ordinance
pertaining to "open-space" zoning of National Forest land While this may
be described in the "Factual" section of the report, all references to this
ordinance and to the political attitude toward conversion of such zoning of
National Forest land should be deleted from "Analyses and Conclusions"
section of the revised appraisal reports.
~'S! ~'~/7~1!
DONALD E. HOWELL,
~• /~CJL!/~e!~
ARA
July 8, 1988
I Concur:
W.C. WAKEFIELD, ARA,ASA,SR/PIA.
JULY 20,1988
Exhibit B
ZONING
18.54.060 Design review fee.
The town council shall set a design review fee schedule
sufficient to cover the cost of town staff time, consultant's fees,
and incidental expense. (Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.)
YR.54.070 ]Performance bond.
The building official shall not issue a final certificate of
occupancy for structures which have obtained design review
approval until upon inspection it is determined that the project is
constructed in accordance with the approved design review
application and plans, and all improvements, amenities and
_ landscaping have been installed. The building official may issue a
temporary certificate of occupancy riot to exceed two hundred ten
days upon the applicant posting with the department of com-
munity development a performance bond or other security
acceptable to the town council in the sum of one hundred twenty
five percent of the bona fide estimate of the cost of installing
landscaping and paving and other accessory improvements
provided for in the approved design review application and plans.
If said landscaping, paving, and other accessory improvements
are not installed by the applicant within the period allowed under
the temporary certificate of occupancy shall be revoked until the
same are installed by the applicant or by the town pursuant to the
terms of the performance bond or other accepted security that has
been approved by the town. (Ord. 39 (1983) § I.)
i~:~~i iz-z;-rsc~~ 454j-6
.~ ~ ~ \ '
Exhibit C 1 of 2
c
HIGH DE\SITY?~1ULTIPLE-FA~tIL~'(HD~IF) DISTRICT
I
Sections:
18.20.010
18.20.020
18.20.030
18.20.040
18.20.0 0
18.20.060
18.20.080
18.20.090
18._'0.1 10
18.20.130
18.20.140
Chapter 18.20
IIGi~-DENSITY ~1ULTIPLE-F.~~1ILY
(HD .1F) DISTRICT
Purpose.
Permitted uses.
Conditional uses.
.-~ccessorv uses.
Lot area and site dultensions.
Setbacks.
IieiRht.
Density control.
Coverage.
Landscaping and site deveio_Dment.
Parking and loadin;.
18.20.010 Purpose.
The high-density multiple-family district is intended to
provide sites for multiple-family d\vellings at densities to a
maximum of hventy-tive dwelling units per acre, together with
su,:h public and semipublic t;tciliti;:; and lodges, private recrea-
tion facilities and related visitor-oriented uses as may appro-
priatzly be loc;ued in the same district. Tite iti~,lt-density
multiple-family district is intended to ensure ;tdequate light,
air, upon space and other :unenities ~ununensurlte with hi~it-
~.lensity ap;lrtntent. ~unctonliniunt ;ut(i lo~!~~e uses. ;Ind t;~ main-
tain the desinlhle residenti;rl ;Ind resort qualities ul~ the district
by estahli,hin~, appropriate ;ite development st;utd;trds. l:crt;tin
nunre,idential u;rs are hernti[ted as conditional uses which
relate to the nature of V;til as a tvutter :uul summer recreation
and \;I~;I[ic~n C(trlllltUrlil\•. ;old where pcrntitted are intended to
blend harntoniou~ly «•ith the rr,r,lential character of tltc dis-
trict. IUr(i. 3711~)~5U1 ti t, tpartt: Urd. 30(1`)7;1 3 b; Ord.
~t 173) ~ G.lOU.)
t~S
.,° ;.
~r
-s. r
ZONING ~
`,~
18.20.020 Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district:
A. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or
retail establishments, located within the principal use and not
occupying more than ten percent of~ the total gross residential
floor area of the main structure or structures on the site;
B. Additional accessory dining areas may be located on an
outdoor deck, porch, or terrace;
C. Multi-family residential dwellings, including attached or row
dwellings and condominium dwellings.
(Ord. 50(1978) § 20: Ord. 19(1976) § 7 (part): Ord. 8(1973) §
6.200. )
18.20.030 Conditional uses.
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the
HDM F district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60:
A. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations;
B. Ski lifts and tows;
C. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures;
D. Public transportation terminals;
E. Public utility and public service uses;
F. Public buildings, grounds and facilities;
G. Public or private schools;
H. Public park and recreation facilities;
I. Churches;
J. Time-share estates units, fractional fee units and time-share
license units; ~~
K. Dog kennel.
(Ord. 20(1982) § 5: Ord. 8(198 I) a~ I : Ord. 37(I 980) ti 6 (part): Ord.
26(1980) § 2 (part): Ord. 8(1973) ~ 6.300.)
Ig.20.0~d0 Accessory uses.
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the
HDiViF district:
A. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages
or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation faciltiies
(Fail 1~-M)1 336
.; M
C
HIGH-DE\SITY MULTIPLE-F.~~IILY (HDJIF) DISTRICT
customarily incidental to permitted residential and lode
uses: -
B. Home OCCL117at10nS. S11bteCi to issuance of a home occu~a-
tion uermit in accordance with the provisions of Sections
13.~5.1~0 through 18.5.190:
C. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permit-
ted or conditional uses. and necessary for the •oneration
thereof.
(Ord. 51 197;1 ~ 6.00.)
C
18.20.00 Eot area and site uunensions.
Tite minimtttn lot or site area sltail be ten tftousand square
feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum
fronta~~e of thirty feet. Eaclt site shall be of a size and shape
capable of eI1C10S1n° a square area eigit[y feat on each side
within i[s boundaries. (Ord. 1,(197S) 3 3 (part).)
18.20.060 Setbacks.
The minimum front setback shall be twenty feet, the
minimum side setback shall be twenty feat, and the minimum
rear setback shall be hventy feet. (Ord. X0(1978) 3 ~' (part).)
18?0.080 ;Iei~_itt.
For a flat root or mansard roof, the Ilci_~Itt of hurldutcs shall
not exceed forty-five feet. Fir ;I >lunin~= root, the hci=ilt oC
huildin~_s shall not rxcced fc,rty-~~i,ht f~.t. (Onl. 3711?SO)
_' (part 1. I
`~ -
15.20.00 Dcnsit_y conU~ol.
~;ot rnorc than sixty scluarr f~~~t of ,toss r~sidcntial fluor
:Ira it;l:l~:\) shall hr l,cnnitted f~,r ~aclt one hundr;d s1lu;lre
feet of lulildahlr site ;Irc;t. \ut Wrote than sixty :Iluare (~•et of
:-ros; ::~identi:ll tl~~or area :ball lie t~enni[ted fur each one
hundr~•d ~~luare feet ~,f I,uildahlc site areal for any ~<tnditional
tlse listed in Section 1,1._'O.U?U. ~l'c,tal density >hall not exceed
Iwenl~r-(ire ~Iw~•Ilin~ units tier acre of I,uil~able site area.
I Ord. `01 1')~7.~) ~ 19 t t,;tr[ -: t )rd. l '(I't77) ; _' I hart 1.1
- X37
(~~:ul ION 1
.~ -
.Q
{ r
O
r
~..,
ZONING
18.20.110 Coverage.
Not more than fifty-five percent of the total site area shall
be covered by buildings. (Ord. 8(1973) § 6.07.)
18.20.130 Landscaping and site development.
At least thirty percent of the total site area shall be
landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area
qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet with a minimum
area not less than three hundred square feet. (Ord. 19(1976)
§ 7 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 6.509.)
18.20.140 Parking and loading.
Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in
accordance with Chapter 18.2. At least seventy-tive percent of ~
the required parking shall be located within the main building
or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely
hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a
landscaped berm. No parkin] shall be located iii any required'
front setback area. (Ord. 19(1976) § 7 (part): Ord. 8(1973) §
6.510.)
Chapter 18.22
PUBLIC ACCO~I~IODATION (PA) DISTRICT
Sections:
18.22.010 Purpose.
18.22.020 Permitted uses.
18.22.030 Conditional uses.
18.22.040 Accessory uses.
18.22.050 Lot area and site dunensions.
18.22.060 Setbacks.
18.22.080 Height.
18.22.090 Density control.
18.22.110 Coverage.
18.22.130 Landscaping and site development.
18.22.140 Parking and loading.
(Vail 10-81) 338
~~ 1
19
Exhibit C
2 of 2
~~ ~: [\:~
Chapter 1 S.2-1
CO;'~1£RCL1L CORE 1 ICC11 DISTRICT
t: *ions:
J.?-.OI C
i 3? .0?0
13.=x.030
3.~~.0~0
S._ :.050
i 3.~~.C60
u.~~.065
.:?.=x.070
I S.?-1.090
1 S.~-1.1 CO
15.~~.1 ?0
13.~~.130
13.x-1.1-10
13._-1.150
l 3. ~-1.170
1 t~S.'-1.1 SO
13.E-1.190
1 s.. ~.,oo
1 tS.' 1.'.0
Purpose.
Permitted anti conditional uses-iiasement or
earcien level.
Pernutted and conditional uses-i=irsr floor or
tree[ level.
?ennlttcd and con~itiol)ai u;cs-~rcund flour.
Pern)itted anti conciitionai uses-:lbuve second
fluor.
Conditional uses-iJeneraily.
~xteriur altera[ions ur moditicatiuns-i'rocedure.
C'unditionai u,es-F cwrs ;;}~piicai?ic.
-\ccessurv uses.
of area anti site (lin)ensiolls.
Setbacks.
Heit,ht.
Density control.
Recanstructiun ut•existin__ uses-Gt:neraily.
Coveratse.
Landscaping and sitr dcvelopmcnr.
1'arkint, anti luadin`„
LOCat1011 (11 hllsmcss ;1CtR'It\'.
1Zl'COilSil'l1Cht)11 O1 C\lS[lll~ IItiCS-t. 1,111p11a11C1`
:with certain st;uular(i, recluircd.
ldui)tiun ut Vail Pillage uri):ut dr~i,n guide {)Ian
and dcsi',n c:)n~idcra[iuils.
1 `i. ~~.OI tl i'nrpt)~c.
I I;t' ~.t)IllillClt'1;11 it,l't' 1 t1Ulllll I', Illl:;lll~ll lt~ I)fU\'lli~ ~llc~
..;;11 ltt 111alIll;llll IIL' llllltllll' t ll;ll':I~ll'I' t)l lily ~ ,Ill `'III:ICC t:l)Ill-
•~l~.r~~tal ar:a, lvllll il, nll.~tulc Ot lttti~~~s anti ~t,rlnl~•r~ial l•stah-
'.;,htn:r.l; ~n a ltrcd(,nlina~c~l~• {~:tl.strtan ~:It`.u~t)nnlrnt. I•Itr
ttllllll.'rt'I:11 ltlfl' I tll,lrll't I'; IIIIt_'lldill Il):Il',llr: :Illt:(}u;lli II!cht.
.::r, t'l`~'ll ~.~~,li~', ,Intl l)lht'r ,llllt'll!ll~~ .II)l~llt{~rCllt` [t) Illy
'`:rllllllill i1l~l', c)I l`Illldlll!'., ;lull 11,1. lh~ tll,lll~l rl'_lllalll)IlS
\~.~i ~I, ~ ,, _
'~+-
:~ ~
y
C0ti4MERCIAL CORE 1 (CC1) DISTRICT
:,.
in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan
and design considerations prescribe site development standards
that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation
of the tithtly clustered arangements of buildings fronting
o-i pedestrianways and public greenways, acid to ensure continu-
ation of the building scale acid architectural qualities that
distinguish the village. (Ord. ? 1(1980) § 1 (part j.)
c
,': ~v"
18.2.020 Permitted and conditional uses-Basement or
garden level.
A. The "basement" or "garden level" shall be defined as
that fluor of a building that is entirely or substantially
below grade.
B. The foilowin~ uses shall be permitted in basement or garden
levels within a structure:
1. Retail shops and establishments, including the
following:
Apparel stores,
Art supply stores and galleries,
Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation
of products specifically for sale on the premiss,
Bookstores,
Camera stores and photographic studios,
Candy stores,
Chinaware and glassware stores,
D~licatess~ns and specialty food stores,
Drugstores and pharmacies,
Florists,
Gift stores,
k~lobby stores,
Jewelry stores,
~- fl~alth food stores,
Leatllrr e~oucls stores,
M1tusii: ana record stores,
Newsstan~L•; and tobacco stores,
Station~n :lures,
S~~urtin;~ uu~ls stores,
T~v)' itor~'s,
. L ..
)
Li~\ I\G
C
i
i~ `-
V;lrl:°tV stor~5,
1'.Ir~i„•_e an~.1 dr\ ~_'Ou~i5 ~iOCei:
_ _ '
_. I'Cr],,;l.li ~~r\ii:C~ :Il'1 `I'.lli •. ;;',. ...•.~i. _ ,.~_
t(?11U\'. i'1S''
:;
.`.)Ill:lll ..pt'1li!II~(` 1':(Yll!' ~i?OIL>,
i.111~J;~ :lnCi C1i-2~Snl.ll~.~r_.
J. 1',iliii_ ..'1(1 ti;lllrilii~ ~~tai)11~i;f11t':;1~, (~l..;l~lll~' ['„
ICL'n'•:Iri~:
JAi~,'rii5 '!'iU ~tP.ll~:it.'»~.:, \'.1:11 IVUII ...r\iC.. I..iiCl.;~'(:
, 1• ..
i(1 ~)r~^a(;!ill~?l (lt i~U'i'.._i] ~:lllit.:ll\~ i~~C !Il' ..'1 ~!~;
~~:,,. ., ', tii 10'.1;1 'i`S .illu } _,...
L-O(Illt(lllli illl(1 i.;lllU\\:~ii ,ii(~1)n,
~C'$ia;IraGIS;
-l. ('rotessii)nal u(fices. i~li~I:~CtiJ ('tti~c anti :,tuctiO~:
5. 13ani:s anti financial ilatinlticn;:
• 6. Additional use, dctci nunc~i to 1?t ~unt!ar to pcrini.[~'a u~c,
de~rrihc(i in suh~;ua~:a1)h: I Ihruul~h ~ O1 this ~cctiun, in
accordance \\ ith the pr(~\ isions of Sertinn I:~.(~f,.U-fli, ,u
lon~_ a5 tlle_`' do nut encuur:l_e \e't;ic;:lar tr:::iic:
%. L.cdLCS.
~_. fhc f(~ilo\cinc u5c5.i1:(II he ; :rnlit:cl! in ;-a~~nl.::it l'r ::ar,l~n
1C\'Ci> \\ illlln ;l ~lCllCtliS'C, lllhliCt ll) ;~~11:1!iiC l)I ;, :~);R1illl)!1'l1
IiC (~lrlllll 111;l000rd:1111C 1\ Itll tllL ~rl)\ I~iJll~ Uf ( ();:I)l~C I `,(il):
~. I luu,chold ;In~li:ul(e ,t~)rC~:
?. I.iyu~,r ~tures;
~. I.uc~~ace >turrs:
~. R;Ililu an(I l ~' ,lore. an~f lt:l~arr ~itui),;
(,. ~lultl~lc-I:Inltl\ Illn:,ln~:
,. 1-hc:ltcrs:
(-. \la~(!r arc;ulc. ,u I('n~' ,1, .t (i,,,~. n,'t il:l\c :In\ r~trr:~)r
tr~)ntacrl)n:(n~ i`uhiic\~;1\.,Irrrt.',\:Ili,\\;I\.~'rnlall.lr.a.
(1'nil '~ a tia) :~
1
0
i
\_
~~_,: _
;::
'':
__!
C0:~4~iERC[AL CORE 1 (CC1) DISTRICT
:a
Amusement devices shall not be visible or audible from
any public wav, street, walkway or mall area;
10. Outdoor patios.
(Ord. 27(1982) § 1(a): Ord. 25(1982) § 1 a: Ord. 6(1982) § 3a: Ord.
8(1981) § 2: Ord. 26(1980) § 2 (part): Ord. 16(1975) § 3(A)(A):
Ord. 8(1973) § 8.200(A).)
15.24.030 Permitted and conditional uses-First floor or street
level.
A. The "first floor" or "street level"shall be defined as that floor
of the building that is located at grade or street level.
B. The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or
street level within a structure:
I. Retail stores and establishments, including the following:
Apparel stores,
Art suppl}~ stores and galleries,
Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of
products specifically for sale on the premises,
Bookstores,
Camera stores and photographic studios,
Candy stores,
Chinaware and glassware stores,
Delicatessens and specialty food stores,
Drugstores and pharmacies,
Florists,
Gift shops,
Hobby stores,
Jewelry stares,
Leather food stores,
_ Luggage stores,
Music and record stores.
Ne~.vsst<u~ds and tobacco stores,
Sportic~~ foods stores,
Stationer}~ stores,
TlC}~;c;t Anil tlllVtl agCI1C1eS,
Toy stork,
Variety stores,
Yardage and dry foods stores;
345 (Fail 5-:i~x:i)
r
zo~•l~~c
~_
2. Eatin~_ and drinking establishments, inclu~ine the
fol[o\\'in~:
Bai:eri~s an~i d~ii~atessenj \\'ith tooci jen'i~e. re.,tr.;;ic~i
to ur:•raratton at rro;iu:tj :~~erit-i.a!I\' for sale or. the
prenlijes. - -
Co~';tail loun~,es and bars.
Cuf:,~ sitl)n~,
I'OLi:talll ;lll~l jalltl :', I~il ji1~i,7j.
~c'j(alllall(j;
3. Lcd~'es: '
Y. :ldliitlOila} L:S~s d~t~.,,,,
~..-'.'~(-t [a l`: j1il11lar li; ti.,.,~1::"''.:
11;eS ~:Ji:rlhelf m ~l:bt.ira'srat)ns ) .ulU J,>i'e ` ,
;1~COr:janCC \`:lt}1 (!1' NCO\'ijiliilj OI J~:::O11 1 ~.Uh.li-'.i.l. _:1
long as their do not ::•::ul:rage \ehl~u:ar ifalt::.
~. Tll: ;OI10`.Vln" Ujej j[lall. t'e i?Crni;i(:il ,?ii (!i: 'I~ ' ,r
sheer !~\' , ~ _.>t i;(,<_. .~r
°1 door ',,.i.}lin :: jtruc;tur:. ,urje,(;o l;;!la;l` . `,i _:
CJnCiIIiC!(lal Iij, pernilt in :1,•~orcialll;~ \Cjtii'tle t~rli\•l:lO::~ v[
Ilap(er ,~~ -
__ 1 . LUUOr stares:
~. Banks and t'inanrial inj(ituuons:
3. Household applianrc stores:
-~. K: dio and TV stores an~i repair shop;;
J. Ke~rr\ c.
(,. '
hlr}1~1~1h~,11._ C1t ,I L'(\ till ~~i~~ all~i I)C;i ;I'\ Il;l l'I~tl~ ~u l~,r?_ .,,
tllc\dnr?~~lhil'.e,!I:\'~C;IIIOrlf,~rlla~',l`il;l(I'.i't!O~1; _
rill'... \'. .tin',' 1l\ .,I ia;l,:
:it', il:
IOrd. ,III.)\~) ~ li_-_)f~i. t~lj`~~II j: 1)rU. '~Ii~}'~I1 ~ t,
l l' ~
l(~I I ).,II) ~ .. i i):U i L I)1'(1. X111 1 .' ~ I ~ ~ -I .li;ll ~: + )' ll. I hl i./- ~ I \
(:~l( f{I: Orll, \I tl}-:) •~ ~ '11111 f{1 I 1
lei ''l.tl-ll1 1'crrnittrr! :(nd c•r,nclirit,n;li u,t•,._~l•l•„n(I tlnt,r.
:\. I Ile tnlllt\\In`_ u,,~ .Iulli `~.; It:rnl~lt~,i loll ;i?~ ,~~l,ltll ;
;lhl,\, '~rall.• \\illtl'1 :l .lr;i~:u;~: I'!,~'.i.l.'J. ".~'.l,l '' t
:: .I. i...l: .t
il`ndllt,,naf 1:~~ p~lllltl \\II~ I~~ l:l.~l,I.ll :!i .t.~,r~IJlll. \, '
(•I,:11)ll't" I~.(~Illul'i!I11 11x'`.1",.,'I:':i;I".~::(ll:~ ;11 `, •.'.\.~;III"ll\\~,•
i:ll!! l,r.t~t:(1r':!!:,~llal'l~ll !lll:: l~I ,l n'. i'i,lfl~`:1'!Itr:`.~1
I. ~lu!l.ptr-t.lnlu`, r~'~ lt_nll.t: ,:'.\:i;rl~':
( t'.. i r „t ti: t 1
1.,
'~ <~
.~
~ ..~fl .;
°~~ COti1~1ERCIAL CORE I (CC1) DISTRICT
:~
3. Professional offices, business offices, and studios;
4. Banks and financial institutions;
5. Personal services and repair shops, including the fol-
lo~~~ing:
Barbershops,
Beauty shops,
Business and office sen~ices,
Tailors and dressmakers,
Travel and ticket agencies:
6. Retail stores and establishments, including the following:
Apparel stores,
Art supply stores and galleries,
Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of
products specifically fur sale on the premises,
Bookstores,
Camera stores and p}iotographic studios,
Candy stores,
Chinaware and glassware stores,
' Delicatessens and specialty food stores,
Drugstores and pharmacies,
Florists,
Gift stores,
Hobb`• stores,
Jewelr~~ stores,
Leather goods stores,
IVtusic and record stores,
I`~ewsstarlds and tobacco stores,
Photographic studios,
Sporting goods stores,
Toy stores, -
Variet~~ stores,
1~'ardat:e and dry goods stores:
7. Eatrn~; and drinking establishments, including the fol-
lotvin~:
Bakeries :rnd delicatessens with fond service, restricted to
preparation of products specifically for sale on the
premises,
Cuektarl lounges :tnd bars,
Culfce shops,
~ 7
(Vail 5 3-t13 )
-a ~
ll
z~
ZO\I\`G
Fountains and sandwich shoos.
Restaurants.
3. The iollo~~ ine uses shalt be permitted un second iiuurs ahu~:
trade. subject to the issuance of a runditi~~nal u:e oern~it in
accordance with the provisions of ~ !:apter f ~.6U:
1. ~1ceting rooms;
?. Liquor stores;
3. Household ~rppiiance stores:
-i. Radio and Tti' ~aies and rcnair shops:
~. Lugga~,e stores;
6. Theaters;
~. Re~c'r~ell:
~. Dog ~nnel:
~~. t)utduui` n_ui~~;. _
-Ord. ~`(f9~_' ; ~ I ~ Urdu =~i! I ys' J ~ ~: t~rd.:~J I'~1s I J ~ ': t ); d.
~(lu~!i) J ' (Hart): (~rci. ,h11~J%~) ~ ~1:\Ji( J: Ura. ~I ly. ~1
tS.2-l.CSC Permitted and conr;itionaluses-:;hog e srcund flour. _
~. The followinz uses shall be n,:rmiucd on anv Moor above tl:e
second floor above grtde:
1. 'vlultipic-famil}~ residential d~~,ellings;
2. Lodees. `
$. The (ot!rnvin~ uses shall he nennitt~d un anv flour ahu~c cite
second floor ai~uvc Lradc. suhjrct to the issuance of a condi-
tional use permit in ;tccurdance ~~ith the pru~isiuns ui
Chapter 1;;.6U:.
I. 1ZClall ,toms and c>t;thlisiur;~nts. !n~~lu,iin~, the (~~Ilu~~ir,g:
Apparel stores, - -
Art supply stores and galleries.
f3akcricsand cun(crtionrrics. restricted to preparation u(
products specifically fur,;d~ un thr prrntucs,
13001~SIUrCti,
Camera stores ;uul phutu~~raphic .tudius,
Chinaware and +tl;us~~;trr •turrs,
C)elicaccsuns and specialty fuoci >lur~s.
n~~~t ~a.x:rl ' :s
'. .
l~
'~
r
t
_?;
,' COMMEP.CIAL CORE I (CC1) DISTRICT
Drugstores,
Florists,
Gift shops,
Hobby stores.
Household appliance stores,
Jewelry stores,
Leather goods stores,
LuR~a~e stores,
!Music and record stores,
Newsstands and tobacco stores,
Photographic studios,
Stationery stores,
Toy stores,
Variety stores,
Yardage and dry goods stores,
Liquor stores,
Radio and TV stores and repair shops,
Sporting goods stores;
_ ~ 2. Eating and drinking establishments, including the
following:
Bakeries and de]icatessens with food service, restricted
to preparation of products specifically Cor sale on the
premises,
Cocktail lounges and bars,
Coffee shops. _
Fountains and sandwich shops,
Restaurants:
3. Professional offices, business offices, and studios;
4. Banks and financial institutions;
5. Personal services and `repair shops, °including the
following:
Barbershops,
B~_auty shops,
BUSInCSS and office ser<-ices,
Small appli,tncc repair shops,
'Tailors and dressntakcrs,
Travel and t;ckrt as:enries;
G. Theaters;
3-t9 (va~i ;ra-s:t~
..`
1
~\
(
.,
7.O\I\G
.-ldditi~~n::l u~rs det~'rnlincd to be sirnil~r to L~ermitt,d
l1SeS i;.SCrlht'Cl !n SUi`Cara°_r.''.ptlti l t11CO11~?h ~ OI TIl1C
SeC(lOn In al'COrd:1nC° \1;111 rI'iC: nrp\'1~lOP,ti l~f ~zCllOn
18.5f,.U~U. so lon)_* as thc_\ cio not encoura~~e \ehiruiar
traffic;
~. Re~~r\:d.
y. Dl)~< ker,r~l.
I CJrd. ,Qi I y~?) S ~: Ord. `~(I y`; i 1 : ~: Urd. ,hl I y;<I)I ~ I Hart I: Urd.
151 I~?~i ~ ;i.-\}111}: (ord. ,~I I~~;} ~ i;._'iJO(DI.)
:o.2~.Ob0 Con(iitionai uses-Generail~.
i f1e IlillO\1In!~ US::1 shall be p;:C:?ll[ICU. SUD;CCt t0 ii1C I~SU:ii1CZ
t'I :t COIIQII!OIl1l USe pernllt In aCCVr(lailCe \\ltn the pr01':~IOiu uI
C~?aD[er 125.50:
.-\. Ski lifts and to\\s:
B. Public utilit\~ and public scn ice usea;
C. i'ublic buildings, grounds, and facilities:
D. Puhlic park and recreational iaciliti~s.
(Ord. 15(1975) j 3(B): Ord. S(Il)73) ~ ti.?00.}
l0.?-3.06 Exterior 11t1'ratl(iliti ur modiFicatiunti-i'n>ccdurc.
\II a!t.r:ltii!n. of the e.~t.: i,)r .)f ;:n ::.~i~::::_ hl::;l'.!n ~ i;l l~(~I
~liall COnll)I\' \\lt ll Il1C tUllt,\\'InL' I, rt,C~c: U:;;: _
.1. I Ile aitl'fatl(ln U) all t_'~;LI:~ `_ ~~'.i:!~illl_ \\ Il!C1:.Illll~ ltr re~,..~\e~
all\' :ilCll)~Cd tlUOr alga .)I' .IIC r'"~i:!~~I.'.e!:t (~; ;I!1 ,
C'\1~ .i1 L'
hlllldln_L' ~Ilall he ~lii>It'~l (~, ri`.le\\ ,,\ (i:_ :,t!1!:,"" ,II:U ~'1\I-
fOnnl:'ntal Cl);111111~~11)I1 ati 1~'~It,\\.
I. :\ppil~a(Il)tl titrlll Inc' nladc' h\' tll: l~\I rl~r l%. thr I~lllll!II1L' l,r
a`_'ellt llrl a IUrlll t1ru1 Idrd h\ Ili.• ~UIII:I~' ;1dI111nI~ll;ltllr;
~. I~he puhli. hl•ann~, h~COr~ ;hr h!allnir:_ ;Ind rn\ Irl)nm~n-
tal CUrl:1'.ll~~ll)Il Khali l,C ilc';tf III;I~.C,iltl.!!IlC \\!tll `1CCtIJIIC
I`.r'(,.l)(,U thrl)u'~h Iti.hh.lll)ll. \ li~•rl~l,,n 111 thy' rl:ulnlnt;
and Cnt Ir11111111'Iftal Ct)illilll~~lUf1 !:l'I1 )~~ app,;llid I,~ the
Il)\\II CltllnCll 111 :II:~Ord..llli': \11111 IIIC [~rt,l~dllrl' ~1)(:illl.d
in ~r~tion I~ (,l 1.1)'11•
3. It .haii he the hurdrn .•( the arl'll~ant und,r thl. ,!:h.ee-
IIOn :\ Ill OIt~\ C h\ a pry I~lllldCr,liI~C,11 :f~;' ~•\ Idi I1~C i'l'II~fC
C
COMh4ERCIAL CORE I (CC1) DISTRICT
i
_r
S
~ ~
the planning and environmental commission that the
proposed building alteration is in compliance with the
purposes of the CC 1 district as specitied in 18.24.010; and
that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail
Village urban design guide plan and desi~~n considerations
or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character
of the neighborhood;
4. The planning and environmental commission may ap-
prove the application as submitted, approve the applica-
tion with conditions or modifications, or, if the planning
and environmental commission finds that the applicant
failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny the
application;
5. Applications for this subsection A shall be submitted
semiannually on or before the fourth Monday of Mav and
November. The planning and environmental commission
shall then hold a preliminary review session within
twenty-one days of the above submittal date. A public
hearing shall then be held within sixty days of the
preliminary review session. For projects which are deemed
by the commission to constitute a major amendment to
the approved Vail Village urban design guide plan or
otherwise constitute a significant impact on the town, a
ninety-day study period may be requested by the planning
and environmental commission, prior to a final disposi-
tion of such projects.
a. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the
alteration of an existing building which add or
remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one
hundred square feet may be submitted'at the required
time of the month for planning commission review.
The review procedures shall, in all respects, be the
same as that for other applications in accordance with
this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion
or deletion pursuant to this subparagraph a. shall be
physically and structurally a part of an existing or
new• building and shall not be afree-standing struc-
ture. ~~ single property owner shall not be permitted
more than one submission in accordance with this
suhp,iragraph a. in any two year period. A property
35 I tva~i i i-is-~3~
,,..: ,
~.~;~;_
.4 ~ ' .
r
ZO\`I~'G
owner may, however, apply for an expansion erecter
than one hundred square feet in anv year in which he
submits his application on the Mav and tiovember
dates set forth in paragraph .~.~.
3. The modification or chance to the exterior facade of a
building or to a site within CCI shall be reviewed by the
design review board in accordance with the iollowine:
1. Application shall be made by the owner of the buiidins or
his agent on a form by the zoning administrator;
2. The hearing before the design reveew board shall he held
in accordance with Chanter 15.~~. .~ decision of the
design review board may be appealed t~~ the to~~ n council
in accordance with the procedure ~pecited ~n C;lap[rr
~,, _ Is.sa:
3. It shall be the burden ~~f the applicant to pro~~ b. ;:
preponderance of rite evidence beforr the desien r~~l~w
board that the propo,ed building modification is in
compliance with the purnoses uC the CCI district as
specified in 13.2?.010: that the proposal suostanuaily
- complies with the Vail Village design considerations, or
that the proposal does not otherwise alter the charyter of
the neighborhood;
d. The desien review board may approve the application as
submitted: approve the •application with conditions or
modifications; or. if the design review board finds that the
applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny
the application;
~. The zoning administrator ma_v ;tppmvc minor modifica-
tions as provided in Section l;~.s-3.060.: decision of the
zoning administrator nuts he appealed to the desi~an
review hoard for review. `
C. X111 alterations under subsection i~ above ,hall hr suhicrt to
review by the design review board following plannin>; ;utd
environmental commission approval in ;lccurdanrc ~~ith
Chapter 13.s~i. The desis'n review hoard shall review the s;une
to insure that the carne COIt1pIV with the Vail Village drsiert
ronsiderttions.
(Ord.-i!(l~)?i3)~ I:Urd.?s(19i;2),ti Id:Orr1.2111~1~U1~ I (p;ut~
i
IVad II-IS stt ~
;~
~ i e
i\
COtifA9ERCI.~L CORE 1 (CCl) DISTRICT
r
''18.'_x.070 Conditional uses-Factors appli~shle.
In cor.siderine, in accordance «ith CI-:anter 18.60. an application
for a conditional use permit ~~ithin commercial core 1 district, the
i ,, follo~~ ine de~~elonment factors shall be applicable:
~; ~. Effects of vehicular traffic on commercial core 1 district;
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in commercial core I district;
C. Reduction of nonessential off-street parkine:
I~. Control of delivery. pickup, and service vehicles;
E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians;
~~' F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and
~~~ public uses in commercial core I district so as to maintain the
~ ~ eXistine character of the area;
~ ~ G. Control quality of construction, architectural desi.n, and
landscape desiUn in commercial core 1 district so as to
maintain the existing character of the area;
1
` ~ p c 4
CO~1~ti•fERCI:~L CORE I (CC1) DISTRICT
\,
._
H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the
em~ironment of commercial core I district.
(Ord. 16(1975) ~ ~.)
13.21.030 ~ccessorv uses.
The follo«~ine accessory uses shall be permitted in the CCI
district:
A. S~~ imming pools. patios. or other recreational facilities cus-
tomarily incidental to permitted residential or lodge uses;
i3. Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permit-
ted eating and drini:ing establishments;
C. Home occupations. subject to issuance of a home occupation
permit in acordance with the provisions of Sections 15.58.130
through 18.58.190;
D. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted
or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.
E. Minor arcade. Amusement devices small not be risible or
audible from an}~ public wa}', street, walkway or mall area.
(Ord. 6(1982) j 3b: Ord. 16(1975) ~ 3(C): Ord. S(1973) ~~ 5.400.)
13.24.090 Lot area and site dimensions.
The minimum lot or site area shall he five thousand square
feet of buildable area, anti each site shall have a minimum
frontage of thirty feet. (Ord. 12(1978) ti ; (part).)
18.2.3.100 Setbacks.
Them shall be no reyuircd Seth;tcks, ~zccpt as may he estab-
lished pursuant to the Vail \'illaee cicsiLn guide plan and ~lesien
considerations. (Ord. 21(19~i)) ~ I (part l.) `
18.2-i.l _'ll l lritiht.
l leieht shall he as regulated in the V;ril Villacr urban desiLn
~.:uidc pLrn an~i dcsiLn comi~lrrations. (Urct. I I(I');i2) ~ _': Urd.
.+7(1980) ti ? (part 1. )
;;?- I
;..,,
... ~ C
c
C
~i~ - -
~~:--- -
~~.
"'b.~.c:~l~.
ZON I\ G ,f'
1.24.130 Density control.
Unless otherwise provided in the Vail Village urban design
guide plan, not more than eighty square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred
square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed
twenty-five dwellin~ units per acre of buildable site area. (Ord.
21(1980) § 1 (part).)
18.24.140 Reconstruction of existing uses-Generall}•.
If any building or structure located within commercial core l
on June 1, 1978, is subsequently destroyed by fire or other
casualty to the degree provided in Section 18.64.090, that struc-
ture or building may be reconstructed to the same or substan-
tially the same size, dimensions, lot coverage, and height in
accordance with the procedures outlined in.Section 18.64.090, so
long as the appearance of the building or structure is the same or
substantially the same as existed prior to its destruction. (Ord.
19(1979) § 3(a): Ord. 13(1978) § 2.)
18.24.150 Coverage.
Not more than eighty percent of the total site area shall be
covered by building and ground level patios and decks unless
otherwise specified in the Vail Village urban design guide plan
and design considerations. (Ord. 21(1980) § 1 (part).)
18.2$.170 Landscaping and site development.
No reduction in landscape area shall be permitted without
sufficient cause shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail
Village design considerations. (Ord. 21(1980) § 1 (part).)
18.24.180 Parking and loading.
Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accord-
ance with Chapter 18.52; provided, t}lat no parking shall be pro-
vided on-site. All parking requirements shall be met in accord-
ance with the provisions of Section 18.5?.160(~'l. Loading
requirements shall continue to be applicably to properties with-
(Vail I~~KII 352-2
.... / C • r
CO;\9titERCIAL CORE 1 (CC1) DISTRICT
ire commercial core 1 ; prodded, that no loading areas shall be
located in any required front setback area. (Ord. 13(1978) § 3.) •
18.'_-3.190 Location of business activity.
A. .all offices, businesses, and services permitted by Sections
18.24.020 through 18.24.050 shall be operated and conducted
entirel~~ within a building, except for permitted unenclosed
parking or loading areas, and t1~e outdoor display of goods.
B. The area to be used for outdoor displa~~ must be located
directly in front of the establishment displaying the :gods and
entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks,
building entrances and exits, drive~~a~~s and streets shall not
be obstructed by outdoor display.
1 8..'-1.200 Reconstruction of existing uses-Compliance with
certain standards required.
.4n}~ building or structure located wit}lin commercial core 1
may be reconstructed to the same or substantially the same
enclosed floor area in accordance with the procedures outlined
in Section 18.64.090. The buildin?, however, shall substantially
comply with the applicable provisions of the Vail Vi]lage urban
design guide plan and design considerations. (Ord. 21(1980)
§ ] (Part).)
18.24.220 Adoption of Vail Village urban design guide plan
and design considerations.
A. The Vail Village urban design guide plan and design consid-
erations are adopted for the purposes of maintaining and
pres:ryinc the character and vitality of the Vail Villace
(CCII and to guide the future alteration, c}lanoe and
improvement in CCI. Copies of the Vail Villaee design guide
352-3
L
~+ G .R ~ r
~~.
~.-
- C0~1~1LRCIAL CORE ? (CC2) DISTRICT
plan and desi~~n considerations shall be on file in the com-
munity de~~elopmznt departmznt of the town.
B. Re~zsior.s to the Vail Village urban design guide plan and
- desist considerations shall be revie~ti~ed by the planning and
environmental commission with ofitcial actio^ to be taken
by the town council by rzsolution on a setniannual basis to
ensure that the plan retlzcts the purposes and intznt for
which it has been adopted. The review and action shall take
place ~ti•ithin thirty days follo~~'ing the public hzarin~ on the
applications.
(Ord. 21(] 9S0) ~ 1 (part).)
CO ~'
Sections:
l s.26.o l o
`.--'
18.26.020
18.26.030
18.26.0-~0
18~b.0-1S
18.26.0 5 0
18.26.060
18.26.070
18.26.090
18:ZG.100
18.26.120
18.26.140
1 s.26.1 so
18.26.160
1 x.26.1 so
Chapter 1 S.26
11El:CL-~L CORE 2 ~CC2) DISTRICT
Purpose.
Requirements for cstablishnicnt-Dc~'elopment
plan.
Perntitted and conditional uses.
Conditional uses-Generally.
Exterior alterations or modiCications-
Proccdure. _
Accessory uses.
Lot area and site dimensions.
Setbacks.
Hci~~ht.
Density control: -
Co~cra;e.
Landscaping and site dc~~clopntcnt. -
Parkin~ and luadin~.
Location of business acti~•ity.
Adoption of Lionshcad urban design guide pl;ut
and dcsi,n considcr:~tions.
3S3 t.•„i : n~1