No preview available
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