Loading...
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