HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-03 Support Documentation Town Council Regular SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Ten Year Employment Anniversary Award to Charles Wick
2. Approval of the Minutes of the March 6 and 20, 1990 Meetings
3. Consent Agenda
A. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance
repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1989, to provide
changes to Area D requirements that concern parking provisions; and
Micro-brewery and East Building additions; and setting forth details
in regard thereto.
B Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance
amending the Town of Vail Sales Tax Code; and setting forth details in
regard thereto.
4. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting Chapter 8.32 of Title 8 of the Municipal Code of the Town of
Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify Code provisions relating to smoking
in public places and places of employment.
5. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance re-zoning
Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Vail Valley Third Filing, a part of Sunburst replat, to
Special Development District No. 24, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of
the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
6. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1988, to provide changes to Special
Development District No. 22 that concern lot size and corresponding GRFA;
and curb cuts; and employee dwelling units; and architectural guidelines;
and setting forth details in regard thereto.
7. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance repealing
Ordinance No. 40, Series of 1987 and approving Special Development District
No. 19, Garden of the Gods, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the
Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto.
8. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending
Section 2.04.050 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail changing the
order of business in regular and special meetings of the Town Council; and
setting forth details in regard thereto.
9. Resolution No. 8, Series of 1990, a resolution proclaiming the week of
April 21st-27th Earth Awareness Week.
10. Resolution No. 9, Series of 1990, a resolution setting forth certain rules
relating to public hearings conducted by the Town Council.
11. Resolution No. 10, Series of 1990, a resolution opposing federal
legislation imposing mandatory Social Security and Medicare coverage for
all public employees.
12. Jackalope Cafe & Cantina Sign Variance
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
13. Adjournment
Y
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990
7:30 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 1. Ten Year Employment Anniversary Award to Charles Wick
7:35 2. Approval of the Minutes of the March 6 and 20, 1990 Meetings
7:40 3. Consent Agenda
Kristan Pritz A. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, second reading,
amending Special Development District #4, Cascade
Village Area D, Glen Lyon Office site to provide for
changes to parking provisions, micro-brewery building
and east building (Applicant: Glen Lyon Office
Building, a Colorado Partnership)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/deny
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, on second reading.
Background Rationale: On Feb. 12th, the PEC voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the request with
the conditions that 1) the brew pub would not be open
during the week days. If the brew pub is opened for
weekday use, the parking structure must be
constructed. 2) the 2 employee units shall be
restricted permanently.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 10, Series
of 1990, on second reading.
Steve Barwick B. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1990, second reading,
amending the Town's sales tax code
Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/deny
Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1990, on second reading.
Background Rationale: Town Council has directed that
staff prepare a change to Vail's sales tax code which
would allow the proceeds from qualified fund ra icing
events by local charities to be retained by those
charities. Staff has also included a change that would
allow the Finance Director to waive interest charges on
late sales tax returns.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 12, Series
of 1990, on second reading.
7:55 4. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance
Susan Scanlan relating to smoking in public places and places of
Larry Eskwith employment
Action Request of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance
No. 6, Series of 1990, on first reading.
Background Rationale: The Council and community have
expressed the desire to prohibit smoking in those public
areas where the public is frequently found. This is based
on a desire to protect the public health and welfare. Staff
has worked to accommodate the desires of all interested
parties to produce a mutually acceptable ordinance. This
ordinance includes the changes from the Work Session 3/27.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of
1990, on first reading. This ordinance reflects the
interests of Council and the general public as discussed
previously.
8:10 5. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1990, first reading, rezoning
Tom Braun Lots 3, 4, and 5, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a part of Sunburst
replat from Primary/Secondary Residential to Special
Development District (Applicant: Debra and Robert Warner,
Jr.)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance
No. 11, Series of 1990, on first reading.
Background Rationale: Proposed development on these three
lots include three primary/secondary structures. SDD zoning
is requested to allow for GRFA and site coverage on one lot
to exceed what is permitted by underlying zoning. At their
March 12 meeting, the PEC voted 7-0 to recommend denial of
the application.
Staff Recommendation: Denial, as per staff memo.
8:35 6. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, first reading, a request
Kristan Pritz for an amendment to SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots
1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 (Applicant: Mr. Pat
Dauphinais, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction)
Action Request of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance
No. 13, Series of 1990, on first reading.
Background Rationale: The PEC reviewed this request on
March 26th. A motion was made by Kathy Warren and seconded
by Dalton Williams to approve the SDD with conditions. The
Board voted unanimously to approve the request. The
approval was per the staff memo with the following
amendments:
1) The four additional curb cuts. off of Lionsridge Loop
are acceptable.
2) The employee units (up to 15) may be located on any lot
as long as all development standards are met.
3) Each phase of development shall include a minimum of 1
employee unit until the 6 employee unit minimum is
fulfilled.
4) A bus shelter shall be constructed by the developer on
the west side of the subdivision entrance in Phase I.
5) Garages for employee units shall be connected to the
main structure.
6) The developer shall construct a sidewalk along the
north side of Lionsridge Lane beginning at the
cul-de-sac and extending to the main entry to the
subdivision.
7) At grade, unroofed, unenclosed decks may extend 5 feet
into the rear setback for Lots 1-14.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 13, Series of
1990, on first reading.
9:05 7. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1990, first reading, a request
Kristan Pritz for a Special Development District at the Garden of the Gods
on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village 5th Filing, and a portion of
P-2, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing, at 365 Gore Creek
Drive (Applicant: Mrs. A.G. Hill family)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance
No. 14, Series of 1990, on first reading.
Background Rationale: On March 26, 1990, the PEC reviewed
the SDD request and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0-1
{Connie Knight abstained per the staff memo).
-2-
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 14, Series of
1990, on first reading.
9:35 8. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1990, first reading, an
Larry Eskwith ordinance changing the order of business at Council meetings
Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance
No. 15, Series of 1990, on first reading.
Background Rationale: The Council felt it would encourage
more public participation if Citizen Participation were
placed first on the agenda.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of
1990, on first reading.
9:50 9. Resolution No. 8, Series of 1990, proclaiming the week
Susan Scanlan of April 21st-27th Earth Awareness Week
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution No. 8,
Series of 1990.
Background Rationale: The newly formed conservation group
in the valley is currently planning events and projects to
commemorate the 20th anniversary of Earth Day. Instead of
focusing on the one day, April 22nd, they would like the
entire week to be so designated as the kick-off for
heightened environmental awareness. All communities in the
county are being asked to pass the same resolution.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 8, Series of
1990.
10:00 10. Resolution No. 9, Series of 1990, setting rules for Council
Larry Eskwith public hearings
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution No. 9,
Series of 1990.
Background Rationale: This resolution sets forth certain
rules for citizen participation at public hearings. If
passed, it should result in faster meetings.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 9, Series of
1990.
10:10 11. Resolution No. 10, Series of 1990, a resolution opposing
Larry Eskwith mandatory Social Security and Medicare coverage for public
employees
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution No.
10, Series of 1990.
Background Rationale: The Federal Administration wishes to
pass legislation which would require all TOV employees not
presently covered by a qualified pension plan, such as
seasonal and part-time employees, into the Social Security
system. In addition, the legislation would require Medicare
coverage for all TOV employees. This legislation would cost
the Town $115,000.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 10, Series of
1990.
10:20 12. Jackalope Cafe & Cantina Sign Variance
Shelly Mello
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny sign variance
request.
Background Rationale: On March 7, 1990, the DRB recommended
approval of a sign variance request for the Jackalope Cafe &
Cantina by a vote of 3-1. Under the current requirements,
-3-
the business would be allowed one sign with a maximum area
of 10 sq. ft. at a height of 8 ft. above grade located
parallel to the business. The DRB approval will allow a
sign of 11.2 sq. ft. to be located at a height of 24 ft. on
the front parapet of the West Vail Mall. One DRB member
voted against the variance because of a concern that the
sign was too large and could conform to the size
requirement.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the sign variance request.
10:40 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
10:50 13. Adjournment
-4-
'~,
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 6, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 6, 1990, at
7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
Jim Gibson
Robert Levine
Peggy Osterfoss
MEMBERS ABSENT: Merv Lapin
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
The meeting began with the approval of minutes of the February 6 and 20, 1990
meetings. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Jim Gibson made a
motion to approve the minutes as presented, which Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote
was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Next on the agenda was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1990, first reading, increasing
the compensation for future Mayors and Councilmembers. The full title was read by
Mayor Rose. Larry Eskwith stated this ordinance was written to the Council's
specifications. Jim Gibson commented he had problems with the ordinance and felt
the Town needed a broader spectrum of people seeking seats on the Council, but this
was the wrong premise. He did not believe the ordinance would do what it was
intended to do, and urged the Council to not pass it. Lynn Fritzlen remarked this
item was extensively discussed at a Work Session in which all Councilmembers
participated, and she felt it would help with daycare costs, filling in for a work
position during meetings, etc., and this might help get a diversity of applicants
for Council. Mayor Rose stated Councilmembers did spend a lot of time in meetings,
reading, on phone calls, etc., and he felt those who dedicate their time should be
compensated somehow and this would help. He continued with he had no problem with
increasing the compensation. Peggy Osterfoss agreed with Mayor Rose, adding that
she preferred a flat rate change instead of the meeting rate, and felt the amount
should just be doubled what it is presently. Tom Steinberg stated the present
amount was the original amount set, and felt the amount should be brought up to an
acceptable level, such as $500, which would help poorer people run for office.
After much more discussion by Council, Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to approve the
ordinance as presented, which was seconded by Tom Steinberg. Peggy Osterfoss noted
she preferred a flat rate increase, but would support the ordinance because it was
valid. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2, with Robert Levine and Jim
Gibson opposing.
Item three was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending
Special Development District No. 23, the Vail National Bank Building.. The full
title was read by Mayor Rose. Tom Braun stated this was for a small addition to the
Vail National Bank building. After reviewing the SDD change request, he stated
staff had no problems with the concept, but there were a number of problems with
this proposal and the timing. He stated the five basic problems were:
1. At the present time, the parking structure approved for the Medical Center
is designed to meet the needs of the Center and the Doubletree Hotel. The structure
is not designed with excess capacity. Approval would have to be obtained from the
Town to modify the development plan adding more parking to this site. This approval
has not been obtained.
2. The parking is not in place at this time. The staff has serious concerns
about approving this proposal dependent upon parking that is not in existence
today.
3. The development of the parking structure is totally dependent upon the
performance of an adjacent property owner. The Bank has no control over the
completion of these spaces. It would not be responsible to grant a development
Y
}
approval to one property owner, who then must rely on the performance of an adjacent
property owner in order to satisfy their parking commitments.
4. It has not been established that the Holiday Inn has an excess number of
spaces to lease to the Bank. With the development of the structure out of the
Bank's control, the Holiday Inn solution must be considered a permanent one in the
event the completion of the Medical Center parking structure is delayed. While it
may be unlikely that problems will develop with completing the structure, it is not
the Town's responsibility to speculate, or accept the risk that everything will go
smoothly.
The worst case situation is such that the Bank must rely on alternative
locations for the parking, and the obvious question becomes whether the Holiday Inn
has the ability to provide this parking. No documentation of the utilization of the
Holiday Inn's lot has been submitted as a part of this application.
5. The approval of this proposal could serve to establish a dangerous
precedent for future development proposals. Simply stated, the applicant is asking
for approval of a development that is dependent upon the performance of an adjacent
owner in order to satisfy the parking requirements. From the standpoint of the Town
and the community at large, there is little or nothing to gain by granting this
approval now. While an approval for the application will allow them a more
convenient construction schedule, the Town will be accepting the risk that the
parking structure at the Medical Center may or may not be completed in a timely
manner.
Tom stated the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended approval by a Q-2
vote. After some comments by Council, Jay Peterson, representing the Vail National
Bank Corporation, gave some background information on this SDD and what the plans
are now. He addressed Tom Braun's concerns, and reviewed the PEC's eight conditions
for approval. He felt these addressed almost all of the concerns. Jay then
responded to Tom Steinberg's problems with the request.. After much discussion,
Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to approve the ordinance with the eight conditions
required by the _P EC, plus two additional. The eight were:
1. The Vail Valley Medical Center (VUMC) submit an application for
modification to its conditional use permit allowing an additional two half levels of
parking.
2. The VVMC submit plans showing such two half levels of parking.
3. The Vail National Bank building exercise its option to purchase or use in
perpetuity the number of spaces from UVMB necessary to conform to zoning for its
addition.
4. The VVMC receive all approvals from the Town of Vail necessary to receive a
building permit to construct such. additional levels of parking and the VVMC apply
for and receive such building permit.
5. The Vail National Bank building shall not occupy the expanded premises
unless UVMC has commenced construction and has continued construction on its parking
structure.
6. The Vail National Bank building agrees to move out of the expanded premises
if they cannot occupy the parking spaces at VUMC on or before December 1, 1990.
7. The Vail National Bank building provide a letter from Holiday Inn or a
.suitable substitute allowing the use of four parking spaces from the date of
occupancy of the expanded premises to December 1, 1990.
8. The above conditions be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building
permit to Vaii National Bank building.
Thy additional two were:
1. A temporary occupancy permit be issued contingent upon completion of the
parking structure by December 1, 1990.
2. If the Vail National Bank building is unable to occupy the structure by
January 1, 1991, the enclosed areas would be removed and returned to open decks.
-2-
Robert Levine seconded the motion. Much more discussion ensued by the Council, Jay
Peterson, and staff. An idea of adding to the motion the requirement of a letter of
credit to be issued to the Town of Vail so the Town could remove the enclosed decks
if need be was mentioned. Larry Eskwith requested they leave the motion as is, so
he could work on the rewording for second reading. At this time, Jay Peterson
requested the motion be withdrawn and the item tabled until the next Evening
Meeting. Peggy Osterfoss withdrew the motion, and Robert Levine withdrew the
second. Peggy Osterfoss then made a motion to table the ordinance until the next
Evening Meeting, which Robert Levine seconded. It was felt this would allow Jay and
Larry time to work out some rewording. Tom Steinberg made a motion to proceed with
the ordinance on first reading. There was no second, so the motion died. A vote
was taken and Peggy's motion passed 5-1, with Tom Steinberg opposing. Tom Steinberg
then made a motion to deny the ordinance. There was no second, so the motion died.
The fourth agenda item was appointment of a Local Liquor Licensing Authority Board
Member. Bill Bishop, the single applicant, has served on the Board since March of
1988. Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to reappoint Bill Bishop to a two year term on
the Local Liquor Licensing Authority Board. The motion was seconded by Robert
Levine. Lynn Fritzlen stated she was abstaining from the vote due to a financial
relationship she has with Bill Bishop at this time. A vote was taken and the motion
passed 5-0, with Lynn Fritzlen abstaining.
Under Citizen Participation, Kristan Pritz stated they needed Design Review Board
applicants. She asked Councilmembers that if they knew of anyone, to please let her
know and she would personally contact them. She added that at this time, there was
only cne applicant.
Mayor Rose commented that to move Citizen Participation up to the front of the
agenda, an ordinance was needed. He said that if everyone was agreeable, he would
also like to set up guidelines, time tables for speakers, and he would suggest
Council look at it and try it. Lynn Fritzlen felt it was appropriate. Larry
Eskwith stated he and Ron Phillips had looked at this item in the Code today, and
they would have some suggestions to the Council in the `very near future.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-3-
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 20, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 20, 1990, at
7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
Jim Gibson
Merv Lapin
Robert LeUine
Peggy Osterfoss
None
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item was the County Recreation and Affordable Housing Election
presentation. Don Welch introduced members of the Task Force who were present. He
explained the history of the County's plans for recreation and affordable housing
and brought the public up-to-date. Peter Jamar gave a slide presentation of
prospective plans. Kevin Lindahl reviewed the planned capital costs for Phase I of
the recreation area, and once it becomes fully operational, the annual proceeds and
costs. Jim Stovall gave closing remarks giving an overview of the tentative plans.
He then urged the public to get out and vote April 10.• Don Welch then held a
question/answer session for the public.
Item two was a public hearing regarding the proposed Tennenbaum land exchange.
Mayor Rose gave brief background information. on the proposed land exchange. He then
gave a summation of past Council philosophies and decisions regarding open space,
real estate transfer tax, and the pursuit of land acquisitions to keep open space,
Council's concern now over a precedent that will be set, and that Council did not
want to see local land degradation to preserve other lands. Andy Wiessner,
representing the Tennenbaums, discussed amendments to the proposed legislation to
appease the Town of Vail, noting the basis of the request was that the loss of one
acre would not do the Town any harm. He then addressed some issues brought up at
the Special Council Work Session meeting last Thursday, and answered numerous
questions of the public. Afterwards, pro/con statements from the public were made.
Emmet Mossman, who lives at 166 Forest Road, was against the exchange. Kirk Kepsel,
of Lakewood and representing the Colorado Environmental Coalition, felt the land
trade would be outstanding for Colorado. He felt the 2,100 acres were all
ecologically significant land in the state, and the one acre was not. Arthur Gould,
a licensed engineer and part-time resident of Vail, and representing the homeowners
on Rockledge Road, was very much against the trade. Woody Beardsley of Denver,
representing the Colorado Division of the Wilderness Society, endorsed the land
swap, but would help if Vail residents could raise enough money to purchase the
lands; then the Society would drop their support of the land trade. Moni Beal felt
this trade must be stopped now, because others would be coming. up in the future if
this did go through. Hermann Staufer was against the trade, and felt residents had
worked hard for Vail and want to keep it the crown jewel of the ski industry. Diana
Williamson opposed the trade stating neighbors may have problems if it happened.
Lee Baker, from Denver and on the Board of the Colorado Mountain Club, congratulated
the Council on their commitment to open space, and stated the position of the Club
on this issue was that it was a good deal for the people of Colorado; it may not be
for Vail, but it was for the State. He also felt it was too good a deal to turn
down and too good a deal for Vail to stop. Lew Meskiman, a Vail resident, felt the
trade was not in the best interest of the town. He suggested the Town look into
extending town limits over the Forest Service land and designate this overlapped
area as open space; this would provide a double block for any land transfers. He
noted that Minturn does this. Joe Staufer was concerned that this transfer would
establish a precedent and urged the Council to fight it. Dorothy Coleman,
representing the Colorado Environmental Coalition, stated she understood why Vail
was against the trade, but felt the other lands were. worth saving; also, she felt
the ski area may expand over the one acre eventually. Diana Donovan was very much
i
against the proposed trade. At this time, Councilmembers gave their comments
regarding the proposed land trade. Jim Gibson was very disappointed with the
environmental groups; he felt they saw only one thing - 2,100 acres of what they
wanted. He felt this was an extremely dangerous precedent which would affect Vail
very adversely. He also remarked if it could be done here, then it could be done
anywhere in the country. Peggy Osterfoss commented it was interesting to see the
polarization of the Vail group and environmental groups, and felt we should be
working together for a net increase in public lands, not exchanges. She also noted.
the problem she had with this exchange was that it involved subjective judgement -
what's good for whom? Merv Lapin was very much opposed to all land trades that
involve Forest Service lands for private lands. He encouraged the public to contact
our Colorado delegates and let them know immediately that we are against this
trade. Mayor Rose was against the trade because he did not want to lose our open
space to acquire some elsewhere; the land was important here. Tom Steinberg, who
was completely against the trade, pleaded with Mr. Tennenbaum to totally withdraw
his request. He felt this was in the best interest of the community and the
Tennenbaums. Lynn Fritzlen first thanked everyone for coming to express their
opinions, the commented she was against this trade because it was a local land use
decision being decided on a national level with no local input. Robert Levine was
worried about this trade setting a precedence, and felt that each time after this
would be easier and easier until the system fell apart. Ron Phillips stated a
summary of Council's comments would be in a written form sometime tomorrow for the
public. Jim Gibson asked that a list of the Colorado delegation's addresses and
phone numbers be included for the public. Tom Steinberg then made a motion
authorizing the Town Manager to make a summary of Council's attitude and draft a
letter to the Colorado delegation opposing the land trade as presented for reasons
stated, and to have this letter sent to each member of the delegation, and also make
this information available to the public, along with the delegations' addresses and
phone numbers. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously 7-0.
Due to the lateness of the hour, Council decided to move agenda items around to
accommodate those members of the public involved in agenda items who were still
present.
The next item discussed was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1990, first reading, a
request to amend Special Development District No. 23, the Vail National Bank
Building. Mayor Rose read the full title. Tom Braun stated no changes had been
made to the ordinance and staff had done no additional work on it with Jay
Peterson. He remarked staff had no other comments and would be interested to hear
the Bank's presentation. Paul Powers of the Vail National Bank Building reviewed
the request, gave some background information, and answered questions of Council.
Peggy Osterfoss noted the Council had problems with two issues basically: 1) the
timing of the construction before the parking spaces were available, and 2) adequate
parking. Lynn Fritzlen stated it was difficult to vacate the space if the
conditions were not met, and the enforcement would prove to be overwhelming to
staff. Tom Braun added that staff could not support the request as it stands. Tom
Steinberg made a motion to deny the ordinance, which was seconded by Lynn Fritzlen.
Diana Donovan did not understand why the Council was against this request. After
some discussion by Council, Byron Rose, one of the owners of the Bank building,
addressed the timing issue as far as Land Title and the UNB Building were
concerned. Peggy Osterfoss responded to Diana's concerns, and added she would vote
against the ordinance. Robert Levine suggested the Town issue a building permit at
the time the parking structure was begun, but no occupancy permit until the parking
structure was complete. After much discussion by Council, Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
responded to Council's timing concerns, asked questions of Council and staff, and
gave reasons why the request should be approved. A vote was then taken and the
motion passed 6-1, with Mayor Rose opposing, so Ordinance No. 9 was denied.
The next order of business was Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, first reading,
amending Special Development District #4, Cascade Village Area D, Glen Lyon Office
site to provide for changes to parking provisions, micro brewery building and east
building. The full title of the ordinance was read by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz
gave a brief description of the request noting staff recommended approval and the
Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. There was then some
discussion regarding parking. Jim Gibson made a motion to approve the ordinance,
and Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously
7-0.
The fifth item was Resolution No. 7, Series of 1990,
act on behalf of the Town of Vail in negotiating and
termination agreement with the U.S. Postal Service.
authorizing the Town Manager to
entering into a lease
There was no discussion by the
-2-
~'`
public or Council. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve, which Robert Levine
seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Next was Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1990, first reading, rezoning Lots 3, 4, and 5,
Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a part of Sunburst replat from Primary/Secondary Residential
to Special Development District. Tom Braun stated the applicant was requesting the
ordinance be tabled and the application be remanded to the Planning Commission.
There was no other discussion. Merv Lapin made a motion to table the item and
remand the application back to the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by
Robert Levine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1990, second reading, increasing future Council
compensation, was discussed next. Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance.
Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to approve, with a second by Tom Steinberg. Jim Gibson
was opposed to the ordinance because he felt it would not get younger people to run
for Council. Also, he felt Council would be open to considerable criticism sine
Planning Commission and Design Review Board members received no compensation. After
some discussion regarding this, Diana Donovan commented she felt an across the board
increase for Councilmembers was alright, but not for attending meetings. A vote was
then taken and the motion failed 3-4, with Robert Levine, Peggy Osterfoss, Merv
Lapin, and Jim Gibson opposed, so Ordinance No. 7 was denied.
The next order of business was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1990, first reading,
amending the Town's sales tax code. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. There
was no discussion by Council or the public. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve,
which Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously
7-0.
The Jackalope Cafe & Cantina sign variance was next. Due to the absence of the
applicant, Merv Lapin made a motion to table this item to the next Evening Meeting
April 3. Peggy Osterfoss seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously 7-0.
The tenth item on the agenda was appointment of a Design Review Board member.
Applicants for the opening were Carolyn Edrington, Don Galgan, George King, and
George Lamb. Council voted by secret ballot for one member. There was a majority
vote for George Lamb. Merv Lapin then made a motion to appoint George Lamb for a
two year term on the DRB, which Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously 7-0.
There was no Citizen Participation.
There being no further public business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-3-
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 26, 1990
RE: A request to amend Special Development District #4,
Area D, Glen Lyon Office Site to allow for changes in
the design of the micro-brewery building and parking
plan.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building, Inc. - A
Colorado Partnership
I. BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSAL
In January, 1989 the Town approved a major amendment to
Special Development District #4 which includes both the Glen
Lyon Office site as well as all of Cascade Village. .The
amendments on Area D - the Glen Lyon Office site allowed
for:
A. A brewery addition havinq_approximately 17,600 sct. ft.
of gross floor area:
The approved building would connect to the west end of
the existing Glen Lyon Office Building. The addition
would be approximately three stories high and include a
brewing area, pub, beer hall, retail/museum, and
brewery office. Anew deck would extend down to the
bike path adjacent to the creek.
B. Expansion to the existing Glen Lyon Office Buildin
An additional 2,400 sq. ft. of office space would be
added to the existing Glen Lyon Office Building. The
new office area would infill above the second floor of
the Glen Lyon Office Building.
C. Parking Structure:
A two level parking structure having 100 spaces was
proposed to be built directly to the east of the Glen
Lyon Office Building. The vehicular access to the
property would be moved further to the east according
to the Arterial Business Zone District Circulation and
Access Plan. Deceleration lanes would be constructed
on the South Frontage Road.
D. East Building:
Two alternative development scenarios were proposed for
this building. Scenario One provided for two employee
dwelling units having a total GRFA of 1,695 sq.ft. plus
a free market dwelling unit having a GRFA of 1,630
sq.ft. In addition, office space was included within
this scenario (2,400 sq.ft.). Scenario Two called for
only office having a square footage of 5,725 sq. ft.
Surface parking would be provided adjacent to the
building.
E. Site Improvements:
The developer agreed to include the following site
improvements into the project:
1. Bike Path - The existing bike path will be moved
further to the west in order to decrease the
steepness of the path. The relocated path also
allows more open space between the bike path and
the brewery addition.
2. Bus Shelter - The developer has proposed to build
a new bus drop-off in front of the brewery
building. The Town of Vail will provide bus
service for the drop-off. The developer is
responsible for maintaining the drop-off.
3. Undergrounding of Utilities - The developer was
required to underground the Holy Cross electrical
lines that extend along the north side of the
property adjacent to the South Frontage Road.
In August of 1989, the developer requested a minor amendment to
the development plan to allow an increase in office space of 400
sq.ft. to the Glen Lyon Office building. This results in a total
office expansion of 2,800 sq.ft.
II. THE REQUEST
The developer states that:
The commitment of a large area to an industrial use
such as bottling, etc., severely limited the projects
ability to be financed. In addition, the requirement
to construct a parking structure to support an
innovative project without an operating history became
an insolvable financial obligation. As a result, the
brewery building has been redesigned as a smaller, less
specialized project.
The new design is a two story building with a small
sub-basement which totals 8,605 sq.ft. It is designed
to permit the Vail Brewery to expand, if appropriate,
into the second floor office space. Initially, all of
the Vail Brewery's facilities with the exception of its
entry reception and loading areas are on the lower
floor. (Andy Norris, Glen Lyon Office Building, Inc.)
Below is a summary of the proposed changes to the approved
development plan:
A. Approval of revised building plans for the micro-
brewery addition.
The plan calls for a more mixed-use approach to the
building that will include the brewery as well as
office space. This two story building will be
constructed directly to the west of the existing office
building. These changes include:
1. Office at 3,780 s.f.: Increase of up to 3,080
s.f. over the approved plan. In the phase II
development plan, if the brewery operations need
to be expanded, 436 s.f. of the adjacent office
would convert to a fermentation area.
2. Beer Hall at 1700 s.f.: Decrease of 74 sq.ft. (30
seat decrease).
3. Brew Pub at 1380 s.f.: Decrease by 478 sq.ft. (40
seat decrease).
4. Retail at 885 s.f.: Increase by 439 sq.ft.
5. Reception/Museum at 480 s.f.; Increase by 65
sq.ft.
6. Brew House at 1406 s.f.: Decreased by 5,194
sq.ft.
7. Total commercial and brewery operations gross
square footage decreased by 3,308 sq.ft. (Please
see the attached chart comparing the approved SDD
to the amended plan.)
B.
Approval of revised parkins plan which provides on-site
parking spaces.
The brewery, beer hall, brew pub, retail, and museum
would be closed during normal weekday business hours of
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. This would allow for shared
parking between the office uses and the brewery, dinner
theatre and restaurant operations. The 100 space
parking structure would not be completed until the Brew
Pub is opened during the day or the east building is
constructed.
C. Phasing Plan.
Phase I•
--Expansion/Renovation of Glen Lyon Office Building.
--Expansion of parking lot to 79 spaces and 6 valet
spaces on the east end of the surface parking lot.
--Relocation of access into the parking lot.
--Undergrounding of electric service.
Phase IT•
--Construction of Brewery/Office addition to the west
end of the Glen Lyon Office Building
--Relocation of bike path
--Construction of deceleration lanes on S. Frontage
Road
--Town of Vail bus stop .added
Phase III•
--Addition of east building and/or Brew Pub operates
during the day.
--Construction of parking structure (100 car)
SCHEDULE: April, 1990 - Start construction of Phase I &
Phase II, permits taken out simultaneously.
September, 1990 - Completion of Phase I.
December, 1990 - Completion of Phase II.
April, 1991 - Start construction of Phase III.
December, 1991 - Completion of Phase III.
D. Employee Housing
The developer is prepared to commit to construction of
the required employee housing units (2) on Parcel D as
a condition of the Phase III building permit. Ten
employee housing units shall be located in Cascade
Village (Area A) in the Westhaven building. This
results in a net increase of 2 employee unit for the
SDD.
E. An enclosed emergency exit stair will be located on the
south side of the Glen Limon Office Building.
The stair encroaches approximately 7 feet into the 50
foot stream setback. An unenclosed stair may not
encroach more than 5 feet into a setback.
F. All conditions of approval associated with the existing
development glan shall be included in the revised plan.
III. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE ARTERIAL ZONE
DISTRICT
A. Background on Glen Lyon Property
In 1976, Special Development District #4 was
established. The Arterial Business Zone District was
adopted in March of 1982. Arterial Business zoning
serves as the underlying zone district for the Glen
Lyon Office property. Technically, the property is
still within Special Development District #4. However,
the Arterial Business Zone District (ABD) is used in
respect to determining allowable uses and general site
development standards.
When the Special Development District was originally
established, the development plan called for 10,000
square .feet of office space. The office building was
constructed in 1979-80 with a gross area of
approximately 13,000 square feet. In March of 1982,
the PEC and Town Council approved an amendment to the
SDD which allowed approximately 3,000 square feet of
existing storage within the building to be converted to
office space.
In 1983, a request was also approved by the Planning
Commission and Town Council to allow the total gross
area of the building to be 25,000 square feet. Of this
25,000 square feet, 18,750 square feet was considered
to be net floor area for office. The remainder of the
area was devoted to common area such as mechanical,
lobby areas, and corridors.
The 1983 request also included a change to the front
setback. The front setback would be adjusted form 20
feet to 15 feet. The request was approved by the PEC
with two conditions. The first was the "the bike path,
right turn and left turn lanes shall be provided in
accordance with the circulation and access plan for the
Arterial Business zone district with the stipulation
that the funding be worked out within a period of 60
days after the approval, and that no building permit
would be issued until the funding was worked out. "
The second condition stated that the applicant "shall
agree to sharing in the cost of providing an additional
fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the
Vail Fire Department." (PEC Minutes; January 20, 1983)
In March of 1986 the developer requested to extend the
expired approval for Development Area D. This request
was also approved.
In April of 1986 the Glen Lyon Office Building
partnership requested a minor subdivision of the Glen
Lyon Office Building property. The concept was to
divide the 1.8 acre site into two parcels so that
ownership could be divided prior to construction. The
development would be limited to the approved
development plan for the parcel This request was
also approved by the PEC. However, the minor
subdivision plat has not been finalized and recorded
with the County by the applicant.
B. Arterial Business Zoning Compared to Proposed SDD
The Arterial Business Zoning provides a guide for the
level of development on the site. Below is a summary
of how the proposal compares to the requirements of the
ABD district.
ABD District
Requirements
Proposed SDD
1. SETBACKS:
Side: 15 feet if the
building is less than
20 feet high;
20 feet if the building
is greater than 20 feet
high.
Rear• 10 feet
Side: All of the project
meets the 15 foot side
setback except.
Rear: The dining deck
extends up to the property
line.
project .
Front'
15 ft = 420 l.f. 60%
20 ft = 280 l.f. 40%
Front'
4 ft. = 3 l.f. for parte-
cochere
15 to 20 ft. = remainder of
Parking Structure: Parking Structure:
No setback for underground The parking structure
parking. maintains a 4 ft. front
setback and a 10 ft.
setback along the south
property line.
Centerline of Gore Creek:
50 ft stream setback from
centerline of Gore Creek
Centerline of Gore Creek:
The parking structure
encroaches 8 ft into the
stream setback.
2. HEIGHT'
70% = roof 32 to 40 ft. 51% = roof 32 ft to 40 ft
30% = roof un der 32 ft. 49% = roof under 32 ft
Minimum roof slope 3 ft. in
12 ft.
3. DENSITY'
GRFA = 34,578 s.f. GRFA = 3325 s.f.
Maximum of 33 D.U.s 3 units of which 2 are
restricted employee units
4. SITE COVERAGE'
60 % of total site area
(76,180 s.f.) = 45,658
sq. ft.
15,500 sq ft = buildings
12,600 sq ft = structure
28,100 sq ft total or 37%
site coverage
.50
Proposed Bldg, 14,486 sf
Existing Bldg, 16,800 sf
East Bldg, 6,000 sf
5. FLOOR AREA RATIO:
Maximum allowed, .75
Total, 37,286 sf
37,286 = .50
76,130
6. PARKING AND LOADING:
No loading or parking is Project has loading and
allowed in the front setback drop-off areas in the front
setback. The parking structure
extends into the front f& strea
setback.
Phase I & II
79 Surface
6 Valet
85 Total
7. LANDSCAPING•
25% of the total site or
19,032 sq ft
C. Summary
Phase III
100 Structure
3 Garage
5 Surface
108 Total
60% approx. (excludes
buildings, ramps, drives
and structure)
The proposed development plan departs form the Arterial
Business District standards in respect to setbacks.
Staff's opinion is that the setback differences are
warranted due to the narrow width of the property, the
steep slopes and large evergreens on the south side of
the lot, and the constraints of the 50 foot stream
centerline setback. The applicant has designed a
building that is dramatically below the allowable floor
area ratio and site coverage for the property. These
encroachments are slight, especially when one also
considers that structure parking has been located on
the property. The Architects have done an admirable
job of fitting the development in a sensitive manner on
to the property.
IV.
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA
It shall be burden of the applicant to demonstrate that
submittal material in proposed development plan comply
with each of the following standards, or to demonstrate
that one or more of them are not applicable or that a
practical solution consistent with the public interest
has been achieved.
Rather than go through the review of the entire
project, staff will focus comments on the changes
requested for the SDD. The primary change relates to
the parking proposal and phasing of the project.
A. Design compatibility and sensitvity to the .immediate
environment, neighborhood and adiacent properties
relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.
The site planning and architecture of the project do
not change through the amendment request.
B.
uses and activity.
The project will continue to provide a mix of uses
which is workable with the surrounding area. The
combination of the brewery, bar and restaurants, office
and employee residential uses will serve as a
transition zone between Lionshead and Cascade Village.
Staff believes that it is very positive that the
employee housing will be located in the east building.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as
outlined in Chapter 18.52.
The amendment request calls for an approval of a shared
parking plan. 79 spaces will be provided on site along
with 6 valet spaces on the east end of the parking lot.
Compact car spaces are used to achieve the 79 spaces.
TDA Colorado, Inc. has completed a revised parking
analysis for the project. The report concludes that 84
spaces are necessary for peak demand with the condition
that the 11 assumptions listed in the beginning of the
TDA report dated January 16, 1990 are followed.
In the event that the brew pub is opened for seating
during the day, the report concludes that 95 spaces
would be required for the entire project excluding the
east building parking requirements. Thus, the 100
space parking structure which would be built at the
time the brew pub is opened for day use would be
adequate to serve the development.
Staff does have concerns about parking once the east
building is constructed. The parking requirement for
this part of the proposal is 16 spaces. The east
building will need to be decreased in size in order to
have adequate parking on site. In order to provide for
the parking, the office space would need to reduced by
1000 square feet.
Three loading spaces are provided. This amount meets
the Town of Vail loading requirements. The loading
spaces were not counted in the total parking counts.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan Town policies and Urban Design
Plans.
The following sections of the Town of Vail Land Use
Plan relate to this proposal:
General GrowthJDevelopment
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled
environment, maintaining a balance between
residential, commercial, and recreational uses to
serve both the visitor and the permanent resident.
Skier/Tourist Concerns
2.5 The community should improve nonskier recreational
options to improve year-round tourist.
Commercial
3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in
existing commercial areas to accommodate both
local and visitor needs.
3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural
activities should be encouraged in the core areas
to create diversity. More night-time businesses,
ongoing events and sanctioned "street happening"
should be encouraged.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or
geologic hazards that affect the property on which the
special development district is proposed.
No hazards are present on the Glen Lyon property. The
site is affected by the flood plain. However,
development is not proposed in this area.
F. Site plan building design and location and open space
provisions designed to produce a functional development
responsive and sensitive to natural features.
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the
community.
No major changes are proposed in this area.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and
pedestrians addressing on and off-site_trafflc
circulation.
No major changes are proposed in this area.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in
order to optimize and preserve natural _features.
recreation, views and functions.
The applicant-has removed surface parking from the
public right of way. The parking lot has been pushed
to the south to allow for more substantial landscaping
along the Frontage Road side of the parking. Two trees
are removed to allow for this new configuration. Staff
strongly supports the increased landscaping along the
Frontage Road.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workable functional and efficient relationship
throughout the development of the special development
district.
Staff supports the phasing plan as long as the office
in the east building is decreased by 1000 s.f. to
insure that there is adequate parking when all phases
of the project are complete. We also believe that the
building permits for Phases I & II must be combined to
insure that all of the site improvements are
constructed before temporary certificate of occupancies
are released for either phase. It will be required at
the Design Review Board review of this amended plan
that a construction staging proposal be submitted to
insure that there will be sufficient parking during
construction.
IV.
V.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
No major changes are proposed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to
Area D. With the following conditions:
1. All previous conditions of approval for SDD #4, Area D,
shall be fulfilled by the owner. These conditions are
listed in Section 18.46.210 D, 1 through 9 and Section
18.46.200 Conservation and Pollution Controls of
Ordinance 12, 1989.
2. Plans for the Frontage Road improvements shall be
submitted by the developer to the Town of Vail engineer
for review and approval before a building permit is
released for Phase I & Phase II.
3. No valet parking shall be allowed on the west end of
the parking lot.
4. The entire office building and brewery building shall
be sprinklered and have a fire alarm detection system.
Fire Department approval of these two systems shall be
required before a building permit is released for Phase
I or Phase II.
5. The three dwelling units in the east building shall
only be allowed to have gas fireplaces that meet the
Town of Vail ordinances governing fireplaces.
6. The developer shall submit a set of amended plans to
the Colorado Division of Highways for their review and
approval. The project must receive CDOH approval
before the project is presented for final approval to
the Design Review Board. Particular issues of concern
are the brewery parte-cochere and landscaping along the
Frontage Road.
7. Phase III shall reduce the maximum office square
footage from 2400 S=s.f. to 1400 s.f. to insure
adequate on site parking when all phases are built.
8. A construction staging plan shall be presented to DRB
for approval.
VI STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO DRB:
1. Landscaping along the Frontage Road side of the project
should be reviewed to insure that adequate screening of
the surface parking lot is provided.
2. The brewery building and office building should have
the same exterior finish. Presently, the office
building has wood siding and the brewery building has a
stucco finish.
SDD #4, AREA D
DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE
AND PARKING PER TOWN OF VAIL REQUIREMENTS
FEBRUARY 26, 1990
PHASE I & II PHASE III
APPROVED PLAN DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
Sq.Ft. / Parking Sq.Ft. / Parking Sq.Ft. / Parking
Glen Lyon
Office Bldg.
(Existing) 10,150 40.6 10,150 40.6 10,150 40.6
PHASE I
Glen Lyon
Bldg.
- Office 2,800 11.2 2,800 11.2 2,800 11.2
PHASE II
Micro-Brewery
-Office 700 2.8 3,780 15.1 2,634 10.5
-Reception/
Museum 415 0.0 480 0.0 480 0.0
-Retail 446 1.5 175 .6 885 3.0
-Fermentation/
Brewhouse 6,600 0.0 970 0.0 1,406 0.0
-Beer Hall 1,774 14.7 1,700 18.8* 1,700 18.8*
(180 seats) (150 se ats) (150 seats)
-Brew Pub 1,858 15.5 1,380 10.0* 1,380 10.0*
(120 seats) (80 sea ts) (80 seats)
SUBTOTAL 24,743 86.3 21,435 96.3 21,435 94.1
PHASE III
East Building
-2 Employee
Units 1,695 4.0 0 0.0 1,695 4.0
-1 Dwelling
Unit 1,630 2.0 0 0.0 1,630 2.0
-Office 2,400
------ 9.6
------------- 0
--------- 0.0
---------- 2,400
---------- 9.6
------
SUBTOTAL 3,325 15.6 0 0.0 3,325 15.6
TOTAL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE AND PARKING:
41,018 102.0 21,435 96.3 24,760 110.0
*USED HIGHEST PARKING REQ. POSSIBLE BASED ON SEATING
PARKING USE CHART
Daytime Parking Spaces 102 673 90.05
Evening Parking Spaces 37.72 29.44 37.86
1. All required parking.
2. All retail, beer hall, brew pub and residential required parking.
3. All office required parking.
4. all retail, beer hall, brew pub required parking
5. All office, retail, brewpub and east building required parking.
6. All retail, brewpub, beer hall and residential required parking.
~:
:1~
~ ~ ~
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING. DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS. RESEARCH
January 16, 1990
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
Andy Norris has asked me to review the proposed revisions to the
Vail Brewery proposal in relation to the previous plan and to
review the impacts of the new project versus the original plan
that was approved by the Town of Vail. The impacts related to
the previously approved plan for the Brewery are contained in the
Environmental Impact Report prepared in August of 1988 and
revised November 22, 1988.
As I understand it the changes proposed relate to a decrease in
the number of seats in both the Beer Hall and Brew Pub and a
possible slight increase (375 sq. ft.) of the brewery related
retail space. The most significant change will be that no
bottling or milling of grain will now be done on site.
A review of these changes indicates that virtually all aspects of
the project such as hydrologic conditions, atmospheric conditions,
geologic conditions, biotic conditions, noise impacts, visual
conditions, and land use conditions will remain unchanged from
those reported in November of 1988. With respect to loading and
delivery, the elimination of the bottling operation from the site
could be expected to reduce the amount of loading and delivery to
the site.
The parking conditions at the site will change due to the
reduction of seats and the revised cperating hours of the Brew -
Pub. Please refer to the analysis that TDA has prepared for a
discussion of anticipated parking demand revisions due to the new
plans.
Suite 308. Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West Vad, Colorado 81657 (303) ~t76.7i5a
%, ~ .. ~ ~ -
s ~.:_,
,'-~' ;.
~r~ ~ Ms. Kristan Pritz
Department of Community Development
_,. January 16, 1990
Page 2
~,
Please 1~ me know if you require additional information or have
any cis ions .
Jamar, AICP
PJ:ne
TDA
~LORADO
i INC.
Transportation
Consultants
January 16, 1990
Mr. Andy Norris
Vail Brewery Company
1000 S. Frontage Road W.
Suite 200
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Vail Brewery, Parking Analysis Update
Dear Andy,
As requested, we have reviewed the parking implications of your
proposed package of revisions to the Vail Brewery development
program. Similar to our approach used in the analysis presented
in our August 10, 1988~report, we have synthesized a case for
parking demand by assessing the number of brewery employees and
patrons who would present at peak accumulation, and, the
anticipated mode of travel of these persons. This analytic
approach is described in detail and presented graphically in our
August report.
We have used your memorandum of 10/16/89 to Kristan Pritz and our
recent conversations for comparing the proposed amended development
plan to the currently approved plan. In both the original and the
amended cases the design condition will be a high summer day or a
late - March (Spring break} day. This represents times of year
when Vail Valley visitation is high and patrons will be more
inclined to have and use automobiles than would Christmas week and
mid-winter patrons.
Parking Analysis Considerations
Our understanding of the proposed amendment, as it effects persons
present at the Brewery during peak accumulation (7:00 pm) is:
1. The Beer Hall will now have 150 seats. The Approved Plan
called for 180 seats.
2. The Brew Pub seating (bar and table) will be 80 seats.
The Approved Plan shows 120 seats.
1675 Lorimer St.
Suite 600
penver, C080202
(303) 825-7107
3. The Brewery related retail space was going to be 400
square feet in the approved plan. Under the amended plan
it will initially be 175 square feet, possibly growing
to 775 square feet with expansion.
4. Fermentation will now be on the second floor in the
initial project. Hence, there will be no expansion of
the Beer Hall into the former first floor fermentation
area as construed in the Approved Plan. This means Beer
Hall seating will be capped at 150 seats.
Mr. Andy Norris
January 16, 1990
Page 2
5. There will be no bottling or milling of grain on site.
6. During summer months, when auto use by patrons and
employees will be highest, there will be only one dinner
seating for the Beer Hall. Hence, there will not be an
overlap of first and second dinner seatings as was the
case in the Approved Plan analysis.
7. Brew Pub bar seating will be most active immediately
after work (or apres ski) and again later in the evening
(after normal dining hours) if this becomes a local
gathering spot.,
8. It is desired to open the Brew Pub to the public at 4:30
p.m. to attract the after work/ski crowd. Hence, there
will be some overlap between office workers and Brewery
patrons
9. A future Brewery capacity expansion plan would add 600
square feet of fermentation area at the expense of office
space. At the same time, Brewery-related retail space
will expand by 600 square feet to 775 square feet. An
additional Brewery employee will be added for an
overnight brewing shift.
10. The existing 54-space parking lot will be expanded ~0 73
spaces as part of the initial Brewery development
project.
11. Parking structure construction is not contemplated until
the expanded Brewery seeks to open for food and beverage
service prior to 4:30 p.m. on normal work days, i.e.
lunch business. When this happens day Brewery parking
demand will be totally additive to office parking needs.
Parking Demand Assessment
With the above conditions as background, we have reassessed Vail
Brewery parking needs.
Table 1 shows total persons present at peak accumulation for both
the initial plan and the expanded Brewery plan would be 213 and 215
persons, respectively. This is 53 fewer than the Approved Plan.
t
Mr. Andy Norris
January 16, 1990
Page 3
Table 1
Estimated # of Brewery Employees and Patrons
Present During Peak Accumulation, by Area
(7:00 PM High Summer Day)
Retail Brew Beer Hall Brew Pub
Develot~ment Scenario Shop House # Seats # Persons # Seats # Persons Total
1. Approved Plan (1/88)
# Employees 1 2 - 15 - 6 24
# Patrons 4 - 180 200 120 40 244
Total Persons 5 2 215 46 268
2. Amended Plan,
# Employees 1 2 - 13 - 6 22
# Patrons 1 - 150 150 80 40 191
Total Persons 2 2 163 46 213
3. With Brewery expan.
# Employees 3 2 - 13 - 6 24
# Pat~'ons 1 - 150 150 80 40 191
Total Persons 4 2 163 46 215
Source: TDA Colorado Inc. estimates based on expected peak summer season visitation and
Brewery employment projections.
Mr. Andy Norris
January 16, 1990
Page 4
Table 2 depicts the number of parked vehicles at peak person
accumulation utilizing the anticipated travel modes referenced in
our August report. Peak summer day parking demand would be 80
spaces, 8 fewer than the Approved Plan. Most of this change is
due to reduced Beer Hall seating and elimination of a second dinner
seating.
Table 2
Estimated Number of Persons and Vehicles on Site
@ Peak Accumulation (7:00 PM)
Brewery
Development Scenario ~ Persons (1) # Parked vehicles (2Z
1. Approved Plan (1/89) (2)
Employees 24 12
Patrons 244 76
Total 268 88
2. Amended Plan, initially
Employees 22 14
Patrons 191 65
Total 213 79
3. With Brewery expan.
Employees 24 15
Patrons 191 65
Total 215 80
Source: TDA based on estimated hourly accumulation of brewery
visitors and employees, by travel mode, August 10, 1988
report.
1. See Table 1
2. See TDA report dated Aucrust 10, 1988, Table 2 for factors used
in arriving at automobile usage.
Mr. Andy Norris
January 16, 1990
Page 5
Applying a 95o utilization factor to allow for peaking within the
analysis hour, the 80 space demand for the proposed amended plan
would suggest a supply of 84 spaces. The proposed amendment shows
73 parking spaces available on-site. Methods of rectifying this
apparent eleven-space deficiency are discussed below.
Other Parking Considerations
Kristan Pritz' letter of November 14, 1989 addresses issues that
are discussed in this section.
1. Peak Parking Demand Frequency. Our assessment, suggests
peak demand will occur during the summer months when auto
use is highest. Our analysis depicts the need for 84
Brewery-related parking spaces during peak summer
activity times. It should be noted, this peaking would
occur between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. during busy weekends and
summer holidays (4th of July, Labor Day). Review of I-
70 traffic volume variations, and, daily Vail bus
ridership figures (both depicted in .the Centennial
Engineering EIS repcr~-for the Main Vail interchange)
suggests high activity-days could occur 8 to 10 times
between the beginning of July and the end of September.
In each case the duration of peak Brewery demand would
be less than two hours each evening. From this we would
anticipate the on-site 73-Space parking supple wculd be
exceeded 15 to 20 hours per year. As a point of
reference, ULI (the Urban Land Institute) advocates a
parking ratio policy for shopping centers that says
parking demand would exceed supply for 20 hours per year.
Designing for the busiest hour of the year, ULI argues,
is an unrealistic design standard the burdens the
community with an unnecessarily large area dedicated to
paved parking.
We believe appropriate parking management practices could
alleviate deficiencies for the 20 or 30 hours per year
these surcharge situations could occur. These ~~actices
could include:
A. Patron cars could be valet parked in the Porte
Cochere area (4 to 5 cars) and in the aisle of the
west end of the surface parking-lot (4 to 6 cars),
and/or:
Mr. Andy Norris
January 16, 1990
Page 6
B. When special events or traditionally high demand
days are anticipated, require emplcyees who
typically park on-site to either car pool, use
public transit, or park off-site on these occasions.
If one-half of the employees complied this would
free-up 7 parking spaces during the evening peak and
thereby relieve the deficiency.
2. Opening the 80-seat Brew Pub at 4:30 p.m.. Opening the
Brewery before the end of the office work day will result
in some overlap of office parked vehicles and Brewery
parked vehicles. The peak situation would probably occur
during March when apres ski patrons will be more inclined
to have autos than other times of the year. Again, using
the travel mode assignments discussed in our August 1988
report we show the following parking demand for a 4:30
to 5:00 p.m. overlap situation.
tt in # in # Parked
Persons Present Brewery Office Vehicles
1. G`f-site patron 65 0 20
2. On-site office 15 45 25
3. Brewery employee 10 5 7
Total 90 50 52
Our assessment shows this early evening situation would
use 52 of the 73 available parking spaces. Inherent in
this analysis is:
A. At full occupancy the 15,320 square feet of office
would represent about 76 people (200 square feet per
person}. By 4:30 in the afternoon about 52 of these
(two-thirds) would still be present. This is
supported by the actual counts (1) at Glen Lyon and
Vail Professional Building Offices during the TOV's
parking analysis and survey last year.
B. Some of the Brew Pub patrons will be office workers,
we assume 15, who will stay for a drink before
heading home.
Based on the above, we would not see-a parking problem
created by opening the Brew Pub at 4:30 p.m..
1. "Vail Parking field Analysis & Survey", Summary Report RRC/LSC
July 27, 1989, p.9.
Mr. Andy Norris
January 15, 1990
Page 7
3. Truck Loading and Delivery. We would anticipate two
types of delivery and loading:
o Brewery supplies and materials delivered and Brewery
product transported out, and
o Office related deliveries (UPS, Federal Express,
etc. )
These latter deliveries are now occurring at the west end
of the parking lot. Brewery deliveries and pick-ups will
occur at the new South Frontage Road access adjacent to
the Porte Cochere. We understand only single unit trucks
(no semi-trail'ers)~ will use the loading dock. typically,
food and beverage supplies are delivered between 9:00
a.m. and 3:30 p.m.. As long as .brewery deliveries and
pick ups do not occur during the peak evening hours, we
would not anticipate a parking or traffic problem
associated with your planned facility.
I trust this adequately addresses parking issues regarding your
current development proposal.
Sincerely,
TDA COLORADO INC.
(~
David D. Leahy, P.E.
Principal
Addendum 2 20/90
As requested, we have reviewed the parking condition that will
exist when a proposed 100-space parking structure is constructed
on the site and the 80-seat Brew Pub is opened for lunch patrons.
At full develo -ant there will be 15, 320 s. f. of office space which
will share the use of the parking structure. Assuming 11 Brewery
employees on-site over the lunch hour (8 Brew Pub, 2 Brew House,
1 Retail), and using the same travel modes as used in the evening
analysis, we estimate a lunch time need for 95 spaces as follows:
11 employees @ 0.625 space/employee = 7 spaces
80 patrons @ 0.34 space/patron = 27 spaces
15.3 ksf office @ 4/1000 s.f. = 61 spaces
Total need = 95 spaces
Mr. Andy Norris
January 16, 1990
Page 8
Since the need (95 spaces) is less than the supply (100 spaces),
we believe the 100-space structure will adequately accommodate the
typical combined daytime need of the office tenants and opening the
Brew Pub for lunch business.
D.D.L. ~(zO q0
'i~~~ `(
ORDINANCE N0. 10
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 12,
SERIES OF 1989, TO PROVIDE CHANGES TO AREA D REQUIREMENTS THAT
CONCERN PARKING PROVISLONS; AND MICRO-BREWERY AND
EAST BUILDING ADDITIONS; AND
SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes
Special Development Districts within the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council approved Ordinance 12, Series of 1989
Special Development District No. 4; and
WHEREAS, Glen Lyon Office Building, a Colorado Partnership, has
requested to amend the existing Special Development District No. 4,
Area D; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has
recommended that certain changes be made to Special Development
District No. 4; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable,
appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens,
inhabitants, and visitors to repeal and reenact Ordinance No. 12,
Series of 1989 to provide for such changes in Special Development
District No. 4, Cascade Village.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1989, is hereby repealed and
reenacted, as follows:
Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission
Report.
The approval procedures described in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail
Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received
the. report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending
approval of the proposed development plan for Special Development
District No. 4.
Section 2. Special Development District No. 4
Special Development District No. 4 and the development plans
therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Special
Development District No. 4 within the Town of Vail.
Section 3.
Chapter 18.46 Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, is
hereby repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as follows:
18.46.010 Purpose
Special Development District No. 4 is established to ensure
comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that
will be harmonious with the general character of the Town,
provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and
promote the objectives of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan.
Special Development District No. 4 is created to ensure that the
development density will be relatively low and suitable for the
area and the vicinity in which it is situated, the development
is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and
the Planning Commission, and because there are significant
aspects of the Special Development District which cannot be
satisfied through the imposition of standard zoning districts on
the area.
18.46.020 Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions
shall apply:
A. "Special attraction" shall be defined as a museum, seminar
or research center or performing arts theater or cultural
center.
B. "Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted
dwelling unit" shall be defined as a dwelling unit located
in a multi-family dwelling that is managed as a short term
rental in which all such units are operated under a single
management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel
services and facilities. A short term rental shall be
deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 31
days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet of GRFA
which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square
feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be
locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a
closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from
common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing
through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or
2
transient residential dwelling unit. Should such units be
developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set
forth in section 17.26.075--17.26.120 governing condominium
conversion. The unit shall not be used as a permanent
residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed
to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the
purposes of determining allowable density per acre,
transient residential dwelling units shall be counted as
one half of a dwelling unit. The transient residential
dwelling unit parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per
unit plus O.l.space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a
maximum of 1.0 space per unit.
18.46.030 Established
A. Special Development District No. 4 is established for the
development on a parcel of land comprising 97.955 acres as
more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A.
Special Development District No. 4 and the 97.955 acres may
be referred to as "SDD4."
B. The district shall consist of four separate development
areas, as identified in this ordinance consisting of the
following approximate sizes:
Area Known As
Cascade Village
Coldstream Condominiums
Glen Lyon Duplex Lots
Glen Lyon commercial Site
Dedicated. Open Space
Roads
Develo ment Area Acreage
A 17.955
B 4.000
C 29.100
D 1.800
40.400
4.700
97.955
3
18.46.040 Development Plan--Required--Approval Procedure
A. Each development area with the exception of Development
Areas A and D shall be subject to a single development
plan. Development Area A shall be allowed to have two
development plans for the Waterford, Cornerstone, Millrace
IV and Cascade Club sites as approved by the Town Council.
Development Area D shall be allowed to develop per the
approved phasing plans as approved by the Town Council.
The developer shall have the right to proceed with the
development plans or scenarios as defined in Section
18.46.103 B-F.
B. Amendments to SDD4 shall comply with the procedures
outlined in Section 18.40.
C. Each phase of development shall require, prior to issuance
of building permits, approval of the Design Review Board in
accordance with applicable provisions of Chapter 18.52.
18.46.050 Permitted Uses
A. Area A, Cascade Village
1. First floor commercial uses shall be limited to uses
listed in 18.24.030 A-C. The "first floor" or
"street level" shall be defined as that floor of the
building that is located at grade or street level.
2. All other floor levels besides first floor or street
level may include retail, theater, restaurant, and
office except that no professional or business office
shall be located on street level or first floor (as
defined in Section 18.24.030 A of the Town of Vail
zoning code in Area A) unless it is clearly accessory
to a lodge or educational institution except for an
office space having a maximum square footage of 925
square feet located on the first-floor on the
northwest corner of the Plaza Conference Center
building.
4
3. Lodge
- 4. Multi-family dwelling
5. Transient residential dwelling unit
6. Employee dwelling as defined in Section 18.46.220.
7. Cascade Club addition of a lap pool or gymnasium
B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums
1. Two-family dwelling
2. Multi-family dwelling
C. Area C, Glen Lvon Duplex Lots
1. Single family dwelling
2. Two-family dwelling
D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site
1. Retail
2. Restaurant and bar
3. Business and professional offices
4. Multi-family dwelling
5. Employee dwelling as defined in section 18.46.220
18.46.060 Conditional Uses
conditional uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as
outlined in Chapter 18.60 of the Town of Vail zoning code.
A. Area A, Cascade Village
1. Cascade Club addition of a wellness center not to
exceed 4,500 square feet.
2. Fractional fee ownership as defined in the Town of
Vail Municipal Code, Section 18.04.135 shall be a
conditional use for dwelling units in the Westhaven
multi-family dwellings. Fractional fee ownership
shall not be applied to restricted employee dwelling
units or transient residential dwelling units.
Ownership intervals shall not be less than five weeks.
3. Special attraction
4. Ski lifts
5. Public park and recreational facilities
6. Major arcades with no frontage on any public way,
street, walkway or mall area
5
B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums 4
1. Public park and recreational facilities -
2. Ski lifts
C. Area C, Glen Lyon Duplex Lots
1. Public park and recreational facilities
2. Ski lifts
D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site
1. Micro-brewery as defined in Town of Vail Municipal
code, Section 18.04.253
18.46.070 Accessory Uses
A. Area A, Cascade Village
1. Minor arcade.
2. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home
occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of
Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190.
3. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses,
swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other
recreational facilities customarily incidental to
permitted residential uses.
4. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to
permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the
operation thereof.
5. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or other
recreational facilities customarily incidental to
permitted or conditional uses, and necessary to the
operation thereof.
B. Area B, Coldstreamn Condominiums
1. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home
occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of
Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190.
2. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses,
swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other
recreational facilities customarily incidental to
permitted residential uses.
6
3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to
permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the
operation thereof.
4. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or other
recreational facilities customarily incidental to
permitted or conditional uses, and necessary to the
operation thereof.
C. Area C, Glen Lyon Duplex Lots
1. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home
occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of
Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190.
2. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses,
swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other
recreational facilities customarily incidental to
permitted residential uses.
3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to
permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the
operation thereof.
D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site
1. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home
occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of
Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190.
2. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses,
swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other
recreational facilities customarily incidental to
permitted residential uses.
3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to
permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the
operation thereof.
4. Minor arcade.
7
18.46.080 Location of Business Activity
A. All offices, businesses, and services permitted by Sections -
18.46.050 through 18.46.070 shall be operated and conducted
entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed
parking or loading areas, and the outdoor display of goods.
B. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located
directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods
and entirely upon the establishment's own property.
Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and
streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display.
18.46.090 Density--Dwelling Units
The number of dwelling units shall not exceed the following:
A. Area A, Cascade Village
Two hundred eighty-three point five (283.5) dwelling units,
total maximum with a minimum of three hundred thirty-eight
(338) accommodation units or transient residential dwelling
units and a maximum of ninety-nine (99) dwelling units as
defined by the table in Section 18.46.103 A-D.
B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums
Sixty-five (65) dwelling units
C. Area C, Glen Lyon Duplex Lots
One-hundred four (104) dwelling units.
D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site
Three dwelling units, two of which shall be employee
dwelling units as defined by the table in
Section 18.46.103F.
18.46.100 Density--Floor Area
A. Area A, Cascade Village
The gross residential floor area for all buildings shall
not exceed 289,445 square feet, except that the total
maximum GRFA shall not exceed 292,245 square feet if
Millrace IV Scenario 2 (32 A.U.'s) is constructed.
B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums
Sixty-five thousand square feet (.65,000 s.f.) GRFA.
8
C. Area C, Glen Lyon Duplex Lots
_ GRFA shall be calculated for each lot per Section
18.,13.080 density control A and B for the
primary/secondary district of the Town of Vail municipal
code. No residential lot shall contain more than 4,200
square feet of GRFA per the Glen Lyon subdivision
covenants.
D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site
The gross residential floor area for the two employee
dwelling units shall be 795 square feet and 900 square
feet respectively. The gross residential floor area
for the free market dwelling unit shall be 1,630
square feet.
18.46.102 Commercial Square Footage
A. Area A, Cascade Village
Area A shall not exceed 56,538 square feet of commercial
area. Commercial uses include retail, office, theater,
restaurant, uses listed in Section 18.46.050 A-1, and the
special attraction use.
B. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site
Area D shall not exceed 16,730 square feet of office for
Phase I & II or 15,584 square feet of office for Phase III
per the approved development plans. The micro-brewery and
associated uses shall be constructed per the approved
development plan.
18.46.103 Development Statistics for Area A, Cascade Village, and
Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site
9
A. AREA A CUhIPLETED PROJECTS CASCADE
RETn1U ON SITE
' STRUCTUP,E
PARKING PARKING
DU GRFA LOPU1
SQ FT
AU
`_ ~ 28 0
16 20,000
Mlll~ 1 25 0
14 11,534 •
tllllRnCE II p 115
• 148 55,451
IaESTIN
104 seats 0 0
Alfredo's
14 seats 0 .• 0
•
Crfe 1250 0 •` 0
Little Shop, ~ 0 0
2436
Pepi Sports p
• 900
W 6 N Smith Y~urnet
CHC BUILDING 0 16
Cascade Ning 8 15810
~
0
13.3
1600
Clancy's 28
4220 •
Theatre
0 40
4192
College Classrooms 4
954 0
College Office
6
13!11 0
titg Room 2J
~~ TEr,Rn_ CE ul-IG 0 105
~ Rcoms 120 58~OG9
• 0 20
S85G
Rn1~11
o ,
Ir•
~ 4
~•
CUtIPIETED PRUJECIS (Con't)
nu
_-
PlklA !
Roons 20
Retail
Pla___IA 11 ,
Conference
Retai I
casca_ D
Retail
Bar .b Restaurant
Ufflce to CMC
Hellness Center
• CASCADE
UN SITE STRUCTURE
RGtniDl PAItKI(1G ' PARKING
DU GRfn COMM SQ FT
• 0 16
)205
p 4
1099
•
0 •~
35
x291
925 ~ 3
p 1
300
0 5.6
fi12
0 3
828
0 T
1386
• 3B 114.135 1],786
TOTALS 288
~•~" •
53 • 422. .
. CASCADE/NATERFURD
B. AREA A PROPOSED PItUJECTS UII SITE STRUCTURED
PARKING PAItY,ING
1. C_URPIERSTUIIE AU UR TR DU GRFA CUh114ERCIAL SEATS SQ FT
28,110 48.1 (av room 561 sf 0.962
Units 50 TR ~ space/room)
Accessory Ski 2190 1.3
Retail 19.4
Restaurant 3000 141
Ilotel Access 2465 82 10..3
Rest & Bar 19.4
Office 4850
7
2
1725 .
Conf Room 0
Hotel Retail 285
~ ~ 44.2
Scenario 1 Retail 1 13,250 ~ or
or
Scenario P Retail °r
P 16,275 54.3
Access Ski
N
a
(Restrooms 1140 0
(Ski School
(Lift tickets
TOTALS 50 TR 26,110 Scenario 1 26,040 or 229 6865 0 Scenario 1 155.9 or
Scenario p 29,065 Scenario 2 166
• r
', ..
CASCADE/61ATERFURD
AREA A PROPOSED PROJECTS (CU11T.) UN SITE S11tUCTURED
PARKING
2, WATERFUP.D AU
- - OR ?R DU GRFA COhV•1ERCIAL SEATS SQ FT
`-
.
PARKING
'
-
UNITS ~ 60
Scenario 1 30
47,500 or
15
or
Scenario 2
. 15 TR.
12.7
3,800
RETAIL
Scenario 1 12.1
TU1AL Scenario 1 75 pU or 47,500 3,800 Scenario 2 87.7 or
Scenario 2 . . 30
3. bJESTHAVEN CUND'JS 40 ~ ~ '~
UfJITS 2.0 22,500 ,
Emplc~~ee Units 10 6,400 * 20
hlax J<
_ ._______.._ 60 ~
TUIPL 20 DU 22,500 '
. ,
4. hII LLRACE I I I
UNITS
5, h1ILLRACE~ IV
UNITS Scenario 1
' 2 32 AU
3 6,000
3 DU 6,000
8 11,200 or
or Scenario 14,000 ___
TOTAL Scenario 1 B DU 11,200
or.Scenario 2 32 AU 14,000
Restricted Employee Dwelling Units sl~alT not count toward density or GRFA.
6
6
• 16
26.8
16 or 26.8
. !
.
• CASCADE/WATERFORD
AREA A PROPOSED PROJECTS (CUNT.) 011 SITE . STRUCTURED
PARKING PARKING
AU UR TR DU GRFA C014h1ERCIAL SEATS SQ FT
6, cnsCADE CLUE;
li[)U 11 I U11
Scenario 1 4,500 22.5
Wellness Ctr 4,500 0
or Scenario 2
G~nnnasium 22,5
TOTAL Scenario ' 4,500
Scer~~irio 2 4,500 '
7. RUU1_1 2J CUIIFERENCE 1,387 ~ 5.5 **
C011VERCEU 1U
•THEATRE
1,381 5.5 ~
TOTAL
8. PIAZA OFFICE
925
.7 ***
TU1AL **** 118,110 38,152
MAXIMUMS •Total r 101:5~DU
** Room ?J ha: alre:~dy been counted as conference space
parking. The new parking requirement is based on the.
'difference between conference and theatre parking
requirements.
13,365 66 Minimum 310 hlax~mum
or
235 Minimum
*** Plaza space has already been counted fora retail parking reouir.ement. The
new parking requirement is based on the difference between the retail and
office parking requirements.
**** Total figures represent highest density and commercial scenarios.
,L
C. TOTAL PROJECT aEVEli1PMENT CUh1PLETED A110 PRUPUSED FUR AREA A: , ~ CASCADE/4lATERFURO ~ •
UU S11E STRUCTURED
DU
GRFA
CUh4~lERCIAI PARY.II~G PARKING
Maximum** ~ ***
22um
Min
CUh1PLETED PROJECTS 182.0 174,135 17,186 53 422 4
,
PRUPUSED PROJECTS
101.5
118,110
38,752
66 ~
310 235
538
56 119 Minimum 732 Maximum v~ith 657 14inimum aiith
11.5 Mixed Use
T~'Tr,l DEVELUFI.1EiiT 283 5 292,245 , 11.5 Mixed Use Credit = 543 spaces
AT BU1L0-OUT Credit = 604 spaces
421 spaces in 421 spaces in
• ~ Cascade Structure and Cascade Structure
183 spaces in 122 spaces in
Waterford Structure
Waterford Structure
*Total,figures represent highest density and coounercial scenarios. ~'
*~liar.im~~m parking structure requirement assumes Cornerstone Scenario 2,
Waterford Scenario 2, 1illrace 1V Scenario 2, and Cascade Club ,
Scenario 1.
***I•iinimwn parking structure requirement assumes Cornerstone Scenario 1,
Waterford Scenario 1, Millrace IV Scenario 1, and Cascade Club
Scenario 1.
•D. 1UTAL PROJECT MINIMUM AU UR TRs ANO MAXIMUM DUs FUR AREA A: •'. ,
AU UR TR ,.
CUh1PLETED PROJECTS
PRUPUSED PROJECTS
288 AU 38
" ' S0 TR 61
~. ,~ TOTAL 338 99
g. Development Controls
Area Unit GRFA
Acre51 16 DU/lcre .35
Original Parcel 15.68 252.00 256,437
Robbins Parcel 1.23 19.68 18,752
Cosgriff Parcel 1.045 16.72 15,932
17.955 288.4 291,121
F. DEVELOPMENT FOR AREA D GLEtd LYOtI COt•II4ERCIAL SITE
SDD ~4, AREA D
DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE
AND PARKING PER TOWN OF VAIL REQUIREMENTS
FEBRUARY 26, 1990
PHASE I & II PHASE III
APPROVED PLAN DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
Sq.Ft. / Parking Sq.Ft. / Parking Sq.Ft. / Parking
Glen Lyon
Office Bldg.
(Existing) 10,150 40.6 10,150 40.6 10,150 40.6
PHASE I
Glen Lyon
Bldg.
- Office 2,800 11.2 2,800 11.2 2,800 11.2
PHASE II
Micro-Brewery
-Office 700 2.8 3,780 15.1 2,634 10.5
-Reception/
Museum 415 0.0 480 0.0 480 0.0
-Retail 446 1.5 175 .6 885 3.0
-Fermentation/
Brewhouse 6,600 0.0 970 0.0 1,406 0.0
-Beer Hall 1,774 14.7 1,700 18.8* 1,700 18.8*
(180 s eats) (150 s eats) (150 seats)
-Brew Pub 1,858 15.5 1,380 10.0* 1,380 10.0*
(120 s eats)
-------- (80 se
-------- ats)
------------ (80 seats)
----------------
SUBTOTAL ------
24,743 ----
86.3 21,435 96.3 21,435 94.1
PHASE III
East Building
-2 Employee
Units
1,695
4.0
0
0.0
1,695
4.0
-1 Dwelling
Unit 1,630 2.0 0 0.0 1,630 2.0
-Office 2,400 9.6
--- 0
--------- 0.0
------------ 2,400
--------- 9.6
------
SUBTOTAL -------
3,325 --------
15.6 0 0.0 3,325 15.6
TOTAL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE AND PARKING:
41,018 102.0 21,435 96.3 24,760 110.0
*USED HIGHEST PARKING REQ. POSSIBLE BASED ON SEATING
16
- 18.46.104 Development Plans
Site specific development plans are approved for Area A and Area
D. The development plans for Area A are comprised of those
plans submitted by Vail Ventures, Ltd. The development plans
for Area D are comprised of those plans submitted by the Glen
Lyon Office Building, a Colorado Partnership. The following
documents comprise the development plan for each area:
1. Cascade Village Master Plan and Building Height, Roma,
10/10/88.
2. Waterford and Cornerstone Floor Plans., Roma, 10/10/88, p
1-9.
3. Waterford and Cornerstone Sections, Roma, 10/10/88.
4. Waterford landscape Plan, Roma, 10/10/88.
5. Waterford Summer Solstice, Roma, 10/10/88.
6. Waterford Site Plan, Roma, 10/10/88.
7. Waterford Elevations, Roma, 10/10/88.
8. Waterford Winter solstice, Roma, 10/10/88.
9. Waterford East Elevation Height Analysis, Roma, 9/28/88.
10. Cornerstone Site plan, Roma, 10/10/88.
11. Cornerstone Elevations, Roma, 10/10/88, p. 1-3.
12. Cornerstone Sun/Shade, 10/10/88.
13. Cascade Entry Rendering, Roma, 10/10/88.
14. Cascade Club Addition Site Plan, Roma, 10/10/88.
15. Cascade Club Floor Plan, Roma, 10/10/88.
16. Millrace IV (32 A.U.'s) Plan, Roma, 10/10/88.
17. Millrace IV (32 A.U.'s) Floor Plans, Roma, 10/10/88.
18. Survey, a part of Cascade Village, Eagle Valley
Engineering, Leland Lechner, 6/8/87.
19. Site Coverage Analysis, Eagle Valley Engineering,
10/10/88.
20. Cascade Village Special ?Develop[ment District Amendment
and Environmental Impact Report: Peter Jamar Associates,
Inc., Revised 11/22/88.
17
Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site
1. Area D Master Site Plan, Geodesiqn by Sherry Dorward,
2/22/90.
2. Landscape Plan for Area D, Geodesign by Sherry Dorward,
2/22/90.
3. Area D elevatons, Geodesign by Sherry Dorward, 2/9/90.
4. Vail Micro-brewery, Seracuse, Lawler, and Partners, Denver,
CO., sheets A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A3.1, A3.2, A4.1, A4.2 dated
1/8/90 and sheet A2.4 dated 12/13/89.
5. Vail Brewery Roof Study, Frank Freyer, 1/8/90.
6. Glen Lyon Parking Garage Floor Plans and Site Plan, Roma,
11/28/88.
7. Glen Lyon Parking Garage Sections/Elevations, Roma,
11/28/88.
8. Glen Lyon Condominium, Roma, 11/28/88.
9. Glen Lyon Condominium East Building, Roma, 11/28/88.
10. Office Addition to Glen Lyon Office, Building, Buff
Arnold/Ned Gwathmey Architects August 25, 1989 Sheets Al
through A4.
11. Cascade Village Special Development District Amendment and
Environmental Impact Report: Peter Jamar Associates, Inc.,
Revised l1/22/88. Letter from Peter Jamar Associates,
Inc., dated January 16, 1990.
12. Deceleration lane design for South Frontage Road, RBD,
October 18, 1988 as approved by Co. Div. of Hgwys.
13. A resubdivision of Lot 54 amended plat Glen Lyon Sub-
division, Eagle Valley Surveying Inc. as approved by T.O.V.
14. Vail Brewery Parking Analysis, TDA Colorado, Inc., August
10, 1988 and Vail Brewery Parking Analysis Update, TDA
Colorado, Inc., January 16, 1990 pages 1-8.
18.46.110 Development Standards
The development standards set out in Sections 18.46.120 through
18.46.180 are approved by the Town Council. These standards
shall be incorporated into the approved development plan
pertinent to each development area to protect the integrity of
the development of SDD4. They are minimum development standards
and shall apply unless more restrictive standards are
incorporated in the approved development plan which is adopted
by the Town Council.
18
18.46.120 Setbacks
A. Area A, Cascade Village
Required setbacks shall be as indicated in each development
plan with a minimum setback on the periphery of the
property of not less than twenty feet, with the exception
that the setback requirement adjacent to the existing
Cascade parking structure/athletic club building shall be
two feet as approved on February 8, 1982, by the Planning
and Environmental Commission. All buildings shall maintain
a 50 foot stream setback from Gore Creek. The Waterford
and Cornerstone buildings shall maintain a 20 foot setback
from the north edge of the recreational path along Gore
Creek.
B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums
Required setbacks shall be as indicated on the development
plan.
C. Area C, Glen Lyon Duplex Lots
Required setbacks shall be governed by Section 18.13.060
Setbacks of the Primary/Secondary zone district of the Town
of Vail Municipal Code.
D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site
Required setbacks shall be as indicated on the approved
development plans.
18.46.140 Height
A. For the purposes of SDD4 calculations of height, height
shall mean the distance measured vertically from the
existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more
restrictive), at any given point to the top of a flat roof,
or mansard roof, or to the highest ridge line of a sloping
roof unless otherwise specified in approved development
plan drawings.
B. Area A, Cascade Village
1. The maximum height for the Westin Hotel, CMC Learning
Center, Terrace Wing, Plaza Conference Building and
Cascade Parking Structure/Athletic Club is 71 feet.
19
2. Cornerstone Building:
3. Waterford Building:
Maximum height of 71 feet.
Maximum height of 48 feet as
measured from finished grade to any portion of the
roof along the north elevation (South Frontage Road)
and west elevation (Westhaven Drive}. A maximum
height of 40 feet as measured from the lowest floor of
the parking structure to the roof eave is approved for
the south and east building elevations. A maximum
height of 61 feet as measured from the lowest floor of
the parking structure to the roof ridge is approved
for the south and east building elevations.
4. Westhaven Building: A maximum of 55 feet.
5. Millrace III: A maximum of 48 feet.
6. Millrace IV: A maximum of 48 feet.
7. Cascade Club Addition: A maximum of 26 feet.
8. Cascade Entry Tower: A maximum of 36 feet.
9. The remainder of buildings in Area A shall have a
maximum height of 48 feet.
C.
D.
E.
Area B, Coldstream Condominiums
The maximum height shall be 48 feet.
Area C Glen L on Du lex Lots
The maximum height shall be 33 feet for a sloping roof and
30 feet for a flat or mansard roof.
Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site
51$ of the roof shall have a height between 32 and 40 feet.
49~ of the roof area shall have a height under 32 feet. On
the perimeter of the buildings for Area D, height is
measured from finished grade up to any point of the roof.
On the interior area of any building, height is measured
from existing grade up to the highest point of the roof.
Development plan drawings shall constitute the height
allowances for Area D.
20
18.46.160 Coverage
In Areas A and B, no more than 35~ of the total site area shall
be covered by buildings, provided, if any portion of the area is
developed as an institutional or educational center, 45$ of the
area may be covered. In Area C, no more than 25~ of the total
site area shall be covered by buildings, unless the more
restrictive standards of Chapter 18.69 of the Vail Municipal
Code apply. In Area D, no more than 37$ of the total site area
shall be covered by buildings and the parking structure.
18.46.170 Landsca ing
At least the following proportions of the total development area
shall be landscaped as provided in the development plan. This
shall include retention of natural landscape, if appropriate.
Areas A and B, fifty percent, and in Areas C and D, sixty
percent, of the area shall be landscaped.
18.46.180 Parking and Loading
A. Area A, Cascade Village
1. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance
with Chapter 18.52, except that 75~ of the required
parking in Area A shall be located within a parking
structure or buildings. If the development table in
Section 18.46.203 is amended, the parking requirements
shall be amended accordingly.
2. There shall be a of 421 spaces in the main Cascade
Club parking structure and a minimum of 122
underground spaces in the Waterford structure.
3. The Cascade and Waterford parking structures shall be
considered to be one parking structure for the
purposes of calculating the mixed use credit for
parking spaces. Both parking structures shall be
managed as one entity. A 17.5 percent mixed use
credit per the Town of Vail parking code, Section
18.52.20 has been applied to the total number of
required parking spaces combined in the Cascade and
Waterford structures. Alternative development plans
or scenarios which require additional structured
parking shall require an expansion of the Waterford
parking structure below ground level.
21
4. The third floor of the Cascade parking structure shall
not be used to meet any parking requirements for -
accommodation units, transient residential dwelling
units, employee dwelling units or dwelling units.
5. Phasing: All required parking for Cornerstone,
Waterford, Millrace IV Scenario 2 (32 A.U.'s), and the
Cascade Club Wellness Center Addition Scenario 1 shall
be provided in the Cascade or Waterford parking
structures. At the time a building permit application
is submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development
Department for the Waterford building and parking
structure, the developer shall be required to make a
final decision as to which development scenarios shall
be used for the Cornerstone, Waterford, Millrace IV
and the Cascade Club addition. A temporary
certificate of occupancy shall not be released for any
portion of the Cornerstone, Waterford, Millrace IV
Scenario 2 (32 A.U.1's) or Cascade Club Wellness
addition, Scenario 1 which relies on required parking
being provided in the Waterford parking structure
until the Waterford parking structure has received a
temporary certificate of occupancy from the Town of
Vail Building Department.
6. Seventy-five percent of the required parking shall be
located within the main building or buildings and
hidden from public view from adjoining properties
within a landscaped berm for Westhaven Condominiums,
Millrace III, and Millrace IV Scenario 1.
7. All loading and delivery shall be located within
buildings or as approved in the development plan.
B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums
Fifty percent of the required parking shall be located
within the main building or buildings and hidden from
public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped
berm.
22
C. Area C, Glen Lyon Duplex Lots
_ Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with
Chapter 18.52.
D. Area D, Glen Lyon commercial Site
1. Phase I and II shall include 80 surface parking spaces
plus 6 valet parking spaces on the east end of the
surface parking lot.
2. Phase III shall include a minimum of 108 parking
spaces. A minimum of 100 spaces shall be located in
the parking structure. All required parking for the
east building shall be provided on site per Town of
Vail parking requirements per Section 18.52.100 for
resedential and office use. A minimum of eleven
spaces shall be located in the garage of the east
building and a maximum of 5 surface spaces shall be
located adjacent to the east building.
3. Area D development shall meet the operational
requirements outlined in the TDA Colorado Inc.
Report, Section Parking Analysis Considerations,
January 16, 1990. Parking Analysis Considerations
pages 1-8.
4. Valet parking shall be prohibited on the west end of
the surface parking lot.
5. The Brew Pub shall not be open to the public until
after 4:30p.m. for Phase I and II Monday through
Friday. When Phase III development ocurs including
the parking structure, the brew pub may operate during
the weekdays once the parking structure is available
for public use.
6. The Beer Hall shall not operate or be used by the
.public before 4:30p.m. on weekdays, Monday through
Friday at any time.
7. Once the parking structure is constructed, the parking
and access to Area D shall be managed per the TDA
Parking Report, Parking Management Section, pages 6
and 7, August 10, 1988, and TDA Report, Vail Brewery
Parking Analysis Update, dated January 16, 1990, both
written by Mr. David Leahy.
23
8. No loading or delivery of goods shall be allowed on
the public right-of-way along the South Frontage
Road adjacent to the Area D development.
9. The owner of the property and brewery management shall
prohibit semi-truck and trailer truck traffic to the
Glen Lyon Commercial site. The only truck loading
that shall be allowed to the site shall be vans having
a maximum length of 22 feet.
18.46.190 Recreation Amenities Tax Assessed
The recreational amenities tax due for the development
within SDD4 under Chapter 3.20 shall be assessed at a rate
not to exceed twenty-five cents per square foot of the
floor are in Development Area A; and at a rate not to
exceed fifty cents per square foot of GRFA in Development
Area B; and at a rate not to exceed fifteen cents per
square foot of GRFA in Development Area C; and at a rate
not to exceed seventy-five cents per square foot of floor
area in Development Area D; and shall be paid in
conjunction with each construction phase prior to the
issuance of building permits.
18.46.200 Conservation and Pollution Controls
A. The developer's drainage plan shall include a provision for
prevention of pollution from surface runoff..
B. The developer shall include in the building construction,
energy and water conservation controls as general
technology exists at the time of construction.
C. The number of fireplaces permitted shall be as set forth in
Section 8.28.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code as
amended.
D. If fireplaces are provided within the development, they
must be heat efficient through the use of glass enclosures
and heat circulating devices as technology exists at the
time of development.
E. All water features within Development Area A shall have
overflow storm drains per the recommendation of the
Environmental Impact Report by Jamar Associates on Page
34.
24
F. All parking structures shall have pollution control devices
to prevent oil and dirt from draining into Gore Creek.
G. In Area D, a manhole on the brewery service line shall be
provided so that the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated
Sanitation District may monitor BOD strength.
H. In Area D, the brewery management shall not operate the
brewery process during temperature inversions. It shall be
the brewery owner's responsibility to monitor inversions.
I. All trash compactors and trash storage areas shall be
completely enclosed within Special Development District 4.
J. Protective measures shall be used during construction to
prevent soil erosion into Gore Creek, particularly when
construction occurs in Areas A and D.
R. The two employee dwelling units in Area D shall only be
allowed to have gas fireplaces that meet the Town of Vail
ordinances governing fireplaces.
18.46.210 Additional Amenities and conditions of Approval for Special
Development District No. 4.
A. The developer shall provide or work with the Town to
provide adequate private transportation services to
the owners and guests so as to transport them from the
development to the Village Core area and Lionshead
area as outlined in the approved development plan.
B. Developer shall provide in its approved development
plan a bus shelter of a design and location mutually
agreeable to developer and Town Council. Said shelter
to serve the area generally.
C. Area A, Cascade Village
1. The developer shall be responsible for providing
a break-away bollard for the emergency access
road between Eagle Pointe and Westhaven Drive.
The design of the bollard shall be mutually
acceptable to the developer and Town of Vail.
This improvement shall be constructed when a
building permit is requested for the Cornerstone,
Millrace III, Millrace IV, Westhaven
Condominiums, Waterford buildings, or Cascade
25
Club addition. The bollard shall be included in
the permit plans. The bollard shall be _
constructed subsequent to the issuance of a
building permit and prior to the issuance of a
temporary certificate of occupancy for the
Cornerstone, Millrace III, Millrace IV, Westhaven
Condominiums, Waterford buildings, or Cascade
Club addition.
2. The developer shall construct a sidewalk that
begins at the entrance to the Cascade Club along
Westhaven Drive and extends to the west in front
of the Westhaven building to connect with the
recreational path to Donovan Park. The walk
shall be constructed when a building permit is
requested for Westhaven Condominiums. The
sidewalk shall be part of the building permit
plans. The sidewalk shall be constructed
subsequent to the issuance of a building permit
and prior to the issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy for Westhaven
Condominiums.
3. The developer shall provide 100 year flood plain
information for the area adjacent to the
Waterford and Cornerstone buildings to the Town
of Vail Community Development Department before
building permits are released for either project.
4. The conditions for Area A in Sections 18.46.020
B, 18.46.180 A. 1-7, 18.46.200 A - F, I, J,
18.46.210 C, 1-3, and 18.46.220 shall be set
forth in restrictive covenants subject to the
approval of the Town Attorney and once so
approved shall be recorded on the land records of
Eagle County. The developer shall be responsible
for submitting the written conditions to the Town
Attorney for approval before a building permit is
requested for the Cornerstone, Millrace III,
Millrace IV, Westhaven Condominiums, Waterford
buildings, or Cascade Club Addition.
26
- D. Area D,Glen Lyon Commercial Site
1. The developer shall agree to construct a bus lane
per Town of Vail standards in the area of the
porte-cochere of the Micro-brewery in Area D.
The specific location for the bus lane shall be
mutually agreed to by the Area D owner and/or
developer, Colorado Division of Highways, and
Town of Vail. The bus lane shall be constructed
subsequent to the issuance of a building permit
and prior to the issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy for either
the brewery addition, office expansion,
east office building, or parking structure.
The developer and/or owners of area D shall
be responsible for maintaining the new bus
lane, including snow removal. If the lane is not
maintained properly or snow removal is not
adequate, the Town will not provide bus
service to the site.
2. The developer shall relocate the existing bike
path on Area D and provide a new bike path
easement across the Glen Lyon property and
CDOH property per the development plan for Area
D. The bike path shall be constructed per Town
of Vail standards. The bike path shall be
constructed subsequent to the issuance of a
building permit and prior to the issuance of a
temporary certificate of occupancy for either
the brewery addition, office expansion, east
office building, or parking structure. Such
temporary certificate of occupancies shall be
conditional upon construction of the bike path
provided for herein. The bike path easement
shall be replatted and approval obtained
from the Town Council prior to the issuance of
a temporary certificate of occupancy for either
the Brewery addition, office expansion, east
office building or parking structure.
27
3. The developer shall underground the electrical
utilities along the north side of the Glen Lyon
property from the northwest corner of the
property to the northeast corner of the
property. This utility work shall be constructed
subsequent to the issuance of a building permit
and prior to the issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy for the brewery
addition, office expansion, east office
building, or parking structure.
4. The developer shall be responsible for
relocating the 20 foot utility easement on the
western portion of Development Area D as well as
obtaining approval from the Town of Vail for the
relocated utility easement before a building
permit it is released for the micro-brewery
addition.
5. The developer of the Glen Lyon Office property
shall not file any remonstrance or protest
against the formation of a local improvement
district of other financing mechanism approved by
the Vail Town Council which may be established
for the purpose of building road improvements for
the South Frontage Road.
6. The developer shall provide a fire hydrant per
Town of Vail Fire Department requirements on the
northwest portion of the property. The specific
location for the fire hydrant shall be approved
by the Vail Fire Department. The fire hydrant
shall be provided subsequent to the issuance
of a building permit and prior to the issuance of
a temporary certificate of occupancy for the
brewery addition, office expansion, east office
building, or parking structure.
28
7. The Developer shall construct a deceleration lane
along South Frontage Road per the CDOH access
permit. The developer shall submit plans for the
South Frontage Road improvements to the Town of
Vail engineer for review and approval before a
building permit is released for either Phase I,
II, or III construction.
8. The conditions for Area D in Sections 18.46.180
D, 18.46.200 A, B, F - R 18.46.210 D, 1-?, and
18.46.220 shall be set forth in restrictive
covenants subject to the approval of the Town
Attorney and once so approved shall be recorded
on the land records of Eagle County. The
developer shall be responsible for submitting the
written conditions to the Town Attorney for
approval before a building permit shall be issued
for the Micro-brewery, office expansion, east
office building, or parking structure.
9. The minor subdivision for Area D shall be
developed per the following conditions:
a. The development of parcels A, B, C, and D,
shall be limited to the SDD 4 development
plan and governed by the SDD 4 ordinance as
approved by the Town of Vail and on file
with the Department of Community Development
or as amended and approved by the Community
Development Department, Planning and
Environmental Commission, and/or the Vail
Town Council.
b. The minor subdivision plat shall include a
statement that development of the four
parcels shall be governed by the approved
SDD 4 development plan for area D and
governing ordinances.
29
c. The Community Development Department and
Town of Vail Attorney shall have the right
to review and require changes in any
"Agreements of Tenants in Common",
"Conveyance of Easement and Party wall
Agreements", and any other easement or
ownership agreements related to the
development of parcels A, B, C, and D to
ensure that the four parcels are developed
per the approved development plan in SDD 4
Ordinance.
d. The developer shall be responsible for
replatting the 20 foot utility easement on
the western portion of development Area D as
well as obtaining approval from the Town of
Vail for the new utility easement before the
minor subdivision plat is recorded.
e. Any modifications or amendments to the minor
subdivision conditions of approval agreement
shall be reviewed as a major amendment under
the procedures outlined in Section 18.40 of
the Town of Vail Zoning Code.
f. The conditions for the minor subdivision in
Section 18.46.210 D9 A, B, C, and E, shall
be set forth in restrictive covenants
subject to the approval of the Town Attorney
and once so approved shall be recorded on
the land records of eagle county. The
developer shall be responsible for
submitting the written conditions to the
Town Attorney before the minor subdivision
is recorded on the land records of Eagle
County.
30
10. The entire Glen Lyon Office Building and brewery
building shall be sprinklered and have a fire
alarm detection system. Town of Vail Fire
Department approval of the sprinkler and fire
alarm systems shall be required before a building
permit is released for Phase I or II.
11. The developer shall submit a set of amended plans
to the Colorado Division of Highways for review
and approval. The improvements on CDOH property
proposed by the developer must receive CDOH
approval before Phase I, II, and II are presented
to the Town of Vail Design Review Board for final
approval.
12. The east building including the two employee
dwelling units shall be constructed when the
parking structure is built to ensure that the
employee units are built.
1F3.46.220 Employee Housing
The development of SDD 4 will have impacts on available employee
housing within the Upper Eagle Valley area. In order to help
meet this additional employee housing need, the developer(s) of
Areas A and D shall provide employee housing on site. The
developer(s) of Area A shall build a minimum of 8 employee
dwelling units within Area A Westhaven Condominium building.
Each employee dwelling unit in Area A shall have a minimum
square footage of 648 square feet. The developer of Area D
shall build 2 employee dwelling units in the Area D east
building per the approved plan for the East Building. In Area D
one employee dwelling unit shall have aminimum GRFA of 795
square feet and the second employee dwelling unit shall have a
minimum GRFA of 900 square feet. The GRFA and number of
employee units shall not be counted toward allowable density or
GRFA for SDD4. In Area A, the GRFA and number of employee
dwelling units shall be restricted as employee dwelling units
for 20 years plus the life of Tiffany Christine Lowenthal from
the date of final certificate of occupancy for said units. The
two employee dwelling units in Area D shall be restricted as
rental employee dwelling units permanently. In Areas A & D the
31
following restrictions shall apply to all employee dwelling
units: The employee dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented
for any period of less than 30 consecutive days, and that if
rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time
employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley
shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff,
Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A
full time employee is a person who works an average. of 30 hours
per week. In Area A, if an employee dwelling unit is sold, it
shall be sold only to a full time employee in the Upper Eagle
Valley. The owner shall occupy the unit or lease/rent as per
the requirements in this section. In Areas A & D the employee
dwelling unit shall not be divided into any form of timeshare,
interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership. A declaration
of covenants and restrictions shall be filed on record in the
office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in a form approved
by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to ensure that
the restrictions herein shall run with the land before a
building permit is released for the construction of the employee
units in either Area A or Area D.
18.46.230 Time ReQUirements
SDD4 shall be governed by the procedures outlined in Section
18.40.120 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Section 4.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance;
and the Town Council hereby delares it would have passed this
ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
32
Section 5.
The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the
Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect
any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
o<:curred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The
repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
Section 6.
A:11 bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such
inconsistency. The repealer shall not be construed to revise any
bylaw , order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore
repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 20th day of
-March 1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance
o:n the 20th day of
March , 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 20th day of March , .1990.
ATTEST:
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of 1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
33
"~'
~. E:iIIILIT "ti"
KOELBEL PROPERTI'
DEVELOPi~11r::T AREA A
Vail-Rase
~1
-~.
12.370 acre
A part of the SSJ ~./4 NE 1/4 of Section 12,
ToeanshiD"5 South, Range 81 ~•7est of the 6th P..~I. , described as
follows:
Beginning at a point on the West line of said SPJ 1/4
r NE 1/4 from which the North one-quarter corner of said Section
bears North 0°15` East 2269.48 feet; thence North 0015' East,
along said West Line, 15.36 feet to a point on the Southeasterly
right of way line of U.S. Highway t7o. 6; thence, along said
Southeasterly right o= way line, as follo:~~s:
South
South
South
South
South
West, 1064.10 fe
.~
North 52027' East, 102.31 feet;
North 49°20' East, 519.57;feet; and
North 48013' East, 549.09 feet, more or less, to a point
on the North line of said Sid 1/4 NE 1/4; thence North 88°33'
East, along the North line of said Sj•1 1/4 NE, 368 feet, more or
less, to a point on the centerline of Gory Creek; thence, alor.c_ the
centerline of Gore Creek, as follows:
36049' t4est, 101.04 feet;
18021' West, 54.08 feet;
1024' ~•7est, 205.02 feet;
12010' West, 110.25 feet; and
28°41' t~'est, 242.35 feet, thence South 75°15'
et to the point of begin:.'_:,g.
Rose Parcel 3.190 acre
A tract of land situated in the St•:,.,E~ of Section 12,
TP 5 S., R. 81 W., of the 6th P.:•i., lying Southerly of that certain
tract of land described in Book 199, Page 197, Northerly and
S•7esterly of the center line of Gore Cree}:, and lying Northerly and
Easterly of those certain tracts described in Book 211 at Page 106,
Boo}: 211 at Page 108 and Book 215 at Page 365, described as
follocas
Beginning at a point on the North-South center line
of said Section 12 whence the North quarter corner of said Section
12 bears N. 00015' E. 2269.48 feet;
thence N. 75°15' E. 346.26 feet to the true point of
beginning, said point being on the South line of that tract described
in Book 199, Page 197 and which bears S. 08026' E. 2205.34 feet
from the North quarter corner of said Section 12;
thence N. 75°15' E. 717.84 feet along the Southerly
line of that tract described in Book 199, Page 197 to the center
of Gore Creek;
thence S. 28°41' W. 130.61 feet along the center line
of said Creek;
thence S. OS°24'30" E. 104.50 feet along the center
line of said Creek;
• thence S. 49°29' W. 95.50 feet along the center line
of said Creek;
thence S. 22034' W. 124.47 feet along the center line
of said. Creek;
thence S. 54000' W. 119.34 feet along the center line
of said Creek; to the Southeast corner of that certain tract of
land described in Book 211, Page 108;
thence N. 33°16'30" W. 140.12 feet along the Easterly
line of that tract described in Book 211 at page 108;
thence N. 57042'30" ~+1. 169.88 feet along the
Northeasterly line of that tract described in Book 211 at page 108;
thence N. 86°02'30" W. 162.92 feet along the Northerly
line of those tracts described in Book 211 at Page 108 Book 211
at Page lOG to a point;
thence N. 32057'30" t4. 76.08 feet along the
Northeasterly line of that tract described in Book 215 at Page
365, to the point of beginning.
34
Heede Parcel 1.260 acres
County of Eagle and State of Colorado, to wit:
A tract of land situated in the StJ;NE; of Section 12, Township 5 °•
South, Range S1 West of the 6th Princiaal Meridian, described
as follows: Beginning at a point on the North-South center ,
line of said Section 12 whence the North Quarter Corner of said
Section 12 bears North 00 degs. 15 mins. East 2269.48 feet; thence
North 75 degs. 15 mins. East 346,26 feet; thence South 32 degs.
57 mins. 30 secs, East 76.08 feet; thence South 11 degs. 00 mins.
30 secs. West 279,99 feet to•a point in the center of Gore Creek;
thence North 50 degs. 32 mins. Vlest 111.31 feet along the center
line of said creek; thence North 38 deQS. 40 mins. West 239.0° feet
along the center line of said creek; thence South 76 degs.
35 mins. West 89,91 feet along the center line of said creek to a
point on the North-South center line of said Section 12; thence
North 00 degs. 15 mins. East 13.95 feet along the North-South
center line of said Section 12 to the point of beginnirg.
Total
16.820 acres
GORE CREED ASSOCIATES PROPERTY
DEVELOP~lE:;T AREAS B, C & D
Leval De=criation
D
80.700 acres
All that part of Section 12, Tocroship 5 South, Range 81 West of
the 6th P,i•i. , described as folk::~s
All that part of the N,NE~ of Section 12, lying Southerly of the
Southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 and Northerly
of the Southerly line of said iJ;NE~, as shown on the plat on file
in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder as Docume.^.t
No. 97489, described as follocas:
Beginning at the highway survey monument at the intersection of the
Southerly line of said highway and the Easterl}• line of said
NzNE;, whence the Northeast corner of said Section 12 bears North
0003' West 634.785 feet;
thence South 73026'30" West 1112..13 feet along the Southerly right
of way line of said highway;
thence South 70034' West 125.10 feet along the Southerly right of
way line of said highway;
thence South 69°25' West 100.00 feet along the Southerly right of
way line of said highway;
thence South 65050' West 100.00 feet along the Southerly line of
said highway; •~
thence South 62015' West 100.00 feet along the Southerly right of
way line of said highway;
thence South 58°40' West 100.00 feet along the Southerly right of
way line of said highway;
thence South 55°05' West 100.00 feet along the Southerly right of
way line of said highway;
thence South 51032' West 100.00 feet along the Southerly right of
way line of said highway; '
thence South 47°57' West 232.58 feet along the Southerly right of
way line of said highway to a point on the Southerly line of said
N ;NE:;
thence North 88°33' East 497.67 feet along the Southerly line of
said N;NE; to the center of the NE; of said Section 22;
thence North 88033' East 1379.35 feet along the Southerly line of
said N;NE; to the Southeast corner of said N;NE;;
thence North 0°03' West 760,95 feet along the Easterly line of said
N;NE; to its intersection with the Southerly line of said
highway, the point of beginning,
35
. ~:.i.~.s~/
• ~
~:1
• CO::TIUL'ED
AND
All that part of the SW;NE; of Sectic
the center of Gore Creek as shown on
office of the Eagle County Clerk and
97489, described as follo~os:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of
thence South 88°33' jlest 131.67 feet
~n 12, lying Southerly of
the plat on file in the
Recorder as Document flo.
said St•;;Ni y;
to a point in the center of
-,. said Creek;
thence South 4U°09' West 94.04 feet along the ce:~ter of said Cre°kt
thence South 18°21' West 54.08 feet along the center of said Cr°ek;
thence South 1°24' West 205.02 feet along the center of said Cr°°::;
thence South 12°10' t~'est 110.25 feet along the center o` said C~°ek;
thence South 28°41' ~1est 320.00 feet;
thence South 5°24'30" East, 170.00 feet along the center of said
creek;
thence South 27°00'02" S9est 85.24 feet along the center of said
creek;
thence South 54°00' West 259.34 feet along the center of said
creek;
.thence South 65°34' ~~'est 109.62 feet alonc the center of said
creek;
thence Sou t!: 69004' West 186.13 feet along the center of said creek;
thence South 85°25' West 68.88 feet along the center of said cr==_k;
thence north 77°36' ~4est 26.96 feet along the center of said c~°_°k;
thence Mort'-: 50°32' Rest 1°9.19 feet along the center of said creek;
thence Nort:~ 38°40' West 239.09 feet along the center of said c_eek;
thence South 76°35' t•7est 89.91 feet along the center of said c=eek;
to a point on the ~•7est2rly line of said SZ4'-;NE ~ ;
thence South 0015' West 461.90 feet to the center of said Secticn 12;
thence North 89.02' East 1382.6 feet along the Southerly line or
said Sj~;'~NE; to the Sour: cast corner of said St•~NEc;;
thence North 0006' East 1384.32 feet alor.c the Easterly: li.^.e of said
SW,NE; to the Northeast corner of said S~•~1~NEs, the point of
'~ beginning,
AND
The N[~'LSE of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 ~•lest of t::e
6th P.r1. ;
AND
All that part of the SE;NWS of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range
81 West of the 6th P.M., lying Southerly of the Southerly right of
way line of U.S. High;aay No. 6, as shown on the plat on file in the
office of the Eagle County Cler}: and Recorder as Document No. 97489,
described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said SE;NW;;
thence South 89°02' West 836.95 feet along the Southerly line of
said SE;NW; to a point on the Southerly right of way line of said
highway;
thence North 52035' East 1057.07 feet along the Southerly rig2it
of way line of said highway to a point on the Easterly line of said.
SE;NW; ;
thence South 0°15' West 628.21 feet along the Easterly line of said
SE aNW ~ to the Southeast corner of said SE ~Nt•1;, the point of
beginning;
EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING:
that part described in Book 188 at page 595;
that part described in Book 191 at page 241;
that part described in Book 203 at page 231;
36
• _
~
~
- •:•::
~;~. ;.•.
,'
.: •.
'~'.~
. •~,~.` r.~~.
~' '}"~
'
that part described in Book 203 at p age 531; '
.
that certain island
adjacent to the
above-descr
ibed prcpert;~, ..j.~1 ..
and ',~'~'~,:~,;~'~
located in the middl e of Gore Creek, which the part.es intend ,,..~,!7..;
to elclude frem this transaction; ~. ~~~~;~.~~•.;
;= Count` c f Eag J.e , "~!' ''
State of Colorado ,. ~; , .,
•~~.:;:-
.. .. ~._ ,
` ALSO THE FOLLO.•lIi,G PARCEL FOR~•~E°L'f KNO',+.1 AS THE "COSGIIFF PARCEL "
A tract of land situated in the StJ 1/4 rr 1/4 of
Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 1~lest of
the 6th Principal Meridian, lyinc Northwesterly
of the center line of Gore Creek described as
follot:s:
Beyinninv at a •~oin~ whence the north Quarter
Corner of saic Section 12 bears r;. 11°U3' h.
2292.72 feet; thence S. 86°02'30" E. 59.50
feet; thence S. 54`42'30" E. 169.8b feet; thence
S. 33`16'30" E. 1}0.12 feet to a point in the
center of said creek; thence S. 65`34' l:. 109.62
feet along the center IinE of said creek; thence
S . 69`04-' ~~ . 90.7$ feet along the center 1 ine of
said crEek; thence :~. X3`'12'30" W. 3]7.54 feet
to the point of be~ir.ning, contair-in€ 1.@5 acres,
more or less. °
ALSO DESC`,IEL,
8e~inriiT~ at a p:.in•~ uf;:e-:cs the North Qvat~e:
. Oorner of sa' d SECti o~ I1 bears ~. t t °Q3' 1-~.
227.71 lEE•t; t}~cr.•cE $. B$°43' ~4" ~. $~j.84 feet;
thencE S. 57`25'30" E.. 165.46 fEet; thencE S.
• 3'l°59'30" E. 141.47 feet to a point in the
center of said creek; thence S. 65°31'36" ti'.
109.62 fEet along the center line of said creek;
thence S. 69°O1 ' 36" t•'. 103 .02 feet a] ong the
center line of said creek; thence N. 23`24'09"
t•:. 319.09 f eEt to the pcint of be~,inr.i*~~..
TOGETHET: 1•']TH an e2senent as described in -Document
r ecor dEd August 5, l5bi~ in Book 306 at Pale 4~3
and yeto~dec~ i-: ~c~c,l{ 34~ at Page $6 of the
Ea~,lE County records.
ALSO including all water and well rights
appurtenant to the above described property,
including ~:ithout limitation:, h1e1] Ferr~it o.
9~-702, eater rights decreed in Civil f,c:ion
1~0. 2375 in Lag]E County District Court, and
s] ] that portio:~ of ~:ater rights decreed in
Ca Se No. 8G CW 4]0, Water Divisor, l:o. 5,
(GorE !10 . 1 L)e 1 ] - 0.05 c i S )
37
ORDINANCE N0. 12
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN OF VAIL SALES TAX
CODE; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO:
1. That Section 3.01.140 of the Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado is amended
by the addition of a new paragraph to read:
(c) Special Accounting-Sales by Qualified Non-Profit Organizations
Non-profit organizations selling taxable tangible personal property or
services as defined by this Code must collect sales tax and purchasers must pay
sales tax on such sales, subject to the conditions set forth below. It is the
desire of the Town Council that the taxes collected by qualified non-profit
organizations be retained by that organization as a contribution of additional funds
to be used in the course of that organization's charitable service to the
community. Therefore, organizations are not required to remit or report sales tax
collections to the Town provided that the organization meets the following criteria:
1) The organization has been authorized in writing by the Internal
Revenue Service as a Section 501(c)(3) organization or has been approved in writing
by the Finance Director as being a voluntary, not for profit organization whose fund
raising activities are primarily for the providing of services in Vail.
2) The Town sales tax shall be included in the stated selling price
and the total proceeds of the sale of taxable tangible personal property or services
shall be retained and expended by the qualifying organization to provide charitable
services; and
3) The activity at which taxable tangible property or service is
being sold is an occasional business activity specifically held for fund raising;
andl
4) The organization applies to the Town Finance Director on an
annual basis for a special license to be conspicuously displayed at all eligible
fund raising events and provides access to any financial records or documents
necessary to determine compliance with this paragraph (c).
2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby
declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more
parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance
is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and
the inhabitants thereof.
4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal
Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right
which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the
effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or
any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This
repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or
ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this 20th day of March ,
1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 20th day of
March , 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 20th day of March 1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of
. 1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
-2-
ORDINANCE NO. 6
SERIES OF 1990
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 8.32
OF TITLE 8 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL
TO EXPAND, STRENGTHEN, AND CLARIFY CODE PROVISIONS
RELATING TO SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PLACES OF
EMPLOYMENT.
WHEREAS, studies by the Surgeon General of the United
States, the National Academy of Sciences and other health
organizations have linked passive exposure to tobacco smoke to a
variety of negative health conditions in non-smokers; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council seeks to achieve a reasonable
balance between the rights of smokers and non-smokers by
regulating smoking in certain public places and places of
employment; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the public; health, safety,
and welfare that smoking be limited in the Town of Vail, Colorado.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO:
1. Chapter 8.32 Smoking in Public Places
8.32.010 Legislative Intent
Because the smoking of tobacco or any other weed or
plant is a danger to health and is a cause of material annoyance
and discomfort to those who are present in confined areas, the
Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares it is necessary
and beneficial to the protection of the public health, safety, and
welfare to regulate smoking in certain public places.
8.32.020 Definitions
A. Employee
Employee means any person who is employed by any
employer.
B. Employer
Employer means any person, partnez-ship, or
corporation, including a municipal corporation, who employs the
services of any person(s).
C. Bar, Nightclub, Tavern
Bar, nightclub or tavern means any establishment
primarily engaged in the business of selling or dispensing
alcoholic or other beverages.
D. Health Care Facility
Health Care Facility means any office or
institution providing individual care or treatment of diseases,
whether physical, mental or emotional or other medical,
physiological or psychological conditions.
E. Place of Employment
Place of employment means any enclosed area under
the control of a public or private employer which employees
normally frequent during the course of employment. A private
residence is not a place of employment.
F. Public Place
Public place means any enclosed area in which the
general public is permitted, excluding the offices, work areas,
employee cafeterias or lounges not generally entered by the public
in the normal course of business for use of the premises. A
private residence is not a public place.
G. Restaurant
Restaurant means any establishment or place within
an establishment open to the public that offers food and beverages
for consumption on the premises.
H. Retail Store
Retail store means any establishment whose primary
purpose is to sell or offer for sale to consumer any goods, wares,
merchandise, articles or food for consumption off the premises.
I. Smoking
Smoking means the lighting of any cigarettes, cigar
or pipe, or the possession of any lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe,
regardless of its composition.
J. Sports Arena
Sports arena means any indoor facility primarily
used for sports, cultural or similar events.
2
K. Theater
Theater means any indoor facility primarily used
for the exhibition of any motion picture, stage drama, musical
recital, dance, lecture or other similar performance.
8.32.030 Smoking Prohibited
A. .Smoking is prohibited in public places located in
the following:
1. Health Care Facilities
2. Schools
3. Retail Stores
4. Childcare Centers
5. Banks
6. Theaters and Sports Arena, except when smoking
is part of a theatrical production.
7. Laundromats
8. Post Offices
B. Smoking is prohibited in any building or vehicle
owned or operated by the Town of Vail, Colorado.
C. Smoking is prohibited in elevators in buildings
generally used by and open to the public including
elevators in offices, hotels and multi-family
buildings.
D. Smoking is unlawful in designated no smoking areas
on places of employment as set forth in Section
8.32.050.
E. Smoking is prohibited in public places located in
Restaurants if the owner or lessee of such places
designates all or part of such places as non-
smoking by signing the places as set forth in
Section 8.32.070.
8.32.040 Smoking Permitted
Smoking is permitted in the following public places
unless the owner or lessee of such places designates all or part
3
of such places as non-smoking by signing the places as set forth
in Section 8.32.070:
A. Restaurants
B. Bars, nightclubs, taverns
C. Assembly or Meeting Rooms - located in public
places which may be rented by individual groups
for their exclusive use.
8.32.050 Places of Employment
A. Within 60 days after the effective date of this
ordinance the following requirements shall apply in places of
employment:
(1) The employer shall attempt to reach a reasonable
accommodation, insofar as possible, between the preferences of
smoking and non-smoking employees; provided, however, that
employers are not required to incur any expenses to make
structural or physical modifications to accommodate individual
preferences; if a satisfactory accommodation cannot be reached,
the preferences of non-smoking employees shall prevail but not to
the extent of requiring the expense of structural modifications;
(2) Smoking may be permitted in private, fully enclosed
offices even though such offices may be visited in the normal
course of business by non-smoking employees or occasionally by the
public;
(3) Smoking shall be prohibited in auditoriums, meeting
rooms, elevators, gymnasiums, medical facilities, conferences
rooms and rooms containing photocopying or other office equipment
used in common by employees;
(4) The employer shall designate at least 50 percent of
the seating capacity of cafeterias, lunchrooms and employee
lounges as no smoking areas; provided, however, that if there are
2 or more lounges available for employee use, one entire lounge
may be designated as a smoking area;
(5) The employer shall maintain a procedure to resolve
employee disputes and objections arising under any smoking
arrangement in the place of employment.
4
B. The employer is encouraged to adopt a written
smoking policy within the suggested 60 days and to communicate any
such policy to all employees within 3 weeks of its adoption.
C. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection
A of this section, every employer shall have the right to
designate any place of employment as a non-smoking area.
8.32.060 Discrimination or Retaliation Unlawful
It shall be unlawful for any employer, proprietor or
person in charge of public places or places of employment
regulated under 8.32.050 (5) to discharge, discriminate against or
in any manner retaliate against any person who requests the
designation of smoking areas or enforcement within no smoking
areas or designated smoking areas.
8.32.070 Signs
To advise persons of the existence of "No Smoking" or
"Smoking Permitted" areas, signs with letters not less than one
inch in height or the international no smoking symbol not Iess
than three inches in height shall be posted as follows:
A. In public places where smoking is prohibited in the
entire public place by this ordinance or by the owner, proprietor
or person in charge of a public place exercising his option to
prohibit smoking in accordance with this ordinance, a sign using
the words "No Smoking" or the international no smoking symbol, or
both shall be posted within eye-level at all public entrances or
at eye-level and within ten feet of every entry into the public
place.
B. In public places where certain areas are designated
as smoking areas pursuant to this Chapter, the statement "No
smoking except in designated areas" shall be conspicuously posted
on all public entrances within eye-level or in a position at
eye-level within ten feet of entry into the public place.
C. In public places where smoking is permitted in the
entire building or area assigned using the words "This area is a
smoking area" in its entirety shall be conspicuously posted at
eye-level either on all public entrances or at eye-level within
ten feet of entry into the area or building.
5
8.32.080 Prohibited Smoking Areas
Smoking shall not be permitted and smoking areas shall
not be designated in those areas where smoking is prohibited by
the Fire Chief, State statute, ordinances, fire code regulations,
or other regulations of the Town of Vail, Colorado.
8.32.090 Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors
The sale of tobacco in any form from any source to
minors shall be prohibited. Anyone witnessed selling any tobacco
product to a minor shall be subject to the penalties herein.
8.32.100 Penalty
The penalty for violation of any provision of this
Chapter is a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500).
8.32.110 Violations
The following acts constitute violations of this
article:
(A) Smoking in a posted no smoking area;
(B} Failure to post a no smoking sign as required by
this article;
(C) Willful destruction or defacement of a sign posted
as required by this article;
(D) Sale of any tobacco product to a minor.
2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares
it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, sub-
section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the
fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid.
3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares
that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health,
safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants
thereof.
6
4. The repeal of the repeal and reenactment of any
provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in
this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any
duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective
date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
preceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision
repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision
hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day
of , 1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this
ordinance on the day of , 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this day of
1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED this day of
1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
7
,~
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: March 26, 1990
RE: A request for a Special Development District in order
to construct three primary/secondary structures on Lot
3, 4, and 5, Vail Valley Third Filing.
Applicant: Deborah W. and Robert Warner
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at the March 12,
1990 meeting. At this meeting, the Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend denial of this proposal.
The applicants have now amended their project with regard to the
three secondary units. Initially, this proposal would have
restricted these units from being sold separately from the main
units. The applicants have now agreed to place a deed
restriction on these three lots that would require the secondary
units to be rented on a long term basis to employees of the Upper
Eagle Valley. These restrictions are outlined in Section
18.13.080 of the zoning code. This section of the code provides
standard language that has been used with other units throughout
the Town.. It is the applicants desire to present this change to
the Planning Commission prior to formal review by the Town
Council.
TAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff is certainly supportive of an amendment that would
impose restriction on the use of these units. As originally
proposed, the units could not be sold off, but there were no
assurances that the units would be rented to an employee of the
Valley. This restriction would assure the community of three new
employee units.
Regardless of restrictions on the use of these units, the staff
recommendation remains denial. While the employee units
certainly offer something back to the community, the staff is
very uncomfortable with the trade-off of the increased density
for the employee units. The fact remains that any site planning
or design aspects of this proposal could be accomplished under
existing zoning. The SDD is proposed as a way to circumvent the
underlying primary/secondary development standards with regard to
site coverage and GRFA. The employee units are then being
offered as a concession for this density increase.
The Town is currently in the midst of developing policies and new
development guidelines pertaining to employee housing. It is
conceivable that new regulations providing incentives in exchange
for restricted employee units may result from this housing study.
However, at this time these decisions have not been made. The
staff recognizes the value of these units, but is unable to
support the proposal offered at this time.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 12, 1990
RE: A request to rezone property from Primary/Secondary to
a Special Development District for Lots 3, 4, and 5,
Vail Valley third filing, part of replat of Sunburst.
Applicant: Debra and Robert Warner, Jr.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
This application is to rezone three undeveloped
Primary/Secondary lots to a Special Development District.
Development proposed for the SDD includes three
Primary/Secondary structures. The purpose of this request
is to permit GRFA on one of the 3 lots (Lot 4) to exceed
that which is permitted under existing zoning. In addition,
site coverage on this same lot is also in excess of what is
permitted under existing zoning.
With the exception of increases in GRFA and site coverage to
lot 4, the development proposed by the SDD is consistent
with the underlying Primary/Secondary zoning. Setbacks,
building heights and parking are all consistent with
Primary/Secondary development standards. The following
table summarizes the development proposed for these three
lots.
Permitted Proposed Site
Parcel Permitted Proposed GRFA Site Site Coverage
Size GRFA GRFA +j_ Coverage Coverage +/-
Lot 3: 15,364 3,786 3,300 -486 3,073 2,595 -378
Lot 4: 16,641 3,914 5,500 + 1,586 3,328 3,726 +398
Lot 5: 15,967 3,846 3,550 -296 3,193 2,878 -315
TOTALS: 11,546 12,350 +804 9,594 9,299 -295
As indicated by this table, proposed development on lots 3
and 5 is below GRFA permitted under existing zoning by 782
square feet. Lot 4 development exceeds permitted GRFA by
1586 square feet. Collectively, proposed development on the
three lots would exceed the total allowable GRFA by 804
square feet. Site coverage on Lot 4 exceeds permitted site
coverage by 398 square feet. Collectively, all three lots
are 291 square feet below permitted site coverage.
~"
~~ Each of the three lots will be developed with a small
secondary unit. The applicant has agreed to enter into a
restriction agreement with the Town so that these units will
not be subdivided and sold off as would be permitted by
existing zoning.
Two sets of criteria are to be used in evaluating a rezoning
request of this type. The first of these are 3 criteria
designed to evaluate the appropriateness of the zone change.
Secondly, the Special Development District zoning includes
nine design criteria. These nine criteria address specific
issues relative to the proposed SDD.
II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL
A. Evaluation of the Request:
1. Suitability of the proposed zonin
It is important to understand the purpose of Special
Development District Zoning when evaluating the
appropriateness of this request. As stated in the
zoning code, the purpose of SDDs is to:
18.40.010 Purpose:
The purpose of the Special Development District is
to encourage flexibility and creativity in the
development of land in order to promote its most
appropriate use; to improve the design character
and quality of new development within the Town; to
facilitate the adequate and economic provisions of
streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and
scenic features of open space areas; and to
further the overall goals of the community as
stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An
approved development plan for a Special
Development District, in conjunction with the
properties underlying zone district, shall
establish the requirements for guiding development
and uses of property included in the Special
Development District. The elements in the
development plan shall be as outlined in Section
18.40.060.
As stated, the intent of this zoning request is to
permit development on one of the lots to exceed what is
permitted by existing zoning. This purpose is not
consistent with the overall purpose of the Special
Development District. With the exception of GRFA,
there is nothing about this proposed development plan
that could not be accomplished under existing zoning.
While SDD's have been proposed and approved for many
different reasons, they have generally not been used
simply as a tool to allow for density increases with no
public purpose as described in 18.40.010.
2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable
relationship within land uses consistent with
municipal objectives.
The residential use proposed by the SDD is identical to
what is permitted under existing zoning. While this
proposal is generally consistent with municipal
objectives, the rezoning is no more consistent than
what would be accomplished by the properties existing
zoning.
3. Does the rezoning Drovide for the growth of an
orderly. viable community.
The proposed rezoning will not further the growth of an
orderly, viable community. If approved, this rezoning
could represent the gradual deterioration of Vail's low
density residential neighborhoods. One may consider
this request and conclude that the uses and development
are generally consistent with what is permitted under
existing zoning. However, it is important to
understand that zoning in Vail has been adopted in
order to establish consistency between neighborhoods.
The amount of GRFA allocated to a lot has a direct
relationship to the size of the lot. the proposal
conflicts with this basic principle of zoning for the
Town of Vail. In order to preserve the overall fabric
of these areas, it is important to maintain the
integrity of the existing zoning. This proposal, by
virtue of its deviations from the development standards
of the underlying zoning, is inconsistent with this
criteria.
III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Desian compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment neiahborhood and adjacent properties
relative to the architectural design, scale, bulk,
building height buffer zones, identity, character,
visual integrity and orientation.
This proposal. is generally consistent with this
criteria. While the level of development on Lot 4
greatly exceeds allowable GRFA, the design of this
structure is sensitive to minimizing bulk and mass.
Each of the three structures are in compliance with
Primary/Secondary height and setback requirements.
Development on lot 4 does, however, exceed permitted
site coverage by 398 square feet and GRFA by 804 square
feet.
B. Uses, activity anal density which provide a compatible
efficient and workable relationship with surroundings
uses and activity.
Uses proposed for these three sites are consistent with
the surrounding neighborhood and the Primary/Secondary
zone district.
C. Compliance with oarkincr and loadnct requirements as
outlined in Chapter 18.52.
This project is consistent with the Town's parking
requirements.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan Town policies and Urban Design
Plans.
The goal 5.5 of the Land Use Plan "encourages the
development of employee housing at various sites
throughout the community". The applicant's commitment
to restrict the subdivision and resale of each of the
three secondary units is a positive step towards
providing employee units. In order to fully comply
with this goal, deed restrictions limiting the use of
these secondary units to long term employee rentals
should be established.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor
ecL ologic hazards that affect the property on which the
Special Development District is proposed.
A site specific analysis of these properties has been
completed. Lots 3, 4, and 5 are located in moderate
debris flow and rock fall zones. Lots 3 and 4 are
located in a moderate snow avalanche zone. The Town's
hazard ordinance requires mitigation of the snow
avalanche hazard. Mitigation is not required for
development on the lots impacted by rockfall and debris
flow hazards. However, this development must be done
in a way that does not increase the degree of hazard on
adjacent property or Town Rights-of-way.
A geologic hazard analysis of the proposed site plan
has been completed. All hazards can be mitigated by
structural reinforcement of the proposed residences.
Subject to the removal and/or redesign of proposed
landscape walls along Sunburst Drive, this development
will not increase the degree of hazards on adjacent
lots or town rights-of way.
F. Site Plan. Building desian and location and open space
provisions designed to produce a functional development
responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the
community.
The proposed development plan is consistent with these
considerations.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and
pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic
circulation.
Each of the three units have been designed with two
driveways, resulting in 6 driveways over approximately
290 feet. Six driveways to serve three lots is
unnecessary and decreases the amount of area that could
be dedicated to landscaping.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in
order to optimize and preserve natural features,
recreation, views and function.
The proposed open space and landscaping is consistent
with what is typically found in Primary/Secondary
development.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workable functional and efficient relationship
throuahout the development of the Special Development
District.
A phasing plan has not been proposed as a part of this
SDD.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request is denial. The
proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the purpose of the
Special Development District and is also inconsistent with
the three criteria used to evaluate rezoning proposals.
The development standards established by the Town's zoning
ordinance are in place for a reason. These development
standards are the primary tool used to ensure proper and
orderly development throughout the Town. With the
exception of GRFA and site coverage on Lot 4, this
development proposal does not deviate from established
development standards. However, that is not justification
to grant this request.
s
Special Development District zoning has been approved by the
Town Council 23 times. Each of these rezonings have
occurred for specific reasons relative to the development
proposed for these sites. Reasons for SDDs have related
directly to the purpose of an SDD (as stated before):
1. To encourage flexibility and creativity in the
development of land in order to promote its most
appropriate use.
2. To improve the design character and quality of new
development within the Town.
3. To facilitate the adequate and economic provision of
streets and utilities.
4. To preserve the natural and scenic features of open
space.
5. To further the overall goals of the community as stated
in the comprehensive plan.
This SDD is proposed solely to satisfy the needs of the
applicant, with little to no benefit to the community. In
essence, the SDD process is being utilized to achieve a density
variance. The staff encourages the Planning Commission to
recommend to the Town Council to preserve the integrity of the
existing zoning and the SDD process by denying this application.
ORDINANCE NO. 11
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE RE-ZONING LOTS 3, 4, AND 5 OF VAIL VALLEY THIRD
FILING, A PART OF SUNBURST REPEAT, TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO. 24, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40
OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND
SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes
Special Development Districts within the Town in order to
encourage flexibility in the development of land; and
WHEREAS, application has been made for Special Development
District approval for a certain parcel of property within the
Town known as Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Vail Valley Third Filing a
replat of Sunburst; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning
and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed SDD, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town
Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have
been sent to the appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as
required by Chapter 18,66 of the Vail Municipal Code.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment
as set forth in Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town
of Vail relating to zoning amendments have been fully satisfied.
Section 2.
The Town Council hereby rezones Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Vail Valley
Third Filing a replat of Sunburst, to Special Development
District No. 24.
Section 3.
The Town Council finds that the development plan for Special
Development District No. 24 meets each of the standards set forth
in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail or
demonstrates that Either one or more of them is not applicable,
or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest
has been achieved. In accordance with Section 18.40.040, the
development plan for Special Development District No. 24 is
approved. The development plan is comprised of those plans
submitted by Junge Reich Magee AIA, and consists of the following
documents:
1. Site plan dated February 8, 1990.
2. Site plan/Landscape plan date May 8, 1989.
3. Roof ridge height study and building
elevations for Lots 3, 4, and 5 numbered A1,
A6 and A7.
4. Floor plans for Lot 3, dated January 29,
19.90.
5. Floor plans for Lot 4, dated January 22,
1990.
6. Floor plans for Lot 5, dated January 31,
1990.
Section 4.
Development standards for Special Development District No. 24 are
approved by the Town council as a part of the approved
development plan as follows:
A. SETBACKS'
Setbacks shall be as indicated on the site plan set
forth in Section 3 of this ordinance.
B. HEIGHT:
Building height shall be as indicated on the elevations
and roof ridge plans set forth in Section 3 of this Ordinance.
'a
C. COVERAGE'
Site coverage shall be as follows:
1. Site coverage on Lot 3 shall not exceed 2595
square feet,
2. Site coverage on Lot 4 shall not exceed 3726
square feet,
3. Site coverage on Lot 5 shall not exceed 2878
square feet,
D. GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA:
Gross Residential Floor Area within SDD No. 24 shall be
as follows:
1. GRFA on Lot 3 shall not exceed 3300 square feet.
2. GRFA on Lot 4 shall not exceed 5500 square feet.
3. GRFA on Lot 5 shall not exceed 3550 square feet.
E. LANDSCAPING'
The area of the site to be landscaped shall generally
be as indicated on the landscape plan set forth in Section 3 of
this Ordinance.
F. PARKING'
Parking in SDD No. 24 shall be met in accordance with
the off-street parking requirements as specified in Section 18.52
of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, and as generally
indicated in the site plan as set forth in Section 3 of this
Ordinance.
Section 5
The following are conditions of approval for Special Development
District No. 24:
1. The secondary units as indicated on floor plans for
Lots 3, 4, and 5 set forth in Section 3 of this
ordinance shall be restricted as employee rental units
as per Section 18.13.080 B.10 of the Vail Municipal
Code.
~'
Section 6.
Amendments to the approved development plan may be granted
pursuant to Section 18.40.100 of the Municipal Code of the Town
of Vail.
Section 7.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and
welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof.
Section 8.
The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of
the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not
affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any
prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or
repealed and re-enacted. The repeal of any provision hereby
shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 9.
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of
such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to
revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part
thereof, heretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS of
1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this
ordinance on the day of 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in
the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of
1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED
this day of
,1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: March 26, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a Major Subdivision and amendment to
Special Development District No. 22, resubdivision of
Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3.
Applicant; Mr. Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais - Moseley
Construction.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The developer is requesting to make adjustments to the major
subdivision and Special Development District No. 22 for this
property. Special Development District No. 22 was approved
by the Planning and Environmental Commission in August of
1988 and was adopted by Ordinance No. 23 Series of 1988 by
the Vail Town Council. Special Development District No. 22
currently consists of 24 single family lots, an open space
tract, and a new public road, Lionsridge Lane. Total size
of the existing Special Development District is 10.69 acres.
The original zoning allowed 19 primary/secondary lots for a
total of 38 dwelling units. Total allowed GRFA was 84,905
square feet. The approved SDD reduced the number of
dwelling units to 24 and decreased the GRFA by 16,701 square
feet. The total approved GRFA is 68,204 square feet.
The major subdivision plat also received final approval from
the Planning Commission. However, the final plat has not
been recorded. The developer is requesting changes to the
major subdivision plat which will require preliminary plan
review as well as final plat review .from the Planning
Commission. The following changes are requested:
1. AMENDMEN'?' TO LOT SIZES AND CORRESPONDING GRFA PER LOT:
The slight changes to the lot sizes and corresponding
GRFA per lot are listed below:
APPROVED PROPOSED
APPROVED PROPOSED APPROVED PROPOSED $ $
LOT LOT SIZE LOT SIZE GRFA GRFA GRFA/SIZE GRFA/SIZE
1 14,375 11,805 2,950 2,293 21$ 19$
2 14,375 16,248 2,950 3,171 21$ 20$
3 11,761 11,500 2,940 3,171 25$ 28$
4 11,326 11,805 2,831 2,293 25$ 19$
5 10,454 12,197 2,800 2,293 28$ 19$
6 10,454 11,500 2,800 3,171 28$ 28$
7 11,326 11,543 2,831 3,171 25$ 27$
8 10,890 11,021 2,800 3,171 26$ 29$
9 11,326 11,456 2,831 3,171 25$ 28$
10 11,761 11,979 2,940 3,171 25$ 26$
11 10,890 10,803 2,800 3,171 26$ 29$
12 13,068 12,981 2,950 3,171 23$ 24$
13 15,246 15,159 2,950 3,171 19$ 21$
14 11,326 11,151 2,831 3,171 25$ 28$
15 8,712 8,494 2,800 2,293 32$ 27$
16 7,405 8,494 2,800 2,293 38$ 27$
17 9,147 8,494 2,800 2,293 31$ 27$
18 10,019 10,062 2,800 3,171 28$ 32$
19 9,148 9,148 2,800 2,293 31$ 25$
20 10,019 9,801 2,800 3,171 28$ 32$
21 10,019 10,237 2,800 3,171 28$ 31$
22 9,583 9,409 2,800 2,293 29$ 24$
23 10,454 10,324 2,800 3,171 27$ 31$
24 9,583 9,496 2,800 2,293 29$ 24$
68,204 68,202
At this time, the developer is not proposing specific
models for .the entire subdivision. Phase I development
includes construction on four lots. These four lots
will use either Model A or Model B. The total GRFA
proposed (68,202 square fee~1 is almost. the same as the
originally approved GRFA of 68,204 square feet.
2. CHANGES TO SETBACKS:
The original approval called for a 20' front setback, a
10' side setback, and rear setback of 15 .feet. It
should be pointed out that there was some conflict
between the originally approved development plan and
wording within the SDD for front setbacks for lots 15-
19. The SDD wording calls for a 20' front setback.
The development plan drawing indicates a 0' setback for
these lots.
Changes to the setbacks are requested to allow for a
more realistic siting of the houses on each property.
Site coverage, GRFA, access, and parking have been
considered with the proposed setbacks. No encroachments
are allowed into the approved setbacks for roof
overhangs or decks. An access stair to the employee
housing unit may be allowed to encroach up to 4 ft.
into the required side setback. However, this
encroachment is only allowed for an exterior unenclosed
stair.
2
Lot Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback
1 20' 10' Appx. 97'
2-13 10' 10' See Development Plan.
Varies from 35'-75'
in order to minimize the
visual .impact of houses
along the ridge area.
14 20' 10' 45'
15,16 14' 10' 1'
Lots back-up to common
open space.
17 15' 10' S'
Lot backs-up to common
open space.
18 15' 10' 10'
19 15' 10' 10'
20-23 35' 10' 20'
Adjacent to
Lionsridge Lane
24 15' 15' 10'
North side adjacent
to Lionsridge Loop
3. CURB CUTS•
Five curb cuts are requested off of Lionsridge Loop for
Lots 20-23. At this time four road cuts accessing off
of Lionsridge Loop are approved for Lots 15-19.
4. EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNITS:
The developer will be required to provide 6 employee
units on lots having an allowable GRFA of 3,171 square
feet. Up to 15 employee dwelling units including the
required six employee dwelling units may be located
within the larger homes if future lot owners so desire.
Each emplcyee units shall meet the following units:
A. GRFA range of 400-500 square feet.
B. One enclosed (garage) parking space.
C. The unit shall be permanently restricted as an
employee dwelling unit and shall meet the
requirement in Section 28.13.080 B10 a-d of the
Town of Vail zoning code.
D. No wood-burning fireplaces shall be allowed in
these units.
3
E. The owner of the property shall be required to
document on an annual basis to the Town of Vail
that the units have been rented as long-term
rentals to persons meeting the requirements in
Section 18.13.080 B10 a-d of the zoning code.
F. The employee dwelling units shall not count
towards density or GRFA for the project.
5. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES:
The developer proposes that the Architectural Design
Guidelines be incorporated into the subdivision
agreement which will be recorded at Eagle County. The
guidelines will also be incorporated into the Special
Development District. These guidelines are as follows:
I. Architectural. At the time of review of specific
architectural plans provided for any development
of single family structures within Special
Development district No. 22, the Town of Vail
Design Review Board shall, in addition to the
Design Guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 of
the Vail Municipal Code, consider the following
guidelines in the review and approval process.
The architectural design of the buildings upon the
site shall be such that buildings re'_ate
harmoniously to each other. This is .not to imply
that each building must look exactly similar to
those around it, but that compatibility be
achieved through the use of scale, materials and
colors, and building shape and form. The
overriding concern is that, upon completion, the
Special Development district, because of the
clustered nature of the small single family lots
situated around common open space should appear to
be an integrated development possessing a common
architectural quality, character, and appearance.
To this end the following general design criteria
shall be followed:
a. A palette of colors shall be as set forth
below and presented to the Design Review
Board for their review and approval. Colors
are indicated for the use on different types
of building materials and elements such as
stucco colors, siding colors, metal flashing,
windows, accent colors, etc. The palette of
colors indicate a range of acceptable colors
in order to encourage similarity on one hand,.
but also diversity within the acceptable
rancte .
4
b. The following building forms and materials
shall be adhered to
1. Roof. The roof pitch shall be a minimum
8/.10 and a maximum of 12/12. A clipped
or hipped gable roof shall be mandatory.
The roofing material shall be cedar
shake shingles with staggered butts.
2. Chimneys. The chimneys shall be stucco
with chimney caps of weathered copper.
3. Flues. All flues shall be galvanized or
"paint Lols" sheet metal, painted to
match the roof.
4. Main Fasia. The main fasia shall be a
solid color stain, with brown taupe or
gray.
5. Secondary Fasia and Metal Railinc7s above
the First Floor. The secondary fasia
and metal railings above the first floor
shall be an accent trim color of muted
green, red or blue.
6. Walls. Walls shall be of stucco and
horizontal wood siding. Stucco colors
shall be gray, beige or off-white. Wood
siding colors shall be gray, brown or
taupe.
7. Stone. Residences will have a minimum
of a two foot high stone wainscot in
rainbow mix with a sandstone cap around
the perimeter of the structure.
8. Windows. Windows shall be recessed a
minimum of two inches from the outside
wall plane and have a sandstone sill.
Trim shall be white, taupe or brown.
9. Outdoor Lightinct. Outdoor lighting
shall be indirect with a concealed
source except for an entry chandelier
which may be exposed globes with a
fixture of black or weathered cooper
look metal.
10. Garac,Les. No garage doors shall directly
face the street.
11. A residential address/nameplate if
desired by the owner shall be located on
the side of the garage facing the access
point to the lot.
5
II. Landscape. At the time of review of landscape
plans provided for any development of single
family structures within the Special Development
district No. 22 the Town of Vail shall, in
addition to the landscape guidelines set forth in
Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code, consider
the following guidelines in the review and
approval process:
a. Entry Landscapinct and lightinQ• A plan
indicating the landscape treatment of the
main project entry shall be submitted and
approved. The goal of such a plan shall be
the following:
1. Present an identifiable entry point to
the subdivision containing plant
materials, lighting, and signage of a
scale appropriate for the size of the
development.
2. Provide appropriate screening to the
rear yards (along Lionsridge Loop) of
Lots 20-24 which blends in with the
entry treatment.
3. Provide appropriate screening along the
western edge of Tract C.
b. when the individual landscape plans are
presented for individual lots special care
shall be taken in the design of side yard
landscaping in order to provide adequate
screening between structures. Active outdoor
use areas should be located within front and
rear yards.
c. The concern of the Board shall be to improve
the natural appearance of the Subdivision and
the maintenance of such appearance.. Owners
and their representatives or builders will be
required to:
1. ,Minimize disruption from grading.
2. Revegetate and restore ground cover for
erosion and appearance reasons.
3. Use indigenous species of plant
materials.
4. Select the man-made elements that blend
and are compatible with the land.
5. Use existing or natural drainage paths
whenever possible.
6. Conserve and protect topsoil, rock
formations and unique landscape
features.
6. PHASING PLAN
The first phase of the Development District (1990-91)
shall include the following improvements:
-Lots 2-3 (Model A)
-Lots 1, 4, 24 (Model B)
-Project Entry Plan Completion
-Final Grading of Common Open Space and Revegetation of
Native Grasses in all Undeveloped portions of the
project.
-Paving of Lionsridge Lane
-All underground utilities in place and stubbed to
individual lots as well as drainage improvements.
The second through fifth phases (1991-1996) of the
Development District shall include construction of 4 to
5 units per year until the project is built out.
II. EVALUATION OF CRITERIA FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY
PLAN REVIEW
The major subdivision section of the zoning code in
17.16.110 PEC Review Criteria states:
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to
show that the application is in compliance with the
intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC
deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to
the recommendations made by public agencies, utility
companies, and other agencies consulted under Section
17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and
consider its appropriateness in regard to town policies
relating to subdivision control, densities proposed,
regulations, ordinances and resolutions, and other
applicable documents, environmental integrity, and
compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other
applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the
town, environmental integrity and compatibility with
the surrounding land uses."
It is important to realize that the proposal is a
resubdivision of 19 existing duplex lots. A Special
Development District and Major Subdivision have already been
approved by the Planning Commission and Town Council which
allowed the developer to resubdivide the 19 existing duplex
lots into 24 single family lots. In general, the changes to
the proposal do not have any major impacts on the
subdivision criteria. Due to the fact that the proposal
represents a resubdivision of an existing approved
subdivision, a reduction in allowable density, has no
significant environmental impacts and is compatible with
surrounding low to medium density residential uses, the
proposed plan is supportable.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Staff did not require an additional environmental impact
report for the changes requested. The proposed changes do
not necessitate a revised environmental impact report.
IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
1. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment, neicthborhood and ad,~ scent properties
relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones. identity, character,. visual
integrity and orientation.
The existing SDD has actually been improved in respect
to the design of the project. The increase in setbacks
along the ridgeline on the south side of the
subdivision will improve the visual integrity of the
project. The previous SDD called for only a 15' rear
setback. Under the new proposal setbacks will range
from 35 to 75 feet.
The developer is also including specific architectural
guidelines for the SDD. The guidelines have been
reviewed by the Design Review Board and have received
conceptual support. These Guidelines will encourage
consistent material, roof forms, and substantial
landscaping which will benefit this project as well
adjacent property owners.
As with the previous proposal, the project does deviate
from the standard regulations governing mass and bulk
for the single family residential zone district.
However, the staff feels that these deviations are
acceptable due to the overall density reduction and the
provision of a large common open space which can be
used by residents within the project.
2.
uses and activity.
With the amendments to the SDD, the density remains
essentially the same except that the developer is
willing to include 6 employee dwelling units into the
project. The developer may also build up to a total of
15 employee dwelling units if he so desires. In
previous Special Development District approvals, the
staff has never counted employee dwelling units for
GRFA or density purposes. Assuming that the developer
builds 6 employee dwelling units, the project would
still be under the previous allowed density of 38 units
as 30 units would be built. If the developer builds 15
employee dwelling units along with the 24 single family
units, the project will be only 1 dwelling unit over
the originally approved 36 unit amount.
8
Employee dwelling units are proposed to be located
above the garages on the lots having the larger GRFA
allotment of 3,171 square feet. The developer is
providing the type of employee housing unit which has
been deemed very attractive as there is minimal impact
on the neighborhood and the employee housing units are
dispersed throughout a large area. Staff believes that
the developer has proposed a very compatible,
efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding
uses in the area.
3. Compliance with parkinct and loading requirements as
outlined in Chapter 18.52.
All parking requirements will meet the Town of Vail
standards outlined in Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail
zoning code. Each employee dwelling unit will be
required to have one garage parking space.
4. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design
Plans.
The Master Land Use Plan identifies this parcel as one
which is suitable for medium density residential uses.
The reasons behind this were the site's good access,
compatibility with the neighborhood's other residential
uses, the suitable topography for medium density, as
well as the overall long-term need for more medium
density residential sites in the Town. The following
are applicable land use policies applicable to the
proposal:
1.12: Vail should accommodate most of the
additional growth in existing developed (infill)
areas.
5.1: Additional residential growth should
continue to occur primarily in existing, platted
areas and is appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
5.3: Affordable employee housing should be made
available through private efforts assisted by
limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail,
with appropriate restrictions.
5.4: Residential growth should keep pace with the
market place demand for a full range of housing
types.
5.5: The existing employee housing base should be
preserved and upgraded. Additional employee
housing needs should be accommodated at varied
sites throughout the community.
The proposal complies with all of these policies.
9
5. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or
geologic hazards that affect the property on which the
special development district is proposed.
The site is not located within any geologic hazard
area.
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space
provisions designed to produce a functional development
responsive and sensitive to natural features,
veggtation and overall aesthetic quality of the
community.
The preservation of open slopes below the southern
ridgeline of the project is important. Staff wanted to
ensure that units would not extend down the hillside.
It should be pointed out that units will be visible
from I-70. However, the intent is to pull the
development back from the ridge. The common open space
is also a very positive part of the project.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and
pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic
circulation.
No changes have been proposed to Lionsridge Lane which
will be a public road. The developer will be required
to meet Town of Vail standards for the road and
approvals from both Public Works and the Fire
Department before final p~4t review are necessary.
Staff strongly recommends that the four additional road
cuts along Lionsridge Loop be denied. Public Works has
concerns with the existing five .road cuts off of
Lionsridge Loop for Lots 15-19. However, due to the
fact that these were approved during the original SDD
review and having these lots accessed from Lionsridge
Lane would destroy the open space, staff will not
request that these road cuts also be removed. The Town
of Vail engineer will also require that for the
existing five road cuts approval will be necessary in
order to review the grades, orientation of the cut,
proposed landscaping and drainage, and site distance
for each cut.
Public works has cited major concerns about the four
additional cuts due to inadequate visibility of
oncoming traffic from each new cut, which creates a
safety problem. Access off of Lionsridge Lane will also
encourage site planning and architecture that will
break-up the mass and bulk of structures along
Lionsridge Loop. Instead of having nine homes
orienting towards Lionsridge Loop, only five will face
north. The remaining four homes will face south. The
developer is constructing a public road to service the
proposed lots. It is simply good planning to require
these lots (20°23) to utilize the road within the
subdivision. This solution in no way compromises the
common open space.
10
It is our understanding that the owners of the property
are working with Solar Crest Condominiums to resolve
their parking and access problem. Staff feels that it
is only reasonable to request a solution from the
developer and not require a solution as the problem. is
truly an issue which requires cooperation on the part
the Solar Crest owners.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in
The landscape plan is generally the same for the common
space as was approved under the original SDD. Staff's
primary concern with this project is that the site will
be revegetated as soon as possible. Secondly, the
landscaping between residences must be substantial and
not symmetrical to give a more natural appearance to
the subdivision. Amore specific review of the
landscaping for each site will occur by the Design
Review Board.
9. Phasing Dlan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workable. functional and efficient relationshiA
throughout the development of the special development
district.
Staff has no problem with the phasing plan proposed.
We encourage the developer to quickly pave Lionsridge
Lane and revegetate the entire site that was disturbed
through the grading process approved last year.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval
of the preliminary plan for the major subdivision and the
revisions to Special Development District No. 22 for this
property. The requested changes generally improve the
subdivision and will allow for a more architectural pleasing
development of the property. The conditions of approval for
the Special Development District and Major Subdivision are
as follows:
Special Development District Conditions:
1. The Special Development District shall be required to
include 6 employee dwelling units. The developer may
provide up to 15 employee dwelling units if so desired.
The employee dwelling units shall only be allowed on
lots 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21,
23 that each have a GRFA of 3,171.
An employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 400
square feet and a maximum of 500 square feet.
An employee dwelling unit shall be incorporated. into
the structure of the primary residence and shall not be
allowed to be separated from the primary unit.
11
Each employee dwelling unit shall have one enclosed
garage parking space.
The employee dwelling unit shall be restricted on a
permanent basis as employee housing and shall meet the
requirements of Section 18.13.080 B 10 a-d of the Town
of Vail zoning code.
Employee dwelling units shall be prohibited from having
wood-burning fireplaces.
Employee dwelling units shall not be counted toward
density or GRFA for the subdivision.
Each owner shall be required to prepare an employee
housing unit agreement for Town approval and recording
at Eagle county before a building permit is released
for the proposed residence.
The owner of the lot shall be required to document on
an annual basis to the Town of Vail that the unit has
been rented as a long term rental per the requirement
outlined in Section 18.13.080 B10 1-d of the Town of
Vail Zoning Code.
2. The requested four additional curb cuts shall not be
approved.
3. The Special Development District will not be effective
until the Major Subdivision is recorded at Eagle
County.
4. The Major Subdivision shall be recorded at Eagle County
before a building permit shall be released for any
construction on the subdivision including common
improvements as well as individual residences.
5. The Town of Vail Engineer shall have the right to
review and approve the five approved curb cuts for Lots
15-19 to ensure proper driveway orientation,
landscaping, visibility, and drainage before a building
permit is released for any of the units on these lots.
6. The landscaping, signage, and wall design for the entry
to the subdivision must be reviewed and approved by the
Town Engineer before final DRB approval.
Major Subdivision Conditions of Approval:
These conditions of approval shall be addressed before a
final plat is submitted to the Planning and Environmental
Commission for approval.
1. Lionsridge Lane shall be reoriented to a 90 degree
angle where it intersects Lionsridge Loop.
2. A 20 foot roadway having a maximum 4 percent grade
shall be constructed at the main entry into the
subdivision.
12
~_ 3. There shall be a 20 foot tangent before the vertical
curve at the access point to the subdivision begins.
4. The drainage plan shall be revised to relate to the new
drainage criteria outlined in the report titled TR #55,
dated June 1986.
5. A revised drainage study shall be submitted which
updates the Intermountain report dated January 1989.
6. The Lionsridge Lane roadway profile shall be revised to
address the changes in grade on the site due to the
approved grading plan.
7. A pavement design based on soil compaction tests shall
be submitted for the Town Engineer's approval.
8. The drainage ditch along Lionsridge Lane shall be
vegetated with natural grasses as opposed to cobble.
9. A 10 foot right-of-way along either side of Lionsridge
Lane shall be provided
10. All plans for the major subdivision shall be updated to
show the revised lot lines and existing grades.
11. The developer shall meet with the Fire Department and
verify the number of useable hydrants for the project.
13
ORDINANCE N0.13
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 23,
SERIES OF 1988, TO PROVIDE CHANGES TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT N0. 22 THAT CONCERN LOT SIZE AND CORRESPONDING GRFA;
AND CURB CUTS; AND EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNITS; AND ARCHITECTURAL
GUIDELINES; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes
Special Development Districts within the Town; and
WHEREAS, The Town Council approved Ordinance No. 23, Series
of 1988 Special Development District No. 22; and
WHEREAS, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction has requested to
amend the existing Special Development District No. 22; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Environmental Commission has
recommended that certain changes be made to Special Development
District No. 22; and
WHEREAS, The Town Council considers that it is reasonable,
appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens,
inhabitants, and visitors to repeal and reenact Ordinance No. 23,
Series of 1988 to provide for such changes in Special Development
District No. 22, Dauphinais Subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1988 is
hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission
Report
The approval procedure prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail
Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has
received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission
recommending approval, of the proposed development plan for
Special Development District No. 22.
Section 2. Special Development District_No. 22
Special Development District No. 22 (SDD22) and the development
plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Lots 1
through 19, Block 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing 3 within the
Town of Vail consisting of 10.69 acres.
Section 3. Purt~ose
Special Development District 22 is established to ensure
comprehensive development and use of an area that will be
harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail. The
development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town
Council and meets all design standards and criteria as set forth
in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant
aspects of Special Development District 22 that are difficult to
satisfy through the imposition of the standards of the underlying
1
primary/secondary zone district. Special Development District 22
allows for greater flexibility in the development of the land
than would be possible under the current zoning of the property.
The smaller single-family lots provide the opportunity for a
common open space for the subdivision as well as the means to
preserve the southerly ridge line of the property. Special
Development District 22 provides an appropriate development plan
to preserve the visual quality of the site from within the
subdivision as well as adjacent properties in the community in
general.
Section 4. Development Plan
A. The development plan for SDD 22 is approved and shall
constitute the plan for development within the Special
Development District. The development plan is comprised of
those plans submitted by Dauphinais-Moseley Construction and
consists of the following documents which will be finalized
at the Major Subdivision final plat review:
1. Site development plan, Lionsridge Resubdivision of Lots
1-19, Vail, Colorado, ArnoldfGwathmey/Pratt Architects,
dated March 22, 1990.
2. Conceptual landscape plan, Arnold/Gwathmey/Pratt
Architects, dated March 20, 1990.
3. Final plat of Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 5, a
resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, and Lionsridge
Lane, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3, Town of
Vail, Eagle County, Colorado sheets 1 and 2,
Intermountain Engineering Limited, dated April 19,
1989.
4. Construction, grading and drainage drawings for a
resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, and Lionsridge
Lane, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3, Town of
Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, Intermountain Engineering
Limited, sheets 1-8, dated March 9, 1989 to be
finalized at the final plat review for the subdivision.
5. Soils and Foundation Investigation for Lots 1-24,
Lionsridge 5th Filing.
6. Lionsridge Color Palette, Arnold/Gwathmey/Pratt
Architects, March 1990.
B. The development standards shall be as follows:
1. Acreage: The total acreage of this site is 10.69 acres
or 465,650 square feet.
2. Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for SDD 22 shall
be:
a. Single family residential dwellings
b. Open space
c. Public roads
2
d. Employee dwelling units as defined in Section 5,
paragragh G of this ordinance.
3. Conditional Uses:
a. Public utility and public service uses
b. Public buildings, grounds and facilities
c. Public or private schools
d. Public park and recreation facilities
4. Accessory Uses:
a. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses,
garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or
recreation facilities customarily incidental to
single-family uses.
b. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home
occupation permit in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through
18.58.190.
c. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to
permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for
the operation thereof.
5. Lots Sizes and Maximum GRFAs:
MAXIMUM
LOT SIZE GRFA
1 11,805 2,293
2 16,248 3,171
3 11,500 3,171
4 11,805 2,293
5 12,197 2,293
6 11,500 3,171
7 11,543 3,171
8 11,021 3,171
9 11,456 3,171
10 11,979 3,171
11 10,803 3,171
12 12,981 3,171
13 15,159 3,171
14 11,151 3,171
15 8,494 2,293
16 8,494 2,293
17 8,494 2,293
18 10,062 3,171
19 9,148 2,293
20 9,801 3,171
21 10,237 3,171
22 9,409 2,293
23 10,324 3,171
24 9,496 2,293
68,202
3
6. Setbacks: Minimum setbacks shall be as indicated on
the approved site development plan by
Arnold/Gwathmey/Pratt Architects, dated March 22, 1990.
Roof overhangs shall be allowed to encroach up to 2'
into the required side setback of 10' for each lot.
An unenclosed, unroofed, deck or patio at grade may
encroach into the rear setback by 5' for lots 1-14.
7. Density: Approval of this development plan shall
permit a total of 24 single-family dwelling units on
the entire property. A minimum of 6 employee dwelling
units shall be incorporated into any 6 of the single-
family units. A maximum of 15 employee dwelling units
(including the six required employee units) may be
included within 15 of the single-family units if
desired by the developer or individual lot owner.
8. Building Height: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the
height of the building shall not exceed 30'. For a
sloping roof, the height of the building shall not
exceed 33'. The height calculation shall be made by
measuring from the existing grade as indicated on the
Intermountain Engineering Topographical Survey dated
March 13, 1990 or finished grade. Height shall be
calculated per Section 18.04.170 of the Municipal Code.
9. Site Coverage: Not more than 25 percent of the total
site area on each lot shall be covered by buildings.
10. Parking: Parking shall be as required in Section 18.52
of the Vail Municipal Code. Each employee dwelling
unit shall be required to have at least one enclosed
garage parking space.
11. Design Guidelines: The development of each lot shall
be guided by the architectural and landscape design
guidelines as approved as part of the Special
Development District No. 22. The guidelines are as
follows:
a. Architectural. The architectural design of the
buildings upon the site shall be such that
buildings relate harmoniously to each other. This
is not to imply that each building must look
exactly similar to those around it, but that
compatibility be achieved through the use of
scale, materials and colors, and building shape
and form. The overriding concern is that, upon
completion, the Special Development District,
because of the clustered nature of the small
single family lots situated around common open
space, should appear to be an integrated
development possessing a common architectural
4
quality, character, and appearance. To this end
the following general design criteria shall be
followed by the developer and individual lot
owners:
i. A palette of colors shall be as set forth in the
Lionsridge Color Palette from
Arnold/Gwathmey/Pratt dated March 1990. Colors
are indicated for the use on different types of
building materials and elements such as stucco
colors, siding colors, metal flashing, windows,
accent colors, etc. The palette of colors
indicate a range of acceptable colors in order to
encourage similarity on one hand, but also
diversity within the acceptable range.
ii. The following building standards and materials
shall be adhered to
(1) Roof. The roof pitch shall be a minimum 8/10
and a maximum of 12/12. A clipped or hipped
gable roof shall be mandatory. The roofing
material shall be cedar shake shingles with
staggered butts.
(2) Chimneys. The chimneys shall be stucco with
chimney caps of weathered copper.
(3) Flues. All flues shall be galvanized or
"paint Lols" sheet metal, painted to match
the roof.
(4) Main Fascia. The main fascia shall be a
solid color stain, with brown, taupe, or
gray.
(5) Secondary Fascia and Metal Railings above the
First Floor. The secondary fascia and metal
railings above the first floor shall be an
accent trim color of muted green, red or
blue.
(6) Walls. Walls shall be of stucco and
horizontal wood siding. Stucco colors shall
be gray, beige or off-white. Wood siding
colors shall be gray, brown or taupe.
(7) Stone. Residences will have a minimum of a
two foot high stone wainscot in rainbow mix
with a sandstone cap around the perimeter of
the str. ucture .
(8) Windows. Windows shall be recessed a minimum
of two inches from the outside wall plane and
have a sandstone sill. Trim shall be white,
taupe or brown.
(9) Outdoor LiQhtinct. Outdoor lighting shall be
5
indirect with a concealed source except for
an entry chandelier which may be exposed
globes with a fixture of black or weathered
cooper look metal.
(10) Garages. No garage doors shall directly face
the street.
(il) A residential address/nameplate if desired by
the owner shall be located on the side of the
garage facing the access point to the lot.
b. Landscape. When the individual landscape
plans are designed for individual lots,
special care shall be taken in the design of
side yard landscaping in order to provide
adequate screening between structures.
12. Recreational Amenities Tax: The recreation
amenities tax shall be assessed at the rate for a
single-family residential zone district.
Section 5. Conditions of Approval
A. Special Development District No. 22 shall not be effective
until the major subdivision is approved by the Planning and
Environmental Commission and is recorded by the Town of Vail
at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorders Office.
B. The major subdivision shall be recorded at the Eagle County
Clerk and Recorder's Office before a building permit is
released for any construction on the subdivision including
common improvements as well as individual residences.
C. The Town of Vail Engineer shall have the right to review and
approve the curb cuts for lots 15-23 accessing off of
Lionsridge Loop to ensure proper driveway orientation,
landscaping, visibility, and drainage before a building
permit is released for any of the units on these lots.
D. The developer shall submit a landscaping, signage, and wall
design for the entry to the subdivision for review and
approval by the Town Engineer before final Design Review
Board approval.
E. The developer shall construct a sidewalk along the north
side of Lionsridge Lane. -The sidewalk shall be included in
the Phase I construction plan. The sidewalk shall be
constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit
for Phase I and prior to the issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy for any of the units on Lots 1, 2,
3, and 24.
F. The developer shall be responsible for constructing a bus
shelter on the west side of the entry into the subdivision.
The bus shelter design shall be mutually acceptable to the
6
_ developer and Town of Vail. The bus shelter shall also be
required to receive approval from the Design Review Board.
" The bus shelter shall be included in the Phase I building
permit plan drawings. The bus shelter shall be constructed
subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to
the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for any
of the units located on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 24.
G. The development of Special Development District No. 22 will
have impacts on the available employee housing within the
Upper Eagle Valley Area. In order to help meet this
additional employee housing need, the developer of Special
Developmenmt District No. 22 shall provide employee housing
on site. The following restrictions shall apply to all
employee dwelling units within SDD No. 22:
The developer shall build a minimum of six employee dwelling
units within the subdivision. Each employee dwelling unit
shall have a minimum square footage of 400 square feet not
to exceed 500 square feet and is allowed to have a kitchen.
The GRFA and number of employee units shall not be counted
toward allowable density or GRFA for Special Development
District No. 22. The developer may provide up to 15
employee dwelling units including the 6 required dwelling
units if so desired.
The employee dwelling units may be located on any of the
lots within the subdivision providing all the development
standards are met for each lot. Only one employee dwelling
unit shall be allowed per lot. An employee. dwelling shall
be incorporated into the structure of the primary residence
and shall not be allowed to be separated from the primary
unit. Each employee dwelling unit shall have one enclosed
garage parking space. This parking space shall not be
detached from the single-family garage or structure. The
employee dwelling unit shall be prohibited from having a
wood burning fireplace. Each phase of construction shall
include a minimum of one employee dwelling unit until six
employee dwelling units are constructed and available for
rental.
The employee dwelling unit shall be restricted as a rental
employee dwelling unit permanently. The employee dwelling
unit shall not be leased or rented for any period of less
than 30 consecutive days, and that if rented, it shall be
rented only to tenants who are full-time employees in the
Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be .deemed
to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman,
7
Eagle-Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full-
time employee is a person who works an average of 30 hours
per week. An employee dwelling unit shall not be divided
into any form of time-share, interval ownership, or
fractional fee ownership. The employee dwelling unit shall
not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the
single family unit.
The owner of each employee dwelling unit shall be required
to declare in writing on an annual basis to the Town of Vail
that the employee dwelling unit has been rented as a long
term rental per the requirements outlined in this section.
This declaration shall include a written statement from the
owner listing the renter's name, place of employment, and
length of time the unit was rented. The declaration shall
be required to be signed by both the lot owner and renter.
A declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed
on record in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder in the form approved by the Town Attorney for the
benefit of the Town to ensure that the restrictions herein
shall run with the land before a building permit is released
for the construction of any employee dwelling unit. The
Town of Vail shall be a party to this employee housing
agreement.
H. The developer and Town shall enter into a developer's
agreement which shall provide that no final plat for
subdivision shall be signed by the Town unless security is
provided by the developer to ensure completion of the
requirements set forth in Conditions D, E, and F.
I. The architectural and landscape design guidelines shall be
incorporated into the subdivision covenants before the final
plat is recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's
office. The Town of Vail shall be party to these
agreements.
J. The first phase of construction for the subdivision shall
include construction of residences on Lots 1,2,3, 4, and 24,
project entry plan completion, bus stop, sidewalk along the
north side of Lionsridge Lane, final grading of common open
space, and revegetation of native grasses on all disturbed
portions of the subdivision, paving of Lionsridge Lane, all
utilities constructed and stubbbed to individual lots, as
well as drainage improvements.
8
The second through fifth phases shall include
construction of 4 to 5 units per year until the
project is built out.
Section 6. Amendments
Amendments to Special Development District No. 22 shall follow
the procedures contained in Section 18.40.100 of the Vail
Municipal Code.
Section 7. Expiration
The applicant must begin construction of the Special Development
District within 3 years from the time of its final approval, and
continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the
applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the
completion of the Special Development District or any stage of
the Special Development District within the time limits imposed
by the preceding subsection, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall review the Special Development District. They
shall recommend to the Town Council that either the approval of
the Special Development District be extended, that the approval
of the Special Development District be revoked, or that the
Special Development District be amended.
Section 8.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would
have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that
any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses
or phrases by declared invalid.
Section 9.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and
welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof.
Section 10.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of
Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not
affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any
prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or
repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall
not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or
superseded unless expressly stated herein.
9
Section 11.
A11 bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of
such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to
revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part
thereof, heretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ AND
1990,
ordinance on the
in the Council Chamb~
Colorado.
Ordered published in
PASSED ON FIRST READING
and a public hearing sh,
_ day of
~r of the Vail Municipal
full this day of _
THIS day of
311 be held on this
_, 1990 at 7:30 p.m.
Building, Vail,
1990.
ATTEST:
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED this day of , 1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
10
T0: Planning and Environment Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 26, 1990
RE: A request to amend Special Development District #19,
Vail Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the Gods Lodge.
Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hill Family
On February 12, 1990, the PEC reviewed this request. The
applicant tabled the item in order to work with the adjacent
property owners on the View impact of the project. Since that
time, the applicant has amended the request by slightly changing
the location of the proposed building. Below is a comparison of
the setbacks due to the change in building location:
Setbacks
REVISED
FEBRUARY 12 FEBRUARY 26
SITE PLAN SITE PLAN EXISTING
EAST 20 FEET. 20 FEET 20 FEET
WEST 1 FOOT 2 FEET .2 FEET
NORTH 3 FEET 4.5 FEET 1.4 FEET
SOUTH 8 FEET 8 FEET 9 FEET
The Vail Valley Drive entry has been moved further south in order
to allow access through the parte-cochere. This change
necessitates the need to move the bus stop to the south. As with
the previous proposal (Feb. 12), four trees will need to be
replanted or replaced.
There have also been some minor changes to the wording of the
conditions of approval. These changes are indicated in bold type
print and all capital letters. The staff recommendation is for
approval of the project.
*A revised letter from Eagle Valley Engineering is enclosed for
the roof ridge.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: MARCH 26, 1990
SUBJECT: A request to amend Special Development District #19,
Vail Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the Gods Lodge.
Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hill Family
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
This project has received one Special Development District
approval in 1987. The approved SDD was then revised in the
summer of 1989. However, the applicant never pursued final
approval from the Town Council. Under each of the previous
SDD requests, the applicant proposed to remodel the existing
building. With the present request, the applicant would like
to demolish the existing building and construct a new
building in the approximate original building's footprint
with a few modifications. The request to rebuild the Garden
of the Gods includes:
A. 6 dwelling units = 12,648 sq.ft. of GRFA.
B. 11 accommodation units @ 4,086 sq.ft. GRFA
4 accommodation unit lock-offs @ 1,725 sq.ft. GRFA
TOTAL: 15 accommodation units @ 5,812 sq.ft. GRFA
C. An increase in square footage devoted to 2 employee
dwelling units = 1,802 sq.ft. of GRFA. The existing SDD
calls for 1 au and 1 du having a total square footage of
730 sq. ft.
D. An increase in common area from the existing amount of
3,575 sq.ft. to 3,712 sq.ft.
E. Construct sidewalks along both sides of Vail Valley
Drive. New planters will be built adjacent to the
parking lot on the east side of Vail Valley Drive (P-2
Parcel).
F. Underground parking of 15 spaces. The underground
parking allows for the removal of 2 surface spaces on
the east side and 2 surface spaces on the south side
(Tivoli side) of the project. 2 spaces are removed from
the parking lot on the east side of Vail Valley Drive to
allow for the sidewalk and planters. Landscaping is
proposed for the areas where surface parking is removed.
The parking requirement is met.
n
G. Build a public bus pull-off with bench on the southeast
corner of the property.
H. The existing height of the building is approximately 43
feet (ridge. elevation 8219 ft). The proposed height on
the north end of the building will be 43 ft 6 inches
(ridge elevation 8219 ft 4 inches). The south half of
the building has a height of 47 feet (ridge elevation
8223 ft). The existing zoning of the property (public
accommodation zoning) allows for a 48 ft. height for a
sloping roof. The designated view corridor #5 is not
impacted by this proposal.
* All ridge elevations are measured to the final
finished roof including any roof cap, etc. HEIGHTS
ASSUME BASE ELEVATION OF 8176 FEET.
I. The applicant proposes to restrict all of the 11
accommodation units (5812 sq.ft.) as well as 4
accommodation unit lock-offs and 3 dwelling units (2882
s.f.) as short term rentals on a permanent basis.
All of the restricted accommodation units and a.u.
lock-offs shall be made available to the short-term
rental program.
Definitions:
d.u. = dwelling unit or living unit with kitchen
a.u. = accommodation unit or lodge room
a.u. lock-off = A dwelling unit may include one attached
accommodation lock-off or lodge room.
**Please see the attached zoning analysis and unit use analysis
charts.
II. REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST
The Garden of the Gods project is located in the Public
Accommodation zone district. The existing SDD zoning that
was obtained in 1987 was originally requested because the
project did not meet the definition of a lodge, was over the
allowable density by .5 dwelling units and had a total common
area that exceeded the allowable. In respect to all other
zoning standards the project met the requirements of the
Public Accommodation zone district. This new Special
Development District request differs from the Public
Accommodation zoning and existing SDD in the following ways
2
A. Definition of Lodge:
The proposal does not meet the definition of a lodge.
According to the zoning code, Section 18.04.210,
Definition of a Lodge:
"A lodge means a building or group of associated
buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the
temporary lodging place of individuals or families,
either in accommodation units or dwelling units, in
which the gross residential floor area devoted to
accommodation units exceeds the gross residential
floor area devoted to dwelling units, and in which
all such units are operated under a single
management providing the occupants thereof
customary hotel services and facilities."
The Public Accommodation zone requires that, at a
minimum, 51% of the total GRFA be devoted to
accommodation units. 53% of the GRFA is in
accommodation units in the existing building. The
approved Special Development District allocated 27% of
total GRFA to accommodation units. In other words,
there is a 4% increase in GRFA devoted to a.u.'s when
comparing the old SDD to the proposed SDD.
B. GRFA:
The new SDD has a total GRFA of 18,460 square feet. The
proposed GRFA is 866 square feet over the allowable.
The existing SDD is under the allowable GRFA by 857
square feet. The PA zone allows for 17,594 square feet.
C. Setbacks:
In previous SDD reviews, the existing building was
proposed to be remodeled so the setbacks were not
changed. In this request, the building will be
completely rebuilt. For this reason, the setbacks are
no longer a given. The existing building encroaches
into the west, north and south setbacks. Below is a
summary of how the existing building setbacks compare to
3
New SDD
East 20 ft
West 2 ft
North 4.5 FT
South 8 ft
Existing
East 20 ft
West .2 ft
North 1.4 ft
South 9 ft
In respect to all of the other zoning standards and parking,
the project meets the requirements of the Public
Accommodation zone district.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL
A. Uses:
Please see Section IV.B
B. Density/GRFA:
Please see Section IV.B
C. Setbacks
See Section IV.F
D. Height
The height proposed is within the maximum allowed of 48
feet for a sloping roof.
E. Site Coverage
The site coverage is below the allowable of 9,677 square
feet. The proposed site coverage is 7,787_square
feet.
F. Parking
Parking requirements are met for this proposal.
IV. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
CRITERIA
A. Design Compatibility and Sensitivity to the Immediate
Environment, Neighborhood, and A~acent___Properties
4
Relative to Architectural Design, Style, Bulk, Buildi
Height, Buffer Zones, Identity, Character, Visual
Integrity and Orientation.
The architecture of the building is significantly
upgraded by this proposal. The use of stone and stucco,
additional landscaping, removal of six surface parking
spaces and underground parking will improve the
appearance of the building. The roof has been designed
so that there will be no impacts on the designated view
corridor. The building location is basically the same.
However, areas where the building encroached into the
setbacks have been decreased slightly at the closest
points (north and west setbacks). The proposal will
have a positive impact on the character of the
neighborhood.
B. Uses, Activity and Density which provide a compatible,
efficient and workable relationship with surrounding
uses and activity.
Density
The proposal is one du under the allowable density for
the Public Accommodation zone district. For PA
zoning, 12.5 dwelling units (d.u.) are allowed. 11.5
dwelling units are proposed. (Please remember 2
accommodation units = 1 dwelling unit). It is positive
that the project is actually under the allowable
density.
Lodge Definition
Similar to the approved SDD, the amended SDD falls short
of meeting the definition of a lodge which would require
that more than 50% of the GRFA be devoted to
accommodation units (a.u.'s). However, the new SDD
actually allocates more GRFA (1,216 sq ft) to
accommodation units than the existing SDD. The average
size of the accommodation unit is also increased in the
new proposal from 287 square feet (existing SDD) to 372
square feet. The number of accommodation units does
decrease from 16 (accommodation units plus accommodation
unit lock-offs--old SDD) to 15 accommodation units and
accommodation unit lock-offs in the new proposal. Also,
the number of dwelling units has been decreased from 8
d.u.'s to 6 d.u.'s in the new proposal. However, the
GRFA for the dwelling units has increased from 12,141
square feet (old SDD) to 12,648 square feet in the new
SDD for d.u.'s.
5
~... ,
In general, the
existing SDD in
the size of the
project is no l~
slight increase
negative impact
properties.
new SDD is an improvement over the
that the number of d.u.'s is decreased,
accommodation unit is increased, and the
anger over the allowable density. The
in GRFA (866 s.f.) does not have a major
on the project or surrounding
Restricted Units
As stated in the previous SDD memo, the Ramshorn project
was considered to be a similar proposal to the Garden of
the Gods. In analyzing this type of request, the staff
has taken the position that maintaining rental
restricted units for the bed base is positive for the
community. The intent of the requirement that a
majority of the project square footage be devoted to
accommodation units is to maintain the purpose of the
Public Accommodation district as a "site for lodges and
residential accommodations for visitors." (Section
18.22.110)
Due to the fact that Special Development District zoning
is once again requested, there is some flexibility in
how the intent of the Public Accommodation zone district
may be maintained without meeting the precise
requirement to have a majority of square footage devoted
to accommodation units. The staff originally analyzed
this project in terms of available rental units or
"keys," i.e., au's or du's that are available for rent.
The new proposal has 21 "keys" available for guests.
This number of "'keys" is based on the fact that 15
accommodation units and 6 dwelling units are available
as POTENTIAL short term rental units for guests. Of the
21 potential rentable units, 18 will be restricted as
short term rentals including 3 dwelling units. The
percent of units available for short term rental
increases from 70% or 17 "keys" to 86~ or 18 "keys."
GRFA
The additional GRFA (866 square feet) is due certainly
to the fact that units area being expanded, but also
because the circulation within the structure has been
designed in a more efficient manner.
Employee Housing
The applicant has also agreed to improve the existing
employee unit situation for the building. Two employee
units will be added having a total square footage of
1,802 square feet. The total existing square footage
devoted to employee units will be increased by 1072
square feet when compared to the existing SDD.
C.
D.
Compliance with parking and loading requirements as
outlined in Chapter 18.52.
All parking requirements are met.
Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail
Compliance Plan, Town Policies and Urban Design Plans
LAND USE PLAN
The Land Use Plan also supports this proposal in the
following ways:
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and
upgraded whenever possible.
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used
more efficiently.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best
location for hotels to serve the future needs of
the destination skiers.
3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of
the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to
condominiums should be discouraged.
4.2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable
so long as the existing character of each area is
preserved through implementation of the Urban
Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master
Plan.
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to
occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as
appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not
exist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made
available through private efforts, assisted by
limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail,
with appropriate restrictions.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be
preserved and upgraded. Additional employee
housing needs should be accommodated at varied
sites throughout the community
7
E. Identification and miticration of natural and/or geologic
hazards that affect the property on which the Special
Development District is proposed.
Not applicable.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space
provisions designed to roduce a functional development
responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation, and overall aesthetic quality of the
community.
The applicant has developed a site plan that is
functional and has a high level of aesthetic quality.
The amount of open space,. mass and bulk of the building
and pedestrian/vehicular circulation have been planned
in a sensitive manner. An important question is why is
it appropriate to allow the new building to encroach
into the 20 foot setbacks? These encroachments are
supportable, as the configuration of the building,
access, and parking are made more functional with some
flexibility for the 20 foot setbacks. The building
could be pushed into the northeast corner of the site
which would create problems for traffic circulation,
separate the building from pool amenities and possibly
impact the Vorlaufer to a greater degree.
Under the new SDD, the building will continue to
encroach into a drainage and utility easement. All of
the utilities except for the cable TV have vacated the
easement. Public Works will agree to vacate ALL OR A
PORTION OF THE drainage easement as long as the
applicant agrees to construct curb, gutter, and other
necessary drainage improvements to the east, north and
south sides of the property.
G. The circulation system designed for both vehicles and
pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic
circulation.
The Ramshorn has built a sidewalk along the south west
side of their property that also extends over to Golden
Peak. It makes sense for the Garden of the Gods to add
the two sidewalks, as pedestrians coming from the
transportation center will walk along both sides of Vail
Valley Drive. Guests of the Garden of the Gods will
also use the sidewalk.
The present bus stop is located at the northeast corner
of the property. The new southwest location is better
8
...
for the owners of the Garden of the Gods in that the bus
stop does not block the visibility of their site. (Four
trees will need to be relocated due to the new bus
stop.) Zn addition, safety is increased for vehicles
entering and existing off the Garden of the Gods
property as well as for the general public. It is very
reasonable and appropriate to request that the applicant
make these improvements given the request for an SDD.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in
order to o timize and preserve natural features,
recreation, views and functions.
The project proposal includes the following landscape
improvements:
* new planters along the west side of the pool
* landscape buffer along west side of property
* existing spa by pool replaced by landscaping
* 4 on-site surface parking spaces replaced by
landscaping
* 2 parking spaces on P-2 parcel removed and replaced
by sidewalk and planters
* curb and gutter and any asphalt work necessary to
handle the drainage problems will be rebuilt
The landscaping proposal is extremely positive and will
add to an already well landscaped project. The only
area of concern is that 4 trees will need to be
relocated or replaced to allow for the bus stop.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workable, functional, and efficient relationship
throughout the development of the Special_Development
Tai ctri cat _
Not applicable. The entire project is to be built the
summer of 1991.
V. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS
Below is a summary of how the Vail Village Master Plan
relates to this proposal.
9
A.
Illustrative Plans:
I. Land Use Plan:
The Garden of the Gods property is indicated as
"medium/high density residential". This section
states that a majority of the Village's lodge rooms
and condominium units are located in this land use
category. The goal of the plan is to maintain
these. areas as predominantly "lodging oriented with
retail development limited to small amounts of
"accessory retail"".
The proposal generally complies with this
description of the land use category.
2.
Open Space Plan:
This plan calls for planting buffers along the east
side of Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the surface
parking on the P-2 Parcel.
The applicant has worked with the Planning
Department and Town engineer to arrive at a
solution that removes the existing planters and
private parking from the public right-of-way to
allow space for a new sidewalk and planters.
3. Parking and Circulation Plan:
This plan calls for sidewalks along both sides of
Vail Valley Drive.
Sidewalks are included in the proposal.
4. Conceptual Building Height Plan:
This property falls within the three to four
maximum range of building stories. A story is
defined as nine feet of height with no roof
included. The proposed height falls under the
public accommodation zoning maximum for a sloping
roof of 48 feet. There are no impacts on the
designated view corridor #5. Please see the
attached letter from Eagle Valley Engineering and
photo of the view corridor.
B.
Sub-area Concepts
The Garden of the Gods
area No.7. This plan
public improvements in
falls under the east Village Sub-
states that the most important
the sub-area relate to pedestrian
10
r ~~
and bicycle safety. The public right-of-way should be
maintained and expanded for public use whenever
possible. Sub-area 7-3 and 7-4 relate specifically to
this property. The plan states:
1. #7-3 Vail Valley Drive Sidewalk - A sidewalk
(separated from the road where possible) through
the sub-area linking the Golden Peak base facility
with .the Vail Transportation Center. Landscape
improvements and pedestrian crosswalks to be
included as required to meet demands of pedestrian
traffic. Special emphasis on 3.1, 3.4.
2. #7-4 Parking Lot Infill - Presently utilized as
parking for adjacent properties. While zoned for
parking (covenant restrictions also limit use of
this parcel to parking), this site could
accommodate a small lodge. Practical difficulties
in developing this site include the covenant
restrictions in maintaining on-site parking for
existing and future demand. Possible public uses
for this site include pedestrian and bus
circulation improvements. Special emphasis on 2.1,
2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 5.3, and 5.4.
The proposal complies with Sub-Area 7-3 and does not
prohibit the eventual implementation of 7-4.
C. Vail Village Master Plan Goals, Objectives, Policies,
_and Action Steps that apply to Garden of the. Gods
Proposal.
Below is a summary of the goals, objectives, and
policies that relate to the Garden of the Gods
proposal:
GOAL #1:
ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING
THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER
TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY.
1.3 Objective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through public
improvements done by private developers working in
cooperation with the Town.
11
1.3.1 Policy:
Public improvements
participation of the
Town.
GOAL #2•
shall be developed with the
private sector working with the
TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR
ROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND
THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
2.3 Objective:
Increase the number of residential units available for
short term overnight accommodations.
2.3.1 Policy
The development of short term accommodation units is
strongly encouraged. Residential units developed above
existing density levels are required to be designed or
managed in a manner that makes them available for short
term overnight rental.
2.5 Objective:
Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial
facilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
2.5.1 Policy:
Recreational amenities, common areas, meeting facilities
and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as
part of any redevelopment of lodging properties.
2.6 Ob~ective•
Encourage the development of affordable housing units
through the efforts of the private sector.
2.6.1 Policy:
Employee housing units may be required
new or redevelopment project requesting
allowable by existing zoning.
as part of any
density over the
12
r
2.6..2 Policy
Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate
restrictions so as to ensure their availability and
affordability to the local work force.
2.6.3 Policy
The Town of Vail may facilitate the development of
affordable housing by providing limited assistance.
GOAL #3•
TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCING OF THE
WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE.
3.1 Objective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
3.1.1 Policy:
Private development projects shall incorporate
streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments,
landscaping, lighting and seating areas) along, adjacent
pedestrian ways.
3.4 Objective•
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways
and accessible greenspace areas, including pocket parks
and stream access.
3.4.2 Policy:
Private development projects shall be required to
incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the
project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan
and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan.
GOAL #4:
TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND
GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES.
13
4.1.1 Policy
Active recreational facilities shall be preserved (or
relocated to accessible locations elsewhere in the
Village) in any development or redevelopment of property
in Vail Village»
GOAL #5•
INCREASE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND IMPROVE
AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM
THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE.
5.1.5 Policy:
Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to
provide underground or visually concealed parking.
5.4 Objective:
Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors
throughout the Village.
5.4.2 Policy:
Medians and rights-of-ways shall be landscaped.
For the sake of brevity, staff will not address each goal,
policy, and objective separately. The project supports the
Village Plan in the following ways:
1. The redevelopment is a high quality proposal that
maintains architectural scale as well as almost all the
zoning standards for the underlying PA zoning.
2. Significant public improvements are incorporated into
the redevelopment such as sidewalks, the bus stop, and
landscaping.
3. Short-term accommodation units are upgraded.
4. Large and more functional employee housing units are
proposed.
5. The pedestrian experience is enhanced by sidewalk and
landscape improvements.
14
6. Underground parking is included, while surface spaces
are removed. The remaining parking is visually
screened. The project meets its required parking.
7. Public transportation is improved and made safer as a
result of the new bus stop.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the proposal. Basically,
our position is very similar to our recommendation on the
Ramshorn project. As stated previously: "Although the
inability of the end product to meet the strict definition of
a lodge is not what we would ideally like to see, we feel
that the property will continue to function as a lodge and
meet the intent of providing high quality guest
accommodations in the Public Accommodation zone district."
The applicant has provided significant improvements through
the redevelopment which will benefit both guests and owners
of the Garden of the Gods, as well as the general public.
The proposal meets the criteria outlined in the Special
Development District review, goals of the Land Use Plan, as
well as Vail Village Master Plan.
Staff approval is contingent upon the applicant meeting the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a revised employee housing
agreement with a floor plan that clearly indicates the
location, type of unit, and square footage for each
employee housing unit. The two employee housing units
shall be restricted permanently. The agreement shall be
submitted and approved by the owner and the Town of Vail
before a building permit is issued for the project.
SECTION 18.13.080 SHALL BE USED FOR THE WORDING FOR THE
AGREEMENT EXCEPT THAT THE UNITS SHALL BE EMPLOYEE
HOUSING PERMANENTLY.
2. The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing
to restrict the proposed accommodation units,
accommodation unit lock-offs and three dwelling units
as short term rental units on a permanent basis. Even
if the project is conduminiumized, these units shall
remain as short term rentals. This written agreement
shall be submitted by the owner and approved by the
staff before a building permit is issued for the
project. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED AS A
CONVENANT THAT SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND.
3. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct a
sidewalk and bus stop on the east side of their
15
r
• ~ property as well as a sidewalk and planters adjacent to
the FRONTAGE OF THE P-2 PARCEL ALLOCATED TO THE GARDEN
OF THE GODS. The final design for the sidewalks,
planters, and bus stop shall be submitted by the
applicant to the Public Works Department and Community
Development Department for approval. The sidewalks,
planters and bus stop shall be constructed subsequent to
the issuance of the building permit and prior to the
issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the
project. The applicant shall submit a written statement
agreeing to this condition for the Town attorney's
approval before a building permit is released far the
project.
If needed, the Garden of the Gods shall also provide a
public easement for the bus stop, sidewalk, and signage.
The applicant shall submit the easement agreement to the
Town attorney and Town Council for approval before a
temporary certificate of occupancy is released for the
project.
4. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct
curb and gutter as well as any other drainage (asphalt
work etc.) improvements necessary along the north,
south, and east sides of their property. Final design
for the drainage improvements shall be submitted by the
applicant to the Public Works Department for final
approval. These improvements shall be constructed
subsequent to the issuance of a building .permit and
prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of
occupancy.
5. A revocable right-of-way agreement shall be completed
for any encroachments on the public right-of-way. This
agreement must be submitted to the Community Development
Department and approved before a building permit will be
released on the project.
6. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall submit a
utility and drainage easement vacation to the Town
Council for approval before a building permit may be
released for the project.
7. ALL FIREPLACES SHALL BE GAS AND MEET THE TOWN OF VAIL
ORDINANCE GOVERNING GAS FIREPLACES.
8. RUN-OFF CONTROL & POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE
INCORPORATED INTO THE SURFACE PARKING LOTS. THIS ISSUE
SHALL BE ADDRESSED AT THE DRB RENEW OF THE PROJECT AND
INCLUDED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS.
Recommendations to the Design Review Board
1. The vent on the west side of the pool should be
removed OR SCREENED BY LANDSCAPING.
2. The north elevation of the building should have more
transparency.
16
e
f
3. The four trees that will be either relocated or replaced
due to the construction of the bus stop should be
addressed. If the trees must be removed, landscaping
that has substantially the same positive impact should
be required.
17
~~~
WZ.'~1TER 1990
GARDEN OF THE GODS
7.niVTNC`T ANALYSIS
- PUB.'A000MMOD-` EXISTING OLS? SDD _ NEW SDD , ':
AU ' 16 @7742 SQ.FT. 10 AU 11 AU
S1 %GRFA IN AU'S 6 AU LOCK OFFS'"" 4 AU LOCK OFr-S
16 @4596 SQ.FT. 15 @ 5812 SD. FT.
pU NA 2 @ 6745 SD. FT. 8 @ 12141 SD. FT. 6 @ 12648S~. FT.
': RESTRICTED' 1 AU 610 SQ. FT. 1 DU 215 SD. FT. 1 DU 901
EMPLOYF~ NA 1 DU 515 SD. FT. 1 DU 515 SQ• FT. 1 DU 901
tiNITS 1.5"' @ 1125 SD. FT. 2 @730 SQ. FT. 2DU @1802 SQ. FT.
7OTAL:GRFA 17594 Sp, ~, 14543 SQ. FT. 16737 SQ. FT. t$460S0. FT.
TOTAL DENSITY: 12.5 DU 10 DU 13 DU (AUS +DUS) 1.5 DU (AUS +DUS)
'COMMON AREA 4399 SQ. FT. 3575 SQ. FT. 4360 SD. FT. 3712 SD. F7.
MAX.. 45 FT. FLAT ROOF 42 FT. SAME 3FT. 6" NORTH END
RIGHT 48 FT. SLOPE ROOF 47 FT. SOUTH END
20FT. EAST 20.0 FT. EAST 20.0 FT. EAST 20.0 FT.
WEST .2 FT. WEST .2 FT. WEST 2, FT.
SETBACKS NORTH 1.4 FT. NORTH 1.4 FT. NORTH 4.5FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT SOUTH 9.0 FT SOUTH 8 FT
SITE COVERAGES 12096' SO. FT. 6363 SQ. FT. 6831 S0. FT. 7214 SD. FT.
LANDSCAPING- 698; Sp, FT. OK OK OK
PARKING "' 22 REaD. 27 READ. . • 26 REGD.
- 28 EX. 28 ^rROPOSED 29 PROPOSED
* Restricted employee units are not counted towards density or GRFA
** 1 DLT equals 2 AU
*** Standard parking zequirements applied
**** A DU in amulti-family building may iaclude one attached accom-
modation unit (AU lock-off) no larger than one third of the total
floor area of the DU. A lock-off is not counted for density. Lock-
off GRFA is added to the total DU GRFA. Parking for alock-off is
calculated by adding the AU lock-off to the DU GRFA. The DU
parking requirements are applied to the total GRFA for the DU
plus AU lock-oif.
~~ .
1
y ~ • t
WINTER 1990
GARDEN OF THE GODS
UNIT USE ANALYSIS
< PA ZONE EXISTING . . :OLD SOD "NEW SOD
OF TOTAL '' 27 % 317
'GRFA IN AUS 51 aYo 53 % AVG. AU 287S.F. AVG. AU372 S.F.
OF .TOTAL
GRFA 1N DVS 49 % 47 0l0 73 % 69 9~0
OF TOTAL 16 AUS @ 4596 15 AUS 5812*
GRFA RENTAL 1 DU @ 1134 3 DUS 2882.5
.... .......................
RESTRICTED PEA
NA
0
5730 S.F.OR 34%
8695 S.F.OR 47 9~0
>17 26.075
'' ' TOTACKEYS NA 18 24 21
OF KEYS
RESTRICTED PER NA 0 17 KEYS OR 70 9~0 18 KEYS OR 867
':17.26.075
* All AU and AU lock-offs shall be used for short-term rental
through out the year.
~~~au
r~ ~'~
February 12, 1990
Ms. Pam Hopkins
Snowden ~ Hopkins Architects
201 Gore Greek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Garden of the Gods Expansion
Dear Pam,
Per your request I have reviewed the impact the above mentioned expansion
would have on the Town of Vail view corridor from View Point N5. The
elevation of the highest existing north-south ridge line of the structure
is 8219.0 feet.If the north end of the existing ridge was moved to the east
seven feet the new ridge line could be built to an elevation of 8219.6
feet. If the approximate mid-goint of the existing ridge was moved to the
east five feet the new ridge could be built to an elevation of 8219.4 feet.
Neither of the new proposed ridge elevations would encroach into the
defined view corridor.
Please call it I can be of any further assistance on this project.
Sincerely,
Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc.
Dan Corcoran, P.L.S.
President
i 199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagie-Vail
Post Office Box 1230
Edwards, CO 81632
303-949-1406
~_
ORDINANCE NO. 14
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 40,
SERIES OF 1987 AND APPROVING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 19,
GARDEN OF THE GODS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes
Special Development Districts within the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council approved Ordinance 40, Series of 1987,
Special Development District N0. 19, Garden of the Gods; and
WHEREAS, the approval for Special Development District No. 19,
Garden of the Gods, has lapsed; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A. G. Hill
Family, has requested Special Development District approval for
certain parcels of property within the Town known as Lot K, Block 5A,
Vail Village Fifth Filing and a portion of Lot P-2, Block 3, Vail
Village Fifth Filing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has
recommended approval for Special Development District No. 19; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable,
appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its
and visitors to repeal Ordinance No. 40, Series
for a new Special Development District No. 19,
the adoption of Ordinance 14, Series of 1990.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN
VIAL, COLORADO, THAT:
Ordinance No. 40, Series of 1987, is hereb;
citizens, inhabitants,
of 1987 and to provide
Garden of the Gods by
COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
repealed, Ordinance
No. 14, Series of 1990, is enacted as follows:
Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planningt Commission Report.
The approval procedures described in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail
Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received
the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending
approval of the proposed development plan for Special Development
District No. 19.
Section 2. Special Development District NO. 19
1
r
e)
Special Development District No. 19 (SDD No. 19) and the development
plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Lot K,
Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing and a portion of Lot P-2, Block 3,
Vail Village Fifth Filing within the Town of Vail.
Section 3. Purpose
Special Development District No. 19 is established to ensure
comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious
with the general character of the Town of Vail and to promote the
upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the Town. The
development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town
Council and meets all the design standards as set forth in Section
18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special
Development District No. 19 which cannot be satisfied through the
imposition of standards in the Public Accommodation zone district.
SDD No. 19 is compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the
community while maintaining its unique character.
Section 4. Development Plan
A. The development plan for SDD No. 19 is approved and shall
constitute the plan for development within the Special
Development District. The development plan is comprised of the
following plans:
1. Site Plan, Garden of the Gods III, Sheet 1, dated February
20, 1990, Snowdon and Hopkins, Architects.
2. Landscape Pl an, Sheet 2, dated February 20, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects
3. Garage Level Plan, Sheet 3, dated February 20, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects
4. Ground Level Plan, Sheet 4, dated February 20, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
5. Second Floor Plan, Sheet 5, dated February 20, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
6. Third Floor Plan, Sheet 6, dated February 2 0, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
7. Penthouse Pl an, Sheet 7, dated February 20, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
2
8. East Elevation, Sheet 8, dated February 20, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
9. South Elevation, Sheet 9, dated February 20, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
10. West Elevation, Sheet 10, dated February 20, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
11. North Elevation, Sheet 11, dated February 20, 1990, Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects.
12. Improvement Location Certificate, Job No. 618, dated June
29, 1989, Eagle Valley Engineering and Surveying, Inc.
B. The development plan shall adhere to the following:
1. Setbacks
Setbacks shall be as noted on the site plan listed above.
2. Height
Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the elevations
listed above and on the site plan. However, in no case shall the
height exceed 48 feet for a sloping roof or 45 feet for a flat or
mansard roof and any encroachment into the approved Town of Vail
View Corridor No.5 is prohibited.
3. Coverage
Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed
above.
4. Landscaping
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on
the final landscape plan approved by the Design Review Board and
on file in the Community Development Department.
5. Parking
Parking shall be provided on Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th
Filing and a portion of Lot P-2, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing
as indicated on the site plan, but in no case shall the sites
have the ability to park less than 26 automobiles.
6. Density
SDD No. 19 shall not contain less than 11 accommodation units and
4 accommodation unit lock-offs per the approved floor plans,
representing 5,812 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area
3
r
(GRFA) and 6 dwelling units representing 12,640 square feet of
GRFA per the approved floor plan. The site shall have a maximum
density of 11.5 dwelling units representing a total GRFA of
18,460 square feet. SDD No. 19 shall also contain 2 employee
dwelling units as indicated on the Ground Floor Plan by Snowdon
and Hopkins, Architects, dated February 20, 1990. Each employee
dwelling unit shall have a GRFA of 901 square feet.
7. Uses
Permitted, conditional, and accessory uses shall be as set forth
in the Public Accommodation Zone District while recognizing the
property will no longer meet the definition of a lodge as found
in Section 18.04.210.
8 Additional Amenities and Conditions of Approval for Special
Development District No. 19
a. The applicant shall submit a revised employee housing
agreement with a floor plan that clearly indicates the
location, type of unit, and square footage for each employee
housing unit. The two employee housing units shall be
restricted permanently. The agreement shall be submitted
and approved by the owner and Town of Vail before a building
permit is issued for the project. Section 18.13.080 shall
be used for the wording of the agreement, except that the
units shall be restricted to employee housing permanently.
The Town of Vail shall be a party to this agreement. This
agreement shall be recorded by the Town of Vail at the Eagle
County Clerk and Recorder's office. The covenants
concerning employee dwelling unit restrictions shall run
with the land.
b. The applicant shall submit a written statement agreeing to
restrict the proposed 11 accommodation units, 4
accommodation unit lock-offs, and 3 dwelling units as short
term rental units on a permanent basis. Even if the
project is condominiumized, the units listed above shall be
restricted as short term rentals. This written agreement
shall be submitted by the owner to the Town of Vail and
4
approved by the Community Development Department and Town of
Vail attorney before a building permit is issued for the
project. The Town of Vail shall be a party to this
agreement. This agreement shall be recorded as a covenant
that shall run with the land.
c. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct a
sidewalk and bus stop on the east side of the Garden of the
Gods property as well as a sidewalk and planter adjacent to
the frontage of the P-2 parcel allocated to the Garden of
the Gods. The final design of the sidewalk, bus stop, and
planters shall be submitted by the owners of the Garden of
the Gods to the Public Works Department and Community
Development Department and Community Development Department
for approval. The sidewalks, planters and bus stop shall be
constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit
and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of
occupancy for the project. The applicant shall submit a
written statement agreeing to this condition for the Town
Attorney's approval before a building permit is released for
the project. If so required by the Town Engineer and Town
Attorney, the Garden of the Gods shall also provide a public
easement for the bus stop, sidewalk, and signage. The
owners of the Garden of the Gods shall submit the easement
agreement to the Town Attorney and Town Council for approval
before a temporary certificate of occupancy is released for
the project.
d. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall construct curb
and gutter as well as any other drainage (such as asphalt
work) improvements necessary along the north, south, and
east sides of their property. Final design for the drainage
improvements shall be submitted by the owners of the Garden
of the Gods to the Public Works Department for final
approval. These improvements shall be constructed
subsequent to the issuance of the building permit and prior
to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy.
5
The drawings indicating the drainage improvements shall be
incorporated into the building permit application.
e. A revocable right of way agreement shall be completed by the
owners of the Garden of the Gods for any encroachments on
the public right-of-way. This agreement must be submitted
to the Community Development Department and approved before
a building permit will be released on the project.
f. The owners of the Garden of the Gods shall submit a utility
and drainage easement vacation to the Town Council for
approval before a building permit may be released for the
project .
g. All fireplaces shall be gas and meet the Town of Vail
ordinance governing gas appliances.
h. Run-off control and pollution control devices shall be
incorporated into the surface parking lots. This issue
shall be addressed at the Design Review Board review of the
project and any measures to control run-off or pollution
shall be incorporated into the building permit plan.
i. Due to the construction of the bus stop, four evergreen
trees shall be either relocated or replaced. If the trees
must be removed, landscaping that has substantially the same
positive impact shall be required by the Design Review
Board.
Section 5.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed
this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause
or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
Section 6.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail
Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any
6
right which has accrued, andy duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by
virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The
repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
INTRODUCED., READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of
1990, and a public hearing shall be held on
this ordinance on the day of , 1990 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado.
Ordered publish in full this day of , 1990.
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ATTEST:
Pamela a. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
this day of
1990
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
7
ORDINANCE N0. 15
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.04.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL CHANGING THE ORDER OF BUSINESS
IN REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETINGS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL; AND
SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that Town Council meetings would be
more efficiently handled if some changes were made in the order of business in
regular and special meetings of the Town Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO, as follows:
1. Section 2.04.050 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby
amended as follows:
2.04.050 ORDER OF BUSINESS
In regular and special meetings of the Town Council, the order of business
shall be as follows:
A. Call to Order by the Mayor;
B. Determination of Quorum;
C. Minutes of Preceding Meetings;
D. Citizen Participation;
E. Consideration of Ordinances, Resolutions, and Motions;
F. Consideration of Other Matters on the Agenda;
G. Reports from Town Manager and Town Attorney;
H. Statements, Observations, and Inquiries by the Mayor and Councilmen;
I. Concluding Statement by the Mayor;
J. Adjournment.
2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby
declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more
parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance
is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and
the inhabitants thereof.
4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal
Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right
which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the
effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or
any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This
repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or
ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day of ,
1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of
1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this
day of 1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of
. 1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 8
Series of 1990
A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF
APRIL 21ST-27TH EARTH AWARENESS WEEK
WHEREAS, recent times have seen an increased awareness on the
part of local governments and private citizens in those issues which
have direct and indirect impacts on our local environment; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of the Vail Valley and the surrounding area
are concerned that steps be taken to preserve the quality of the
environment for the present and for future generations; and
WHEREAS, there is an increasing awareness on the part of local
citizens that their actions have a direct impact on our fragile
environment; and
WHEREAS, April 22nd marks the twentieth anniversary of the first
Earth Day, a day established to increase people's awareness of their
environment and the effect their actions have on the environment; and
WHEREAS, there is an international, national and local effort to
involve as many communities as possible in this twentieth anniversary
celebration of Earth Day through special events, the media and local
efforts; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of Earth Awareness Week is to bring into
focus within the community the understanding that the preservation and
improvement of our environment is the responsibility of each
individual; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail has recently
expressed the opinion that environmental issues are a high priority
for action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, that the week of April 21st-27th be designated as
Earth Awareness Week.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS
day of
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
1990.
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
Town Clerk
RESOLUTION N0. 10
Series of 1990
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING FEDERAL LEGISLATION IMPOSING MANDATORY
SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.
WHEREAS, the Federal Government wishes to pass legislation imposing mandatory
Social Security for all public employees not currently covered by any qualified
pension plan and Medicare coverage for all public employees hired subsequent to the
effective date of the law; and
WHEREAS, such legislation would negatively impact the Town of Vail's budget in
the amount of $105,113.00; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail currently provides for the future of its employees
with a retirement plan significantly more effective than Social Security; and
WHEREAS, legislation which removes municipal employees from municipally funded
retirement plans and adds them to the Social Security system will increase the
problem of a shrinking workforce supporting an ever growing number of retirees; and
WHEREAS, the Social Security and Medicare systems were never established for
local governments and therefore, many cities such as the Town of Vail have
established their own pension plans; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail pension plan is extremely well accepted by Town of
Vail employees, is fully funded and has no unfunded liabilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO:
The Town opposes legislation proposed by the current Administration which would
mandate Social Security and Medicare taxes on all public employers and employees.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1990..
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
s~
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 7, 1990
SUBJECT: A Sign Variance request for Jackalope Cafe &
Cantina located in the West Vail Mall, 2161 North
Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Ralph Dockery
A. THE REQUEST
The Jackalope Cafe and Cantina variance request proposal
entails a 11.2 sq. feet of sign to be located on the front
parapet wall between Gart Brothers and Dairy Queen at a
height of 24' above grade with individual white, neon pan-
channel letters that are 12", 10" and 4" in height.
The current variance request involves the following section
of the Town of Vail sign code:
16.22.130 Wall Signs - Arcade
B. Size, one square foot for each 5 front lineal feet
of the individual business or organization with a
maximum area of 10 square feet;
C. Height, the top of the signs shall be no higher
than eight feet above grade;
E. Location, parallel to the exterior wall of the
business front on an arcade, subject to the
approval of the De=ign Review Board.
The applicant is requesting an increase in sign area of 1.2
square feet over the allowed square footage, an increase in
height of 16' over the allowed 8', for a maximum height of
24 feet above grade, and a change in location from the
business front on the arcade to the .front of the building on
the parapet wall facing the North Frontage Road. The
applicant will be allowed a total of one sign.
II. BACKGROUND
The business received a 90-day approval on December 20, 1989
from the Design Review Board to install a temporary sign.
The approval included the following conditions:
1
w~
1) The sign is only approved for 90 days. The
expiration date for the sign is March 20, 1990.
2) The signs square footage was approved at 15 sq.
feet. Black letters on a white back ground were
also approved.
3) The sign shall not exceed 25 feet in height from
the existing grade or sidewalk.
4) Any lighting for the sign should be presented to
staff and approved before erected.
5) If possible, try to avoid the frame around the
sign.
The applicant's current request recognizes all the conditions
that were required for their temporary sign.
III. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES
Before the Board acts on a variance application, the
applicant must prove physical hardship and the Board must
find that,
A. There are special circumstances or conditions applvin~c
to the land buildings topoaraphy vegetation, sign
structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within
the adiacent right-of-way which would substantially
restrict the effectiveness of the scan in ctuestion;
provided however that such special circumstances or
conditions are unictue to the particular business or
enterp.,rise to which the applicant desires to draw
attention and do not apply generally to all businesses
or enterprises.
Staff Response
The business is located on an arcade in a multi-tenant
building, therefore allowing it to be classified under
either Section 15.22.130 - Wall Signs - Arcade or
Section 16.22.140 Wall Signs - Individual Business
within a multi-tenant building, of the sign code. For
this proposal, the staff has agreed to recognize it as
an arcade type business because the requirements for
this section are more restrictive. The applicant is
allowed one l0 sq. foot sign at a height of 8' above
grade and located parallel to the business.
2
The design of the building creates a physical hardship
in that the parapet wall facing the North Frontage R^=
blocks the area for signage adjacent to the Jackalope.
This situation significantly decreases the
effectiveness of any sign located adjacent to the
Jackalope. The height of the sign is dictated by the
height of the existing parapet wall. The wall sign
will not have significant negative impacts due to its
height and location and will not draw undue attention
to itself.
It should be noted that a sign program has been
proposed for the West Vail Mall. The program will
allow for signage for the remanining arcade businesses
in a comprehensive manner. The Jackalope's proposal is
in keeping with the general intent of this program.
Because they occupy 2 retail shops within the building.
The Jackalope sign is located in the appropriate area
per the proposed sign program.
B. That special circumstances were not created by the applicant
or anyone in privy to the applicant.
Staff Response•
Special circumstances were not created by the applicant.
C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony
vicinity to adjacent property to the neighborhood, or to
the gublic welfare in general.
Staff Response
The staff believes that this request meets the general
intent of the sign code and is in harmony with the sign
code. We do not feel that the variances requested will be
detrimental to any persons residing or working in the
vicinity or to adjacent property owners. The proposal is
consistent with the existing signage of the other tenants of
the mall. The proposal displays the name of the store and
the type of business in a direct and reasonable manner.
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.
3
Staff Response:
We feel that this request does meet the general intent
of the sign code and presents the name of the store in
a clear and concise manner that is consistent with
other actions that relate to the sign code in the
Commercial Core III area. The request asks for a
minimal amount of concession and is appropriate for the
size of the business.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Community Development Department recommends approval of
the requested variance. We feel that the height of the
proposed sign is in harmony with the intent of the sign code
and the size and design of the sign do not call undue
attention to the business. In addition, the design of the
sign is consistent with the other signage of the businesses
in the West Vail Mall and the proposed sign program
currently being reviewed by the Design Review Board.
4
.~,,.
l,i~~ i
~, 0~`f ~ o ti AI N LEVEL
WEST VAIL MALL
O 20 40
10 70 •0 gyp
'
.,,
r--
G AR-~
egos.
~ `~ S~~i
5~~~
.,
f~f.N
t
~,-'~y
Qvt't*~
-T-o P ~ ~ Q w
~o~ ~A,ra P~ ~a(,l.
~AQT 4RoS.
-~
,~,
SAcKA ~~ Pi A~Ry
Cw~ R' y„=
c~~~w ~ t+t.ts~+
as
i~'
~rf VKw
LE'r'1 1~i~W I.t~~'1'"LD Wl'1'H
4" FQR1~L p't.~STIC L~7
~ 12..
f_____--..~_
-~`--~ channel
~I"~"~"~'~ ~u '~u~,, ICI"'~~nIIN ~~~~~~II~~~~~ III"-~~111~''~~u~
~~~ a '~~~^~~ ~~ ~~ ~
irr~
channnel
~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~l~~
~~
~~.
~~
4'' formed glast~c
l~clalrr ~ Cia~s rbeel pdmt!!at rider gad beoti Doer ~ 811' ~~a aaa~y'lla
and 1~aetiri aa~a ~BuuclMhed ~w#~ gvatity aeobaada~aiti~~ aced e~~nat ~airrb
!n a use of odota,. Hane~vo, ~sd. fir. I~tr/da god 1~~s ats
d'fora ~ tlas fatat+a nena- ~rta~Letl~o~.
TOPIC
8/8 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN ANNEXATION
(request: Lapin)
8/15 UUCWD/TOV LAND CONTRACT
2/20 JOINT MEETING COUNCIL/VMRD
2/27 SATELLITE POST OFFICE (request:
Osterfoss)
3/13 PURCHASE PRICE OF PUBLIC PARK-
ING SPACES (request: Lapin)
3/13 TRIANGLE OF GREEN SPACE ADJACENT
TO VILLAGE CENTER
3/13 EUROFAIRE/JOHN HORAN-KATES
(request: Rose)
3/27 HOLY CROSS LAND PARCEL
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP
LARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements for
annexation.
RON: Contract in final stages of negotiation.
PAT: 1. Develop design/cast structure for construc-
tion of public restroom/shower facility/storage
at athletic field - return to Council for
reprioritization for capital projects.
2. Apply in writing to Council re: ground lease
of Booth Creek 9 hale par 3 golf course.
LARRY: Prepare amendment to TOV/UMRD agreement re:
transfer of mill levy and not holding an election
within the required 2 year period of time.
RON: Pursue station "in town" and/or increase
summer bus service?
KRISTAN/LARRY: Reconsider pricing to equate to
actual cost of constructing new spaces.
RON/LARRY: Contact re: possible gift to the Town?
LARRY: Contact Pat re: copy of UMRD's contract?
Council approval of stock transfer clause
inclusion.
RON: What is Holy Cross response to TOU offer to
.purchase.
3/30/90
Page 1 of 1
FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS
Petitions are being circulated.
Letter on possible soil contamination problems sent to
UUCWD. Return letter received. Kent and Ron to meet with
Bill George and Ed Drager.
Pat has developed these and Ron has a copy. Proposed cost is
now $150,000.
Kent sent letter outlining proposed process to Tim Garton.
VMRD is reviewing and will respond after 3/28.
Proposed amendment sent to VMRD.
Meeting to be set up with Ernie Chavez.
Will be addressed in zoning code review - riorit .
Will do.
Pat has sent to Larry. Contract to be reconsidered in April.
Ron has followed up. Ed Grange says H.C. Board is receptive
to offer. Permission granted to do environmental
assessment. H.C. will enter into a contract to sell, but
they do not want to close until next calendar year.
3/27 COMPENSATION FOR PEC, DRB, I RON/KRISTAN/LARRY: Should additional compensation ~ Will prepare alternatives and recommendation for Council.
LIQUOR AUTHORITY J be considered for appointed, standing Town boards.
'r
- T0: Art in Public Places Board
FROM: Shelly Mello/Community Development Department
DATE: March 27, 1990
RE: Upcoming Art in Public Places Board Meeting - April 2,
1990.
AGENDA
April 2, 1990
8:30 a.m.
Council Chambers
Municipal Building
I. Discussion of Current Projects.
II. Discussion of funding options with Charlie Wick, Assistant
Town Manager/director of Administrative Sereices.
Hy Scots Taylor Pearson said the bank plate m
~ pr,saews. p~•.ace the panting spaces in the
.
_ VVMC ,•aatizag structure whey it is
A oecivon on the expatrsion of caapkrcd Until then, the bank cst
the Vail National Bank Building lease spaces from the Holiday Inn,
will have to wait aetil the txst he raid. anti btu leans from the
eo+utcil meeting. VVMC and the Holiday confirming
The Vail Town Council tabled a the arrangmetus, Pexrsat said.
proposal Tuesday, aRer lay Paa• Fetason said the VNB was will-,
son. VNS's represeandve, :egtres- inB m have the approval txadngem
red two more weeks m confer with an tipptoval of the VVMC's build-
tbe town staff. ing permit fa the paridng sttucattc.
The VNB • plms m e:psad the The VNB would not: be able m oc-
bttiiding before parking is tnaitable cuPY the expanded space utdess the.
in the yes-tube built Vail Valley VVMC progress with eoasattction.
Medical Center's psv~ag st<uertatt. Cotmciiwoman Peggy Ostrfoss
Accadiag to the plan, the VNS .aiginauy moved that the cotmcil
will add i '76 sgttars fen of office: ,'accept the expaamn, with the can-
space m the third boor of the bank ditiw that the VNB not be aDowed
building. Town ardi»ces tegt:ite m oa:apy the expnnd~tin if the patic-
developers m add bre ~s¢iring lag _ stntcaac is riot eomplaed
spaces when such an addition is ig'So2 Der- I.1990, anti the expan-
built --~..t- ~' ~ aion be: torn out if the pmidng is not
a
completed before: Jan. 1,1991. That
motion died whm Petersat asked.
to table the plans..
P+aecson said he would be will-
ing mpost abond mpay far the
rvnoval of the cxpatsion, butmoron. -
ted tO work out the ordinance with
Town Anorney Larry Eskwith.
Councilman Tan Sttinbag said
he is against the eatpattsion in soy
form.
"I sm agairut this plan."
Steinberg said. "It doeat't atatrrr
how many conditions ere put oa
this apatssioa. my rote faeva
will be no. We as fort:iag this e:-
pattoon ituo the attn." .
Steinberg said Me~ieal Cana
will continue m espsod anti find
that it heeds the bve spaces sold m
the YNB.
Transportatior~~Cente~ `pavers'..;
receive co nditional approval . ~ ~ .
. '~ '~- ~ :~Rf°tmiry for the deck design. ,
Ta for
B Scoa
Y Y _
development the dmgn .could "This is eta a ptioriry," Ostrrfoss
n.?. s~w~ simply use diffe:rnt•cvlored paving said. "I think it goes nght a< the
plans m ~--^,• s design with bricks or use dtffen:nt rnattrias for bottom of the list of other Brings ac
paving bcicJ:s is the Pillage
Ttaasportarion Cmta needved inlays.
The first phase of project in- want tp do."
Council members Tom Steinberg
mixed n~cnon r,esday, although . C:h1dGS having attire send slides of and Lynn Fntzlen voted against the ,
the Vail Town Couttril gave the previous wow and an outline of motion. Steinberg said funding
prop , canditiottsl go-ahead. rhea pL3tts to the art board. trout err- from the design should come from
' ;ai` and the Art in Asblic lieu would be chosen to design landsctping for the ctnteL
PSac~ Board will begin the first preliminary modes for a sexond '"I'he landscaping can wait,"
phase of •, a desgn for the seats. Phase• if wuncil approves. The Steinbern said- "You won't be able
amid eotmc:i questions on the final design would be chosen by a to begin that until the strttentre is
prmnry of installing the "pavers." seve:t-member jury. 5nished This leas to be done row.
The art board moans to hue an err- The art board suggested the If yot, do it after the srtvcmre is
tin to seers a design for the paving camel approve spending S25,000 finished, you'll be tipping things
is the 5.Q06-square-foes deck do- f~ arses' far. labor, tttarerial~ and nut" _
.revers the bas transit eeattr sad the administratio0. P:itz said. Pritz said the otxmdl's decision
visitor information booth. The
design would tnnimue down an Ia her motion. Couadlevornart
Peggy Os:eTfoss told the art board cone positive. .
:hey could have jnu said no;
'
improved staaweIl to East Mt~dow u c.ouid begin asking for proposals. sj
she said. "This is (the an boazd
Drive. ' from artists, but could tae m first project and eve'te going m
Accadittg m Btisratt Pritz, ac- money ftocn the parking strttetute .. .have m fight for it" _ .
Post-Midnight bu;s~s i~v iil~•continue
. - ~ ~r~ ~ •t r+..d+~+ rush the Skip Gocdoo, t of
Hy Scots ;~ylor fanSea cads of then routes at 2 trsttcportadoa said the buses eve:e
wr asaw~ ~, .Golden Peak. grad the Mar. . aced mostly by tesotaam anti bar
Vail bases will tmminue tD urn ma's Mark Resort -end tbea tarn .ettrpbyed headed dome t~ dte
irno the wee hours for the test of
Va
l T around. going back toevatds each
6aah the Vrllagr
The
h ban closed.
"We've bexa told the bars rt:tlly
own
t
the ski season, the
Council deaded'Iltesday. y
ot
ez
LioaCad route sad that continue got oe them." Gordon said. "They
'.YansQotacoo Dirrtrr Stao m ?rust and west Var1. - -" ' trolly ensured than m lore teeir
Betryraan said be was "quite im- Bessyrtsan said the west Visit- cars."
preseed" with the mender of people
who used the extended dos envies bound bra has svetaged 25 ridtss
per night elan Feb. 17. The East
The cametT also voted m mn•
"the t r"sataant sad boa mom- Veil bus avessged 17 pa fright sides budgeting far expetded sa-
199091 rid
i
murtiry really ga behi~ it," Ba-
- The courtdl wanted m try the a-
m
d service ao a trail basis
ad
l re
vice for the ent
season wdm revenue hearings ate
~ said
The barn nmrtiag between Wil ,
e
e
sex if it would be popular. conducted later this yeas
~U,ARiNG. ~~NTi\'FNTAi..
j
J
_...._... ~ _ .. _:.'.,~'> .) Classes Starting
-` Next Week:
• Speclallty Breads March 12th-17th
• Fine Pastries
• Birthday Cakes _
• Wedding Cakes
Serving
Breakfast ~
Lunch Daily
- TYPE^9 Workshop
Standard First Aid
- Aikido _
Pngnanry a FitrNSS .
Cx' a.^.-6:30 c..m.
• Cx" De,iy __
5. 3er+e G•ea vices. ,,wn
949-t400
Vail Center, Cascade Ygage
-SIGN UP NOW
476-4040
'Education with a Purpose'
'ruder ~3~~1.~ssociates
RE.~L. ESTaT.E ti~9 yi?,IvAGEI~V~ peer
• :9E0 squaze `eel, 3 bedrooss, 3 baths
• Gres; view;; of Vaii 14oantain and Valley
• 0~•errooks cottrtyazd and pool .
• ~'a;:ited ceilings ~ - ..
• Deeeiope-'s Hand Selected littit
• SF"5,000 _ . - - -
^ow~ by Atnointrne^: '-' . ~ ® ~
(303) 47E>-o6.10 - ~.--°• ;MLS
{490 =, \t:acs" Dr.vc Veil. 0 81657
Vail. Village Inn #20 i
'~ +'k=." w `~' ~at!'~- i'~» • ' 'sir •G .y. ~ ...iE'
.. _ . ~ - ~ ydul O.iy ~ sCOII Martin
-~. ~i~ in the bumps. __ _~ ` _
Glen 'Hip' Oya skis the bumps on Capputxino an Tuesday rooming. Oya came over frorA
&edcenridge to ski Pail with another friend from Bredc. ~ ~ .
~~
West Vbii ~ ;
Town, lionshead,=~ionorspitch :f
in to buy BIue:Bird of Paradise
~y Scab Taylor - .
Vail wiIl pmrcbase a 530.000
Lionshead scutprure for 57,500.
town o~ciaLs decided Tuesday.
'The Vail Town Council voted
Tuesday ro commit 57,500 ro pur-
chase the Blue Bird atF PaQadise
sctilptlae in the east end of the
mall. The Lionshead Mertdiant As-
sociation will add S7~00 from the
Lionsbead Mall Impraveaiertt fund.
A private donation of S15,000
rounds out the deal _
According to Acting Director of
Community Deveiopment Knstan
Peitz, the town wi$ awn the SCUIp-
ttae, even though it only paid 25
pescrait of the cost.
The council also approved
mother S 10.000 to be taken from
-the mall-improvement fund m be
-ansed to aonsu~ua two flagpoles az
entrance of the mall.
The camcil voted 4 to 3 iD pta-
chase the sculpture and the
flagpoles. Coia~cilmembers Merv
~P~. ~gSy Ostrrfoss and Jun
Gibson voted against the motion
because it included the st:ulpaat.
The ptmchase was tied to oon-
--setruon ad' the two Sagpoles in the sculpua~e's mat, but not 25 percent
:motion by Councilman Rob L,e- That could become a precedent, she
Vine. 'That probably saved the pur- said.
chase of the seulparre, Pritz said. Cotmdltnan ~ Rob Levine dis-
Cauacitman Jim Gibson said he agreed. Since the artist wanted the
_ wished the ~vo purchase wetz _ in piece returned ar pttrrJiased as soon
.aepaate motions. as possible, the; time frame didn't
'That way, I can vote for one and allow much negotiation about the
against the other," Gibson said. price. LeVme ,also said he didn't
Arne Hansen, -0wner of Arneson -think 25 pezerx was too touch to
Fine Art in Lionshead, ..told the .ask from the town.
council he has had the stnzlpture on "If three~uarttrs are -paid from
cansignment for a couple of years. some after sorace; I think .that's
The artist, Michael Anderson, toM pretty good," U;vine said.
Haasert last fall he wanted to take Councilwoman Lynn Fritzlen
the piece away and try to sell it or said she was in favor of purchasing
lease IL Hansen asked AndC.'SOn if ~ S~P~•
ht could try to find a way to have '~ ~~~ have
tie town purchase .it Othc me:- ~otzstratad drat they li7ce it," she
chants in Lioasbead told Hansen said. "L's ~Y ~~ io have consen-
they wanted the piexe to stay. sus an public art"
"We've bean able ~ came up •
with the S7,500 from the niexcltartts The flag poles will be used to
as
s
ociation and a
15.
0
0
5
0
-
dons stretch baatiers across
ffi
e
m
a~~'s
~
w
_
N
~
~
y
~
~
,
Y-ril,~ ~ sial~ 1 41115 LF~L T
~
,~~
~
t appQ~ttP ~~. a.WlLy1~
detnoasaetrs laow moth we ~arant ~Paridng Strucnue. 1?irtctor of
iL" : Transportation Stan Berryman said
'Councilwoman Peggy dstafoss That since the Lionshead strucuu,e
said the town heeded to fa®tilate w~ be nsrd most daring the stem-
some policy for ptarliasigg public mar, the bannc~ are important.
art Ostesfoss said she ~migiu,~e . They can be used w arsaounce ape-
wiIling to pay 10 pe:zQnt of the ~cial e;vesits, he said. ±r
- z= _ . _
THE ~~~T tfiB
'Nail's Original Boot Specialist'
Are your Boots performing up to their~Potentic~l?
Canting Problems? Edging Problems?
--.
~ • ~ qi
• .. - . ~-
COORS t
ttie
p~~ ~\ -
Sr ~
t~~
.5~or _ ~dmi ~ ' ~ '
5 n~strat~on o is a nst
p ~
.- restr~ct~ons on art oontent
.~~
wASN -The sash abng with measures dixassed. ped Put is this year's law expressly
~O w ~ admimistzation told Congress wad- earlier, will best serve trite forbid speaditg tax money on
MPA ~y it woald not aerie to eontrod American pnbfic," Frobamayer "depictions of sadomasochism,
the contest of art sttpparoed with acid. bomoeroticism, the sexual ezploita-
~~ ' federal tax dollars. The decision The other measures metttiooed lion of children a individuals ea-
seemed acre to anger rigdzt-wing by F'rotmrrsayer iacltxie mays ib pged in sex acu" and materials
~l1 e~ C te~ ~`bl't~' improve trite system far evaisatiag thsc lac3c serious artistic value.
- Costrvversy ova whethez >D -grams. The NEA wsTl develop a Rep. Dana Robrabaches. a
• restrict content of federally fiaan- ..mod., to assure that all geographic California Republican who apposes
` 1~hrgIC~1 red alt roceived extensive publicity arras are repnseaud sad tdat as federal funding for the tuts, said he
-~YeW ~'8S~e ~ ~ berduse of 'two many tmltures as possible ate was disappointed at Frohnmayer's
photographic exhibits sttpparted by rt,Preseatsd. The makeup of the statement
~1 ~a ~ral money fivm the National Endow- evaluation panels also will be "If ~ he means by no conunt
meat fa the Arts. diversified. restrictions that NEA will continue
30:30 - 8:00 One, by Robert Mappletdxtrpe, "Will these modifications in the to fund art that attacks religion m is
Sunbird Lodge included •depiciions of panel process "eliminate con- so sexually graphic that it is con-
Liorsheaci • X76-2013 ~~~ ~ hOmoervdc troversy?" he asked. "Probably traty to the moral standards of the
acts. Another, by Andres Serrano, not I do not see as a desirable goal people, I thutk he's forgetting the
Addictive depicted a crucifix in a jar of urine, that the art which the fedezal American people are his boss and
- As a result, this year's spending government sLYYoru be so bland not ceztain people in the arts com-
bt11 contained restrictions, inspired that no one _--~::~ notices it" munity," Rchrabac:~er said.
by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., on Anne G. Murphy, executive Frohnmayer, in his testimony,
financing obscene worts and gave dire;tor of the American-Arts Al- condemned obsceaitr• but also gave
a definition.- of obscene within fiance, which opposes content along defense of freedom of ez-
limits set by the Supreme Court restrictions, said she was pleased pression. He criticized the religious
. The restrictions were good only for by Frohnmeyer's comments but fundamentalist grouFs, such as the
one y~• cautious about whether the ad- 700 Club and Lhe American Family
In submitting legislation Wed- ministration will succeed is keep- Association, for spreading misin-
ttesday iD extend trite existence of ing NEA free of such restrictions. formation about the ors endow-
1 - the arts endowment for another five "I think it's a first sup in what is went
l~Cl __ years,, slazting Oct 1, the Bush ad- going to be a prolonged debate oven Defenders of the Nf:A say only
.~, ministration chase not to include the aeu six wcelc~,"she said. ZS of 80,000 grams in the endow-
~ _ "eaooertt restrictions" similar ;a. Helms. in Raleigh, sai4 rite lead tnent's history have been con-
those that apply this year. asked the independent General Ac- troversiaL
?ohn F. Frohamayer, chairman of coasting OSrt: to investigau Frohnmayer, a lawyer from
1 ^ 1 the arts endowment, spelled out the whether the NEA is financng pot- Portland. Ore.. said in an interview
1 S pe ~r 1 a I ms's g ~ ~. aographic alt after his testimony tdtat Bush per-
timmy before the house Education In a later to Charles Bowsdter, sonally opposed contentrestrictions
recetve at>d ~~ subcommittce an post- lrad of rite GAO, Nelms acid although the ptessident "is very
~+ Y edttration• Frohnmayer may be sincere is troubled with some of the images
.7 pe (+ ~ a ~ He said the coatetu restrr~ons saying no NEA funds ~ being and we art «stainly aware of
0 ~ is effeex this ;roar caused "mach tamed m support obscene src. avoiding the excesses on both
~ caocaa.aad confusion" within the :"Bat the evidence m the canonry sides."
arts community. - -• ss so compelling that it is impera- Frohnmayer said he opposed
~ t~ 490 'After mach careful thougftt and five that there be as objective iII- content rtscictio.-ts be~uae "ibe
~ disatssion, it is otrr oooclusion that vestigation by an agency independ- ~$~ concept fur the arts en-
the legislation proposed here which au of the NF.A," Helms wrote, dowment, is that it be fiux from
~ me uaii vrW a Ticket c^^~n~ no scent restrictions, The restrictions that Reims hel- political and content restrictions."
• 476-2648
. .. .. 1 1•
HH~H. P .
Tnr Yaii Athksic ~ iav~ jeu m agrill.~ 4mttioia .
w«;~ ca~~
- ,a .
Marilyn 2wak has
shaped 300 wall
forms, bending
metal lath into
rounded images
of arnmals. The
forms will be
anchored on the
overpass walls,
then plastered
and embedded in
adobe.
AIIZIIftT1C JLprrl ~ rte ni ~cune rtoyvvn~
Artists contribute to projects
By Thomac Ropp
The Arizona Republic
solid-waste treatment giant never will
A b< confused with a Picasso, but the
gap is narrowing.
Through the Phoenix Aru Commission's
"Perrcnt for Art" program, artists are
collaborating with engineers and arc]:itecu on
building projects in the Phoenix area.
Local projects with artists on the design
teams - bexides the Squaw Peck Parkway
overpass at Thomas Road - include a
pedestrian bridge in the Dreamy Draw areas,
the new Kiddie Land at Encanto Park, and a
waste-management facility at 27th Avenue
and Buckeye Road.
Dallas artist Linnes Glatt and Vermont
artist Michael Singer are working on the
solid-wash plant, currently in the drawing
stage and scheduled for completion in June
1991. The artists have been working with
engineers to come up with a design that will
entice people to think positively about the
facility's function.
"We usually think of waste as being a bad
thing," Glatt explained. "Trsditionally, this
kind of facility is 'out of sight, out of mind.'
"R'e didn't want that. We wanted a design
that said something positive about recycling."
Anist Peter Shire, a Los Angeles sculptor,
was called upor. to lend his talents to the
design of Encanto Park's new Kiddie Land,
scheduled for completion by September of
this yesr.
Basically, I've turned a typical arcade
entrance into one of my sculptures," Shire
said. "It's a group of pillars, in an arc, that
are ] 0 feet tall.
"':'sea. on top of that, I've used rods and
planes and various cutout shapes and bright
colors..'
Shire said an artist brings "visual tension"
to projecu ;7aditionally designed by non-art-
ists.
Gretchen Frertnan. coordinator of the
city's pubiic art program, said Per cent for
Art .vas approved by the Phceniz City
Coundl in 1986. The first. project, the wall
murals on the Squaw Peak Parkway's
McDowell Road overpass, was finished in
1988.
"Currently, there are about 70 prejecu
being ~mpletcd unde.~ this program," Free•
man said.
Projecu with high visibility, pubiic access
or educational considerations have been given
prority.
having artisu on design teams is not a
concept unique to Phoenix. Shire has worked
on such projects in California, and Seattle has
employed arusu for several public projects.
Freiman said artisu have found out about
the Phoenix program through national,
regional and local advertising. A slide bank is
made from samples of applicauu' work, then
reviewed by jurors.
"They take into consideration an artist's
experience. aesthetic (and) background for a
particular project," Freeman said.
A short list of finalists is drawn up for
arch project, and the finalists are interviewed
by the Arts Commission. Architects and
engineers who will be on the project team
also takc part in selecting the artist.
There arc no quotas for hiring in-state va.
out-of--state artists, Freeman said, but prb-
grsm larders have been trying to nxnrit as
many in-state artisu as possible.
Contracu, she said. are negotiated on an
individual basis, but the artist's fee typically
rests S~5 to S75 per hour.
'ttuanydlo lsam -uuy anemia aJam aJa
Sys 7anil 8uluunJ vat 4.L,. Nlss su+RPV ay 'amtudnpR uR sl ,rep ~dJan~
qd JR?.tpoorJ .ro! {JOMI „'uayl ~Ssnq a.raM sJRalaaJls ay!„ idyl s 9uueam puR s:~ylola
aura pay aqg 'sis+xa ~ 'sra~.roM .(JOhRJ oagiera pa~Jp 6ldsua 'ftmluoal tayl t
flats ~ 'nsey .tgJRau woJJ r.+anlRJl aa~o JadRdsmau allt le do pa,
umol 8urunu Rumud ,tJSlyiw ,(q uagoMS woos sets uognindod
WOJJ RRM BUIiaaJRyy et- 'll JRM pIJOM Jo 8uluw8 a „'U 6J1 of ni;ina nod,
ay yi Jatl•rq xmaoyd umolumop a,
.~d `~st~d sa~srja.~ u~ur.~o our
J.7...,:.~Sta'.:ae~: ~t~wci'~!w'°`e~",ayllrltl~~i~~
- !• ~ '~ Ttxn Srnry/TM. ArbtKen Rnpubxr
A~Aet Marilyn Zwek and engineer Jerry Cennnn, proiect n~enegnr, cfnnd txturo
Ij~ "Hohokam reptile shapes" UTek design team ctTOee for the columns that
~~Wwk! the Squaw Peak Parkway es k tars across Thomas Roed. .
. •.
'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,
~re~ewa ~~~~~brid a ~;
. y ~ ..
Y
s ~:,~-uilt ~~~of nod ~ ~_
. ~.
'steel end frogs
.Overpass design...
honors Hohokam
1'NOENIX'S
XTERCF.NT FOR
rum FROCRaM
~y Anne StspMnson
npeeW for TM Arb~ne Raprblle
- arilyn Zwek lives in a small
Hoch house Among the orchards
„+~ and grasslands of southeastern
Arvona. The horizon is so
the air so clear and the arih so
wrciuttaed that a cloud of dust
stirred by an intruding car is
it.~ble for miles.
It is gciet here, and full of legrnds.
Prom her pouch, Zwsk tan see the Dragoon
~' Mountains, the rocJc maze where Cochlea hid
his Apache people from an army of white men.
flown the toed is Pena, the dusty ghost of s
~+~ona-robust mining tmm. And to the txst ere
the Chiricahuas, columns of volcanic rock
I~ ~~weathved into shapes that play tricks oe the
.-eye.
Zwak bves her home. She has lived there
f since 1979. The land, iG openness and its
testures arc the sours a! her energy and
Cr~~ptnoon.
Yd for nearly two yearn, she ~ has been
preoocupicd with a project 6aeed in a oily more
than 200 miles away.
~t~ ` In her studio in Cochlea, Marilyn Zwak is
making art for Phoenix.
"It pleases me that we might be able to take
the edge o(f d the strife d living in a city
~~environmrnt," she says. "We might eotien
people's lives a IitUe.
"If you build a bridge with rulers and
!straight foots, ~vn ro gang to and cep with a
tprdty atetik t}dngg Bnt if ya- Iwiid it with
umor and Hghtheartalness and a txrtain
amount d play -along with the nulhanatiea
that nerd to be there - then you're going (n
Ibave something very dilfarnt."
In July 1968, Zwak was chosen by the
Phoenix Arta Commission to be part of the
team that would design the Squaw Pak
~Pukway overpass at Thomas Road. A few
+montha colter, she bad received a call from
areteben Praman, coordinator d the city's
~ppbiic art program, seyir-g the was under
loonsidtration for the pro~ct.
i ~ Zwek, wbo htd oompletaf only cot:
ltxommissiotted setriptun (an environmental
-See>iNAlf, peas F~
Three years ago, Phoenix
adopted sn ordinance sei•
ling aside I percent of lice
snnusl capital Ibrlstroction
bodges for the artistic en•
hanament of the 'city's
public pleas.
A major .goal of the
"Percent fort An" progr sm,
with s cufrent bbdget of
i4.7 million, is to sssign
trtlxt5 to design teams,
getting them in on tin
earliest planning stages d
city slroclara and thoF.
oughfares.
The first project with'
such a design team is the'
Squaw Peak Parkway over;
pass now ender oonstroe;'
Uon st Thomas Road. For
more than, a you, adobe
sculptot•bnilder Marilyn
Zwek has worked with ~
team of enginars and lighi= -
'sing and landscape special-
ists 10 design the bridge.
The cost W the Phornfx
Aru (bmmisdon will ~
about S21S,000, which co>?'
ors the artist's fees anQ;
expenses, materials anR
transportation. ConstruQ~-;
lion d -the bridge itself
.tame in coder ib 513.7 mir
lion budget. ~•
Recently, Zwek began
on-site adobe work, which
fti expected W take u lon6"
sls a year. 1
Evrntuaily, members of
the public will be invited tD
help ha "do adobe" (tilt
safety reaaone, the numbQ
stl' pariicipsnU will be link,
sled). For informstion, tx~'
262-4637.
~'
Cn
S
'1Q
W
~-
1
Susnue SbnJThe Arkous I
the boundless beck yard of her Cochlea studio end htxne, Zwek holds
etel form for a giant coyote, txTe of many HoltokstMnsptrtd designs of
patures thtYeventuepy win tiecorete the wills of fhb Thomas Road ova
Design
r Overpass creators
use concrete mix
of art, engineering
rVS ByAnnoSbptiwnwn
W spscw sa rM rwma nepu6ae
Everyone WOI71ed about the cob
umm -even Utough they woe, by
~ the sundarda of the Phoeoia Ara
~~ Commisson, the mat sttocasuf'ul purl
~ of the daigrt for the bridge thu would
Y , cury the Squat'. Pak Parkeay ova
Thomu Road. .
'h' The colutnaa, tlpigtted by artist
~' MatUya Zwak, was w integration of
,(era aA and function.
Tbey vac eculpttsra - imago of
~"' (page err, u t6a bridge daigo tam
'"' ailed them, "Hohokam reptile
~' faro" -that ev+mttuUy could
wpport a major highway. Btu they
~' also vac the htidge'a mat cwtrora•
"'alai eapxt tM ekmat that strayed
".r' Aathat from Indltlooat auodarda
aa~ ,
;tr A gaiet victtxy
?~ As member ~d' the lam
.'~"
+~ ,
~~ i~w
. ~.
~ ~-S~M,'ham praeFl
iu .,.,,. ,.. ,
~G, wait in Winkelman, ttteded is part by
~t<lhe Arirau CmmUpion on the AnsJ,
wll aurpcited,
"I eskedJ she wr lure she had Ute
oa right proof" Zwak rdulh. "I didn't
u rum kraw vhu a deign teen wa
,, 'S1u told me (the project} wt' a
p freevey overpar, which wu rally
~N scary. You pictun your wont itstorpo-
,,,, rand loco a fravey Midge sod d pub
,,, you in a ptoic. Bul the the artist at
yw aka ova, ud you kssov
,t'a everything viB Gll told place,,,
,x Theta f~ iuo pfaoe.rt>omkab-r
well.
du The chemistry baarom Zwak and
~, other design tam mambas wet
evidrnt sago aver the projea begin.
,, The nsult of their mllebaatim u
now undo construction -with
support columns thu mimic Hobo-
kem rcptik forma end well murals
f.; thu mu sunilar rJupa with adobe
r and rack from the Sgww Pak
;I,;;aurroundmga
~'^ The wtfl forma wen sated u
~Zwak't home ie Coehiae, Thal ate
mort thor 30H ~ of IMn4 acme
'rnortnoua aheped~out tsf the meal
' ;W6 uaod in applying etucoo to s
~i ;house.
• Zwak and by euisunu cut and
~~ aid the meal, besxling it into rosmded
team spans Thomas Road, 2 professions
took their proposal to iu fiat
important audience, a group of city
engineers, they were apprehrndve,
I 'nod rametions," says Kat
Dibble, consulting rnginea and dep•
uty project manega. "Frankly, I
thought that who the rngineeting
department saw what Marilyn wanted
to do with this bridge, they'd throw it
out on the Lrst round."
Although some of the engineaa
aen very quid at the mating, no me
said they disliked the plea The deign
tam was rnmuraged.
Ones we got beyond that" Dibbk
says, "it was dear that it had aupptut
from the top. The dry wenud thin
Everyone weer trying to make it work,
and unless it violaud aafay principka
awn rally objxtioeable'to wino-
one, it wu gang to work."
The propatai moved on through
other praentetiona to to eethttaiuUc
rocgsuon from Use dry mundl.
Today, Uu columns have beau
built the bridge it undo way and by
aB eoeounb, the deeigo tam hu hen
wcratftt4 Far the engineer and
dcsi~O profatioruls who participeud
in tt, the projax bu beer m
"It was fun. When you work with an artist, it lightens
up the project. It bt~omes unique."
-Jerry Cannon, protect saaeaga
opportunity b crate a Wuctua
unlike any other. '~
A first for everyone
"It was fun." says Jetty Cannon,
project mmeger cod leads of the
deign tam. "Whin you work with
an esist it lightens up Utt project It
booms unique
'9 think each member of the tam
felt thu way by the time ve gat
through. They had a pasaaal pride, a
tense of owoenhip a iC
„Eva the contractor hu coots up
with ways W improve the protest"
Cannon soya "It cooks a diflerma
in the way you approach your work."
The overpass dingo tam vas the
first to include an artist undo Ike
city's "Percent for Art" program.
There was much at sukq for both the
dty's Bedgling art program and the
deign profeasianels who wen risking
their repubtioru on an untried mn•
ceps
Like othera m Iho tam, Canon
never had worked enth m erUat
before. And Zwek had oo estpaiace
working with aginara
"I think these wa some trepidation
on all thdr paru," .says Grachm
Framers, the sty's public art mordi-
ator, who attended the btu tam
mating with Zwek.
"It wa not oegetivq but [don't
think people knew what to spat To
have to dni with a new ibuUon it
uaomfortable fa anyone, but patio-
Maly for people who dal with faces
and flguret stncttsra end cal UUoga
Aod suddenly, there was thu vague
nodon of art interjaUng itself."
Accot+ding to Framan, it wu
CnCld W the projat'6 9uaxat that
ZWak be h1YOlYOd N Ib e9rhat 96ga
and slut the rat of the tam be open
to a new approach.
Fun frith friction
At the outset, some of the designers
fdt the overpass should conform m
eathdic standards applied to other
bridge along the parkway. But
dapiu thdr misgivings, they littrned
to Zwak's ides and treated her ae a
fellow maulunt.
Befon long, they saUed into a
working nlationship marked by hu•
coot end mutual irreverence.
"We threw barbs rat Marilyn and
she let a know she though the stuff
we'd dtwdopcd wet sterile, wu ugly
and she wanted ssothing to der with
it" Dtlsble says. "We told der we
thought she was a Bake and ought to
go belt to Codtix cod lave a flora
to do cost wont.
"She wu not overly intimidated by
that"
Nor sae others on the tam
intimidated by her, They bughl ha
the rndimrnb of rnginaring and
matructioo and she, in turn, brought
to the group an enthusiasm fa riot
the fmiahed product Could be.
"It we'd looked at it u ha being
forced upon us, the ram cauk16av6
faBrn apart" Cannon soya
We'n trained to think thu when
ao artist dos somcihing it't art and
you can't inurfen with it But on e
team, you've got to negotute She'd
bring in idea asd I'd give ha
wggatiau about haw I thought uhe
should as~roech it Samaisaa it
would work, sometime it wouldn't
When we could, we'd compromise." .
Team that worlts
For Zwak, the overytu project hat
brew. a poddve expairna. It hu
giver ha Use chance to pltu and
fibriau ha work on a huge sak and
to make it pea of the dry avirms-
meas. For Ihu, she ertdib ha
mUagua oa the deign lam,
i mold sa from the start that sU
of the powstial 4t' m the rehGOahilu
oa the team," Zwak sayt It
depended oo what happrned hawtra
a as purple.
"And it worked. l don't think I've
setts anyone support an artist's work
the way ihn team has supposed
mine°
beak ~a~kway gels frog-shape columns, adobe animals
deign that poople fat as though
Ihey'n passing through a -found of
ash," Zwak soya "1 want Utem to
have a ewe of the Hohokam, of the
wonder of their work,',ww bauUfully
rained it weer 1 wmud to burnt
thou. By bkirtg thdr work to ibis
mwummtal size, I think you'll to it
in a way you sacra have baton,"
A roundabout road
Zwakh slimily for the rash blot
soured 1D yon ego, when she aloe to
Arizona Baited in Minnapotit in a
large family, she wu always cneuvo
end ittdepadmt but who she found
ballet( 19 sad pregnant erd capped
in a bad marriage, she made a
derision that hu affected the rat of
ha lifer
"I went into medicine;' she soya "I
nailed a support my child and I
knew nursing would lame do that
"'t'here wu no war I could go to
an school. Tlee bat 1 could do weer sa
aside tune for my ea and mouost to
It
"I like w uJl my story," she says,
"6eretue !think other arUas might
hear it and underuand that somelima
you find yourself in ailuauona thn
xem far from what you rally went
but if you set your soil end arc the to
your has, everything coma togaha
in the end."
made it through. But there's some•
thing about the rnugy of :his plus
lhu tads your soul."
Power in the mud
When Zwek arrived in Atiwna she
was a painttt. She always had wanted
to sculpt brat mold not find a medium
that wind ha. One day, she tried
eadahsg in the earth around ha new
jome. Everything she planted died.
But the Atizana mud, she noticed.
"ut up fonva."
The mud fescinaud ha. In it were
plats of the pau - ftutiL sad
rngtnenu adokl glass
1 found everything [wanted in the
adobe, and my intrigue with it gnw;'
she save. "] mold free-form - Nn
bwkl things - like t did with Use
snow in Minnesota My son wo
young and +ve would go out and snake
a meat wgetha"
Ha Bnt expaimrnt was m erclo-
sun that sUB stands behind by house
io Cochise. ]b wags once was
smmth, but the watha hu wan
them down to n clumpy tetttutq ach
bnndful of reddish eanh hart' with
rocks and stone,
Zwak silo it ha "power plan."
She used adobe from its wdh to make
models for the Squaw Peak projert
While she aperimented wrath ha
new medium, she mndnued working
es a nurse. She built on adobe wall u
a raburent in nearby Sunaita, std
begets a uulptun garde in N empty
wash behind the Willwx hasptbl
where she worked. As the hospital
sculpture begin to msswme Umc and
money, she derided w ask face hdp.
In the phone book, she found the
Arizona Commission on the Ara, the
agacy Uut weer to give 6a Ne
tuppoa she nettled.
'"Iltey funded us for about S4,S00,
which was a drop in Ute bucket" she
says. "But [had worked alone for w
many year - to have someoru care
about who I was doing and to have
them hdp me financially and apiritu•
ally, that redly spurred me on.
'"fhe hoapiul project bereme my
own school of art.1 could experiment
that, and kam."
Through the sou aaa commudon,
Zwek dw became invdved a the
Winkelman projert end subsequently
submitud shda of her nark to the
Phaaia Asia Commission.
Still learning by doing
She bas had to put nursing aside,
but it coma frequrntly into ha
maversariott. Il was nursing, sho sage.
that ought ha things she nailed m
know for the overpass project -how
to work 84 - mamba of a tam, sad
the imporunce of the rnvironmat in
pemlt a l1YGt '
The Squaw Pak projert has bgght
ha more.
Zwak ha had to speak pubBcly,
somahing thu is difficult for ha, prsd
m ;epraent not only ha work but
that of the Pharnix Arta Commission.
She has worked with rngineen and
mnsttuclion eresYS to integnu her
phikawphy into the facade of t
reeway overpass. '
And she has discovered, with an
worthodox blrnd of sdf~onfdena
end s ritudity, new roars; of
stns and dsntrmination in he~f.
thing That save me u Ihnt
I'm so inspired by what I'm dding
that 1 knoa, against all odds, pit's
gang to get dorm," she says.
''fleet's where the sdfcrosfidtmce
coma tram. When you make ;art,
you're s tool, and the bat thing to do
is to la it pass through you u wep m
it an."
i ~ 'i
oaL8S1AI
iONN OF PAIL
SALBS TAI 6SiINA?ION NOH[SflBBi
NONiB 1980
--------------------
January 626,448
February 624,040
--------------------
Subtotal 1,250,488
--------------------
March 683,000
April 246,820
Bay 89,180
June 176,044
July 281,846
6uguat 268,052
Septe~ber 116,090
October 137,376
Nove~ber 1!0,830
Dece~ber 590, 242
1981
514,102
594, 292
1,108, 394
697 , 464
308, 436
135,774
245, 284
339, 418
332,124
285, 918
225, 024
210,254
820, 762
1982
675,186
687,792
1,382,918
853,848
355,300
147,378
247 , 326
349,116
348,756
268,598
223, 830
245, 894
737, 566
1983
696,752
751,856
,448,608
971,828
319,5!6
156,588
251,744
407,474
384,338
324,670
198,614
281,?04
853,100
1984
742,262
824,650
1, 566, 912
1,084,814
481,204
166,200
262,696
406, 462
402,792
384,86!
206,248
310,588
906, 758
1985 1986 1987
------------------------
881,304 890,585 1,063,196
918,154 946,552 1,135,786
---------------------- - - -
1,799,458 1,837,137 2,198,982
1,187,520 1,316,652 1,378,782
531,668 430,877 425,961
162,912 244,987 245,518
280,828 361,821 331,581
44?,815 479,507 479,201
386,985 512,513 536,904
340,102 374,060 442,402
269,282 237,504 273,951
229,083 376,657 386,210
905,955 1,167,280 1,245,612
1988
1,126, 496
1,205,101
2,331,591
1,591,705
550,205
170, 567
329,039
559,683
515,887
422, 502
291,204
378,235
1,455,948
8eriaed: 3/26/90
X Cbange X Cbange
1990 1990 frog frog
1989 BODCHi ectoAL Variance 1989 Bndget
----------------------------------------------------------------
1,436,328 1,508,000 1,569,744 61,744 9.3X 4.1X
1,532,394 1,535,000 1,652,000 117,000 1.8X 7.8X
----------------------------------------------------------------
2,968,72Z 3,043,000 3,221,744 178,744 8.5X 5.9X
----------------------------------------------------------------
1,992,245 1,990,000
549,660 575,000
201,615 210,000
407 , 623 410, 000
656,127 875,000
653,560 675,000
514,181 ; 511,000
294,788 300,000
422,356 ; 430,000
1,631,365 1,635,000
TOTAL 4,039,768 4,709,372 5,140,330 5,610,214 6,179,538 6,481,608 7,338,801 7,945,164 8,654,572 10,298,2!2 10,480,000 3,221,74! 178,744
------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.~
March 23, 1990
Mr. Kirk Koepsle
Public Land Coordinator
Colorado Environmental Coalition
777 Grant Avenue
Suite 606
Denver, CO 80203
Dear Mr. Koepsle:
I am enclosing a copy of a letter I have sent to several federal
officials, including the Secretary of the Interior. The letter relates- to the
proposed exchange of land in Vail, Colorado for miscellaneous tracts
presumably attractive to various federal land management agencies -- a proposal
of the Tannenbaum family. I have read media reports indicating your
organization endorses this exchange.
As a trustee of two charitable foundations which contribute
consistently to your efforts, I am appalled at your position.
Where is development to stop? As I point out in my letter, if the
acquisition of miscellaneous individual tracts is, in fact, desirable for the
government, why is it not appropriate to raise funds directly to accomplish this
purpose? Why are property owners in Vail expendable in order to achieve an
opportunistic land exchange? Are you certain that beginning what will clearly
be a succession of land exchanges in Vail is appropriate? In fact, is it
appropriate for your organization to make the value judgment that my property
value is expendable in the furtherance of the acquisition of some miscellaneous
tracts of land? Finally, if these tracts of land are so desirable, why is it
necessary to end the process by amending federal legislation as opposed to
approaching the problem in a direct and honest manner?
If your organization persists in endorsing this project, I will in the
future be far more reticent in endorsing funding for environmental and
conservationist issues. Specifically, I will use my best efforts to assure that no
funding over which I have control will ever again be directed to the Colorado
Environmental Coalition.
Sincerely,
..
Charles H. Norris, Jr.
enclosure
cc: The Honorable Kent Rose
Mayor of Vail