HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-01 Support Documentation Town Council Regular SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes of April 3 and 17, 1990 Meetings
2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
3. Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission decisions regarding the
redevelopment of the Red Lion Building (conditional use permit, stream
setback variance, site coverage variance, and an exterior alteration)
4. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1983, in order to modify View Corridor No. 1;
and setting forth the details in regard thereto.
5. Ordinance No. 17, Series
reenacting Ordinance No.
Development District No.
permitted, adjusting the
dwelling units, and arch
regard thereto.
of 1990, first reading, an ordinance repealing and
32, Series of 1987, to provide changes to Special
16 that concern a reduction of the number of units
gross residential floor area per unit, employee
itectural guidelines; and setting forth details in
6. Adjournment
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990
7:30 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 1. Approval of Minutes of April 3 and 17, 1990 Meetings
7:35 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
7:50 3. Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission decisions
Kristan Pritz regarding the redevelopment of the Red Lion Building
(conditional use permit., stream setback variance, site
coverage variance, and an exterior alteration) at 304 Bridge
Street, lots e,f,g,h, Block S, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicants: Landmark Commercial Development Company and
Retaserv Corporation.
Action Requested of Council: Uphold or overturn the PEC's
decisions.
Background Rationale: On April 9, the PEC approved a
conditional use permit (7-0), a stream setback variance
(6-1), a site coverage variance (6-1), and an exterior
alteration (5-2) in order to allow the redevelopment of the
Red Lion Building. This review was prompted by the appeal
of an adjacent property owner and the Council's recall of
this proposal.
One additional condition requested by the Council, and
agreed to by the applicant, is as follows:
The applicant agrees to pay any increase in the CCI parking
fee if said increase is made within two years from the
issuance of a building permit for this project.
Staff Recommendation: Uphold the PEC decisions.
8:50 4. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, second reading, an
Kristan Pritz ordinance amending View Corridor #1 as relating to the
redevelopment of the Red .Lion Building at 304 Bridge Street,
Lots e,f,g,h, Block S, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Retaserv Corporation.
Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance
No. 16, Series of 1990, on second reading.
Background Rationale: This is the second reading of this
ordinance. Refer to accompanying memos for background on
this request.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of
1990, on second reading.
9:20 5. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1990, first reading, a request
Mike Mollica for a major amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel
A, Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley, Phase
III)
Action. Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance
No. 17, Series of 1990, on first reading.
Background Rationale: The PEC, on April 9, 1990,
unanimously recommended approval of the amendment to SDD No.
16, and unanimously approved the preliminary plan for the
Elk Meadows Subdivision. Both were approved by votes of
6-0.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of
1990, on first reading.
9:45 6. Adjournment
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 3, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 3, 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 Levine
Peggy Osterfoss
None
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
The meeting began with a ten year employment anniversary award to Charles Wick. Ron
Phillips gave brief background information on Charlie, Director of Administrative
Services and Assistant Town Manager, and then presented Charlie with a Town of Vail
silver belt buckle. After a few words of commendation by Ron and Kent, Charlie
thanked everyone.
Next on the agenda was approval of the minutes of the March 6 and 20, 1990
meetings. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Merv Lapin made a
motion to approve the minutes as presented, and Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A .vote
was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
The third item was a consent agenda of the following:
A. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, second reading, amending Special
Development District No. 4, Cascade Village Area D, Glen Lyon office site to provide
for changes to parking provisions, micro-brewery building, and east building.
6. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1990, second reading, amending the Town's sales
tax code.
Mayor Rose read the full titles of the ordinances. Larry Eskwith stated there were
no changes to either ordinance since first reading. Kristan Pritz and Larry then
answered questions from Council. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the consent
agenda as presented, which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously 7-0.
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance relating to smoking in
public places and places of employment was next. The full title was read by Mayor
Rose. Susan Scanlan gave brief background information on how the ordinance had come
about. After some discussion regarding posting outside of buildings, Susan answered
questions of Council. Matt Carpenter felt this was a watered down policy and that
the ordinance should have been worded much more strongly. Tom Steinberg made a
motion to approve the ordinance, and Lynn Fritzlen seconded. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Fifth on the agenda 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 a Special Development District. Mayor Rose read the full
title. Kristan Pritz reviewed the SOD request and gave background information. She
reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the proposal and explained why staff
recommended denial. Kristan noted the Planning and Environmental Commission voted
unanimously 7-0 for denial. Robert Warner, the applicant, gave reasons why he felt
the SDD should be granted, and explained why the pool area under the garage would
not affect the floor area. Jim Junge, architect for the project, gave further
reasoning why the request should be approved. Kristan and Robert answered questions
of Council. Mayor Rose felt that since the Warner's were offering over 2,000 square
feet in three employee units, maybe Council could approve as an incentive because it
was a benefit to the Town. Robert Levine made a motion to approve the ordinance,
which was seconded by Peggy Osterfoss. Tom Steinberg requested Mr. Warner to deed
restrict the pool so it would remain that way permanently, and to deed restrict the
employee housing units so they are permanently employee housing; also, to ensure the
employee units would not be for sale, but remain rentals only. Robert Levine
amended the motion to include Tom's suggestions, and Peggy amended the second.
Peggy Osterfoss stated she wanted it included in the ordinance that the reason for
approval was for a gain in employee housing. Kristan commented it would be added
somewhere in the beginning of the ordinance, in the "Whereas" sections. There was
then some discussion by Council regarding enforcement and control. Dalton Williams,
of the PEC, remarked that all members of the PEC felt it was a good design, a good
proposal, but they were concerned about using an SDD as the mechanism to do this and
setting a precedent. Jay Peterson added he felt the SDD should be granted because
it was a very creative way to add three employee units. Peggy Osterfoss commented
Council was concerned with providing additional affordable housing for the community
and it was appropriate to approve this SDD. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 7-0.
Item six was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, first reading, a request for an
amendment to SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing
No. 3. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz stated the SDD had
been approved and the final plat approved, but not recorded with the County yet.
She noted this was an amendment to the original SDD and that the final plat was also
being revised. She reviewed the changes requested, and commented staff recommended
approval with the conditions shown in the ordinance. Buff Arnold, architect for the
project, gave further explanation of the amendments to the SDD .and reasoning for
approval. Mr. Pat Dauphinais addressed the item of number of driveways. There was
then some discussion by Council regarding additional curb cuts. Peggy Osterfoss
made a motion to approve to provide changes with the finding that the changes are in
accordance with the SDD criteria conditions as listed in the staff memorandum to the
PEC dated March 26, 1990; except under employee dwelling units, the wording "any
lot" should be used; a letter of credit should be provided for a bus stop, so one
can be provided once a school or Town bus schedule is established within five years;
add the PEC recommendations that 1) each phase of development shall include a
minimum of one employee unit until the six employee unit minimum is fulfilled, 2)
garages for employee units shall be connected to the main structure, 3) 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, and
4) at grade, unroofed, unenclosed decks may extend five feet into the rear setback
for Lots 1-14; including conditions 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the staff recommendation; and
the four additional curb cuts not be approved. Merv Lapin seconded the motion.
Robert Levine was concerned that employee housing figures were not included in the
total GRFA, and wanted them shown up front, because they should be addressed and not
ignored. Kristan Pritz remarked they would be added in the density section. Peggy
Osterfoss suggested they be added in the preamble like the last ordinance, in the
"Whereas" sections, which Kristan agreed to. Dalton Williams, of the PEC, stated
the PEC voted on the curb cuts 4 for and 3 against, and explained their reasonings
and concerns to the Council. Tom Steinberg stated he would vote against the
ordinance as presented because of the lack of safety for children on the sidewalk;
the curb cuts belong on the north side only. Jim Gibson agreed.. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 5-2, with Tom Steinberg and Jim Gibson opposing.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1990, first reading, a request 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. The full
title was read by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz gave chronological background
information of the SDD request to amend the original SDD. She reviewed the criteria
used in evaluating the request, explained why the staff recommendation was for
approval with the eight conditions and three recommendations to the DR6 as shown in
the staff memorandum to the PEC dated March 26, 1990. Don Hare, representing the
owner, reviewed again why this SDD amendment was before the Council. Pam Hopkins,
representing the architect, explained changes in the building footprint plans. Art
Carroll, a resident in the Vorlaufer, was against the SDD because it would block the
view of Vail Mountain. After much discussion by Council, Peggy Osterfoss made a
motion to approve the ordinance with findings based on the evaluation of the
proposed SDD criteria are appropriate, with all conditions in the staff
recommendation as shown in the staff memorandum to the PEC dated March 26, 1990.
After some discussion by Council, Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 4-3, with Merv Lapin, Lynn Fritzlen, and Robert Levine
opposing.
At this time, Mayor Rose asked that the next few agenda items be placed on a consent
agenda:
-2-
~-
' A. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance changing the
order of business at Council meetings.
6. Resolution No. 8, Series of 1990, proclaiming the week of April 21-27 as
Earth Awareness Week.
C. Resolution No. 9, Series of 1990, setting rules for Council public
hearings.
After some discussion by Council, Merv Lapin made a motion to place Ordinance No.
15, Resolution No. 8, and Resolution No. 9 on a consent agenda. Tom Steinberg
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Mayor Rose then read the full titles of Ordinance No. 15, Resolution No. 8, and
Resolution No. 9. Robert Levine made a motion to approve the consent agenda, which
Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Next was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1990, a resolution opposing mandatory Social
Security and Medicare coverage for public employees. Lynn Fritzlen stated she would
not support this resolution because she felt public employees should be subjected to
the same programs as the private sector. There was some discussion by Council and
Ron Phillips. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the resolution, and Peggy
Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1, with Lynn Fritzlen
opposing.
The Jackalope Cafe & Cantina sign variance request was next. Shelly Mello gave
background information on the variance request. She reviewed the four criteria used
in evaluating the variance and explained why staff and the DRB recommended approval
of the request. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the request for reasons and
findings as shown in the March 7, 1990 staff memorandum to the DRB. Peggy Osterfoss
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
There was no Citizen Participation.
Merv Lapin commented Councilmembers had received a letter from Woody Beardsley
regarding the Beartree lot. He requested Ron Phillips write a letter to Mr.
Beardsley requesting detailed information; Ron replied staff would follow up on the
request.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 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
APRIL 17, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 17, 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
Merv Lapin
Robert Levine
Peggy Osterfoss
Jim Gibson
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item was the Uail Metropolitan Recreation District offer to return $25,000
to the Town of Vail; reduction in Town of Vail recreation subsidy. Tim Garton, UMRD
Chairman, read a letter regarding this subsidy from the VMRD Board to the Council.
He further stated that if projected revenues materialize, the additional $25,000
will be returned to the Town of Vail by the fall of 1990. Following limited
questioning, this check was accepted by Mayor Rose.
Item two was a presentation of the Colorado Tourism Board 1989 Urban Tourism Award
to Council from the Vail Valley Marketing Board. Frank Johnson, Chairman of the
VUMB, reviewed current and future projects of the Marketing Board for summer
marketing. He stated the Urban Tourism Award was one of seven awards given; he
listed several other Denver area advertising awards won by the VUMB. Frank thanked
the Council for their support. Mayor Rose felt the thanks needed to go back to the
Marketing Board for their time and effort.
Third on the agenda was a consent agenda of the following items:
A. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1990, second 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.
B. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1990, second 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.
C. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, second 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.
D. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1990, second 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.
E. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1990, second 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.
F. Resolution No. 11, Series of 1990, a resolution ratifying the Articles of
Association of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments.
h
Mayor Rose read the full title of each. Merv Lapin moved that a consent agenda of
only items E and F be approved; all others be pulled off for discussion. Tom
Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Therefore, the next item was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1990, second reading, an
ordinance relating to smoking in public places and places of employment. Ron
Phillips stated the ordinance had not changed since first reading, and staff did not
have anything to add. Matt Carpenter questioned one section of the ordinance, to
which Larry Eskwith responded. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the ordinance,
which Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously
6-0.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance 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 there was one minor
change to the ordinance, which he discussed. He then very briefly reviewed Council
requests from first reading. Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to approve, which was
seconded by Robert Levine. There was a short discussion regarding this SDD use as
setting a precedent. Merv Lapin was concerned about using the SDD process in a low
.density residential area, and would change his vote from how he voted at first
reading. Lynn Fritzlen agreed the SDD was not the best mechanism, but the only way
right now until housing guidelines were in place. Mayor Rose agreed, and would vote
in favor of the ordinance tonight. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2, with
Tom Steinberg and Merv Lapin opposing.
Next was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, second reading, a request for an
amendment to SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing
#3. Kristan Pritz quickly reviewed changes Council had requested be incorporated
into the ordinance since first reading. There was some discussion regarding a bus
stop, to which Mr. Pat Dauphinais stated he would provide a letter of credit for
one. Council felt that was agreeable. Tom Steinberg then made a motion to approve
the ordinance as amended, which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1990, second reading, a request 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. Kristan Pritz addressed questions of Gretta Parks and Council. A motion to
approve the ordinance was made by Peggy Osterfoss and seconded by Robert Levine.
Connie Knight, a property owner, aired her concerns over the possible approval of
this SDD request. Kristan then answered questions of Council.. There was some
discussion by Council regarding building size and mass. Tom Steinberg requested an
annual letter regarding employee housing use. Peggy amended the motion to include
this request; Rob amended his second. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1,
with Lynn Fritzlen opposing.
Item eight was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance
amending View Corridor No. 1. Mayor Rose read the full title. Tom Braun reviewed
an architect scale model of the request. He then noted the Planning Commission's
6-1 recommendation for approval by changing the photo and not the line. Tom then
reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the request noting views from other
buildings were not included. He stated staff supported the project with two
conditions:
1. The photo depicting View Corridor No. 1 be modified to reflect the new Red
Lion Building at a time when the expansion is completed.
2. The specific reasons justifying this request be included in the preamble of
the ordinance authorizing this amendment.
Tom then reviewed the ten conditions required by the Planning Commission for their
approval, which were itemized in the staff memo to Council dated April 17, 1990. He
added there was also an eleventh condition to be added, which stated the Red Lion
would participate in a streetscape special improvement district if and when formed.
There was some discussion by Council and staff regarding notice of action on the Red
Lion improvements. Larry Eskwith commented he would have felt more comfortable if
all the items were included on the agenda mentioned the appeal of the PEC action,
and recommended Council table the item until the next Evening Meeting. Tom
Steinberg felt it was alright to table the item, but we should take comments so
staff can be working on Council concerns before the next time. Jay Peterson,
representing the applicant, stated this was the first he had heard of a notification
problem, and with the construction season so short, the delay would put them
-2-
r
behind. Gordon Brittan felt Tom Braun's presentation was hard to understand and
asked to see the scale model up close and hear the presentation again. After Tom
Braun ran through it again, Jay Peterson gave reasons why he felt the Planning
Commission approved, and why the Council should approve. Jim Morter, architect for
the project, presented photos to Council of the view line. Jay added reasons why
the project was good. Jay, Jim, and Larry answered questions of Council. Yvonne
Mullaley made comments on the roof design. After more discussion by Council, Connie
Knight asked for the view corridor to be specif ically dealt with separately from the
Red Lion improvements. After much more discussion by Council, Merv Lapin made a
motion to approve the ordinance on first reading, and directed staff to place the
ordinance on the May 1, 1990 Evening Meeting agenda directly after the Red Lion
application. Mayor Rose seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed 4-2, with Tom Steinberg and Lynn Fritzlen opposing.
Next was the National Velvet Dry Cleaners sign variance request. Shelly Mello
reviewed the request and criteria used in evaluating the request. She stated staff
supported the height and location variance requests, but not the one square foot
increase in size. Shelly noted the Design Review Board unanimously voted 5-0 for
approval for all three requests. Bill House, the applicant, requested the one
square foot increase to match the liquor store sign. After some discussion by
Council, Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to approve the height and location variance
requests of the sign, but not the increased size, for reasons presented by staff and
finding the same as staff as noted in the staff memo to the Design Review Board.
dated April 4, 1990. Robert Levine seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously 6-0.
At this time, it was felt a motion should have been made to table the call up of the
Red Lion conditional use, variances, and exterior alteration to the May 1, 1990
Evening Meeting for adequate notification of the public. Merv Lapin made the
motion, and Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 6-0.
A side and rear setback variance request for Lot D-7 Bighorn Terrace was next on the
agenda. Shelly Mello explained the variance request and discussed staff's
recommendation for denial, while the Planning Commission had voted in favor of the
request. She then reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the requests and
answered questions of Council. Eric Hill, architect representing the applicant,
explained the one foot side setback. Lynn Fritzlen suggested staff look into
rezoning of the subdivision. Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to approve the side and
rear setback requests, because there was not a significant intrusion beyond the
original footprint, and stating a hardship was the result of the building already
being in place when the setback was determined. Robert Levine seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, with Lynn Fritzlen opposing. Tom
Steinberg then made a motion for staff to address the local neighborhood into the
total zoning issue, to which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously 6-0.
Next on the agenda was the Lions Ridge rockfall amendment. Tom Braun reviewed the
hazard ordinance standards for rockfall zoning changes within the Town. He stated
staff had no recommendation and asked the applicant's consultant for a report on why
the area should be rezoned medium severity instead of high severity. Robert Irish,
an engineering geologist, representing Jill Down and Bruce Canton, discussed his
review letter on the Lions Ridge hazard area. He and Tom then answered questions of
Council. Mayor Rose remarked he agreed with Mr. Irish. After some discussion by
Council, Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to reclassify the area from high. to medium
severity rockfall, accepting Robert Irish's study, and directing staff to amend the
Town's rockfall records. Robert Levine seconded the motion. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Action on the ABC School lease agreement was the twelfth item. Larry Eskwith
commented the lease was almost a duplicate of the Learning Tree's agreement which
was before Council two years ago. He added there was no Exhibit A, however, and
asked Council to approve the agreement contingent upon having ABC School provide a
survey of the area including the addition after construction was complete. Lynn
Fritzlen made a motion to approve the agreement as presented, with the stipulation
that the ABC School provide the Town with an improvement survey after the
alterations have been made. Robert Levine seconded the motion. Merv Lapin
suggested wording be added that the school be run by a Board of Directors that is
elected by the parents of the students. Lynn and Rob amended the motion and
second. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
-3-
,,
The last item on the agenda was action on Vail Village Inn space lease agreement.
Larry Eskwith noted the lessee was not prepared to discuss the item tonight, and
requested it be postponed to the May 1 Evening Meeting. A motion to table the item
to .the May 1 Evening Meeting was made by Tom Steinberg and seconded by Peggy
Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0, with Merv Lapin abstaining.
There was no Citizen Participation.
There being no further public business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-4-
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development
DATE: April 25, 1990
RE: Appeal of PEC decisions on
consideration of Ordinance
Coordination No. 1.
Red Lion redevelopment and
No. 16, amending View
The first of two separate items to be reviewed by the Council is
a recall of the Planning Commission's approval of the Red Lion
redevelopment. The background information on this request is
provided on the April 17th Council memo and the three PEC memos.
One modification to this proposal, that was agreed to by the
applicant, is that the owners will pay any increase in the
parking fund rate if the rate is changed within two years of the
issuance of a building permit for this project.
The second item pertains to amending Vail Village View Corridor
No. 1. The accompanying memos provide background information on
this request. In response to the Council's discussion of this
amendment, the staff has requested additional information from
the applicant and has discussed the view corridor with Jeff
Winston.
1) The applicants have provided a cross-section
of the Village from the parking structure to
the Golden Peak House. This was done to
demonstrate whether any other properties
would encroach into the view corridor if they
were redeveloped within the 43 foot height
limit. Because of grade changes on Bridge
Street, the Red Lion property appears to be
the only property that .could redevelop within
43 feet, encroach into the view corridor, yet
remain below the ridge of the Golden Peak
House.
2) Jeff Winston was the lead consultant involved
in establishing the Village view corridors.
Jeff has reviewed this project and concurs
with the staff recommendation. He reiterated
that the purpose of this view corridor was to
maintain views of the mountain, the Clock
Tower and the Rucksack Tower. It was his
feeling that the line could have been drawn
at the Golden Peak House ridge and the
objective of this corridor would be met. The
proposed Red Lion ridge would not diminish
any view of Vail Mountain.
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 17, 1990
RE: A request to amend View Corridor No. 1 and the review
of the proposed redevelopment of the Red Lion Building.
The Planning and Environmental Commission approved the
redevelopment of the Red Lion Building at their April 9, 1990
meeting. This approval involved:
1. A site coverage variance to permit a .25$ increase in
site coverage.
(approved'6-1)
2. A stream setback variance to allow a two foot
encroachment into the required 30' stream setback.
(approved 6-1)
3. A conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck on
the east side of the building.
(approved'?-0)
4. An exterior alteration to add enclosed floor area to
the building in Vail Village.
(approved 5-2) Commissioner Warren requested that the
Council be aware that she supported the project with
the exception of the proposed infill of a portion of
outdoor dining patio on Bridge Street.
The conditions of approval applied to these request include the
following:
1. As a part'of this redevelopment, the applicants agree
to point and repair the brick wall along Bridge Street
and in the area of the small plaza at the north-west
corner of the site. Improvements to this plaza. may
also include upgrading existing benches, planters,
newspaper box and trash receptacle locations and
landscaping.
2. The streetscage improvements shown along Hanson Ranch
Road are considered conceptual, and the applicants
shall agree to work with the staff and Winston
Associates in refining this design relative to the Vail
Village Streetscape Plan. This condition shall also
apply to the plaza area referenced in condition No. 1
and the landscape improvements proposed adjacent to
Mill Creek.
,t
3. All windows located on stucco wall planes shall be
recessed a minimum of 3".
4. State of the art venting shall be used to reduce
negative impacts (smell, smoke, etc.) emanating from
the site.
5. The owner/developers of the residential development on
this site shall agree to permanently restrict Gross
Residential Floor Area (GRFA), building height and
density on this site to what is permitted by this
approval. The Town of Vail shall be a party to this
restriction and the restriction shall be recorded with
the Clerk and Recorders Office at Eagle County.
6. Any trees damaged or killed within two years of the
completion of this project shall be replaced with
similar size and type tree.
7. The Red Lion logo shall be retained as a part of this
redevelopment in approximately the same size and
location.
8. The developers/owners are strongly encouraged to
participate in developing solutions to traffic, loading
and delivery problems in Vail Village.
9. The Rekord doors (or other type of window system
installed) to the Red Lion Restaurant along Bridge
Street shall remain totally open during business hours
between June 15 and September 15 of each year. These
windows may be opened at any other time during the .year
at the discretion of the restaurant management.
10. The applicants shall complete stream-bank stabilization
work on both sides of Mill Creek over the entire length
of the Red Lion property. The final design and
implementation of these improvements shall be subject
to review by the staff and the Design Review Board.
11. The owners shall agree to participate in and not
remonstrate against, a special improvement district if
and when one is formed in the Village.
All of these approvals are the authority of the Planning
Commission. The amendment to View Corridor No. 1 requires
approval by the Council. With regard to this amendment, the
Planning Commission recommended by a 6-1 vote to recommend
approval for modification to this View Corridor. Their support
was predicated on two conditions:
1. That the Zphoto depicting View Corridor No. 1 be
modified to reflect the new Red Lion Building at a time
when the ,expansion is completed. The Commission
preferred this alternative as opposed to modifying the
line that delineates the View Corridor.
2. That the ',specific reasons justifying this request be
included 'in the preamble of the ordinance authorizing
this amendment.
While the staff was supportive of this approach in amending the
View Corridor, legal complications have developed that prevent
this from occurring. As written, the View Corridor Ordinance
prohibits any encroachment above the line indicated on the photo.
To allow this development to proceed and simply rephotograph the
view would be a violation of the Ordinance because the new ridge
does in fact encroach into the View Corridor. Without changing
the wording of the Ordinance, this approach is not feasible. To
change language in the Ordinance that would allow building
encroachments over ',the line could create greater complications
for future development in the Village. The staff feels that the
only feasible alternative is to modify the actual line on the
official photograph of View Corridor No. 1.
The staff would recommend that the View Corridor be amended by
allowing this development to proceed, and after the building is
completed, a new photograph will be taken and the line depicting
the View Corridor will be relocated and resurveyed to run
directly above the building's new ridge line. While this
approach does alter the line depicting the View Corridor, it
provides the greatest assurances against future encroachments
into the View Corridor. The accompanying Ordinance outlines
conditions that would be applied to this amendment.
Y
..
EAST ELEVA
1/8 inch to
wEST ~~EV~
.1/8 inch to
.~~~~: .
-,~,
,~
~~
;~;.,
~~~~
EAST ELEVATION
1/8 inch to 1 foot
R.
.,,,
~ ' , I '~,rh,, n-x,.a,
~;~`~
~~~~
ti ~ =~
i ~
•
Y
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: March 19, 1990
RE: A request for an exterior alteration to make additions
to the Red Lion Building.
Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The redevelopment of the Red Lion Building involves modifications
to ground floor commercial space and a major remodel of the upper
floor residential space. The main elements of this plan are:
1. The development of three condominiums totaling 9207
square feet of GRFA. The property currently has one
condominium with 5231 square feet of GRFA.
2. Modifications to the existing Red Lion deck enclosure
on Bridge Street, including the enclosure of 100
additional square feet of patio at the north end of the
existing deck.
3. Modifications to the Red Lion Restaurant to include a
dining patio on the east side of the building along
Mill Creek.
4. The development of a public walkway along Mill Creek
over the length of the Red Lion frontage.
This proposal entails the review and approval of five separate
requests by the Planning Commission. These request include the
following:
1. Exterior alteration.
2. A stream setback variance for a small building
addition, dining patio, and public walkway.
3. A site coverage variance for a small building addition
and the new dining patio.
4. A conditional use permit for the dining patio.
5. Modification to adopted view corridor #1. (Vantage
point from the steps of the parking structure over Vail
Village to Vail Mountain.)
-~ :~ ,~ ..
- ..r ~ „, -
`t
+~
Applicable elements of this proposal are reviewed relative to the "
criteria found in each of these requests. While each must be
considered on their own merit, it is important that the Planning
Commission view this project as a whole when evaluating the
proposal. This exterior alteration memo will cover each of the
major elements of this proposal, and will also address the
requested modification to the view corridor. The other 3
memorandums provide additional detail relevant to those specific
requests.
EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA
The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements
that establish the review criteria for this application. The
first of these is referred to as The Guide Plan, which includes a
number of sub-area concepts. These sub-area concepts identify
areas for potential development and improvements in the Village.
Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations cover large scale land
use/design issues. Finally, architectural/landscape
considerations provide information on the detailed design
elements of a proposal.
In addition to these three elements of the Guide Plan,
traditional zoning considerations are also considered as a part
of this review. The three accompanying memorandums cover the
majority of these zoning issues. One additional zoning
consideration has to do with parking. Any additional parking
demand generated by this proposal would be met by payment into
the parking fund.
URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
Sub Area No. 8: Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill
Creek. Path completes linkage from
Pirateship Park and mountain path to Gore
Creek Drive.
This proposal includes a walkway along Mill Creek over the length
of the Red Lion frontage. Ultimately, this section of the path
will connect with the path constructed on the back side of the A
& D building. It is a long range goal to improve
pedestrianization in this area to strengthen the role of the Mill
Creek building as a part of the Village. The proposed walkway is
3'6" wide. This width is unacceptable for what will become a
significant walkway. The staff would like to see this element of
the plan revised to include a walkway between 6 to 8 feet wide.
s i
~ A ea No. 10: Seibert Circle. Feature area paving
treatment. Relocate focal point (potential
fountain) to north for better sun exposure
(fall/spring), creates increased plaza area
and/or backdrop for activities. Separated
path on north side for unimpeded pedestrian
route during delivery periods.
The applicants have stated that the owners are prepared to
discuss their role, or involvement, in the relocation of Seibert
Circle if and when those discussion begin. The staff believes
this sub-area concept has merit, however, there are currently no
plans to initiate the relocation of the circle. Improvement
proposed for the Red Lion building will not impede or prevent the
re-design of Seibert Circle.
Sub-area No. 12: Future midblock connection to further tie
Mill Creek Court to core area. Entry
reinforced by pocket park created on Bridge
Street.
Of all the sub-area concepts outlined in this plan, this sub-area
could provide one of the most important improvements to the
Village. This connection existed at one time. Unfortunately, a
ground level addition to the Rucksack building eliminated this
pedestrian corridor. Improvements to the Red Lion Building do
not change the existing situation. It appears that the
redevelopment of the Rucksack building will be required before
this sub-area concept could be implemented.
URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Pedestrianization
Introducing another segment of the Mill Creek walkway is a
very positive step in expanding the Village's pedestrian
system. However, the staff feels strongly that this
improvement should be redesigned to provide a path 6 to 8
feet wide.
Vehicular Penetration
t affic than
Three condominiums will clearly generate more r
the one existing condominium. However, it must be pointed
out that zoning on this property permits up to 8 units. In
this respect, impacts of vehicular penetration are not as
great as they could be.
Streetscane Framework
While not a street, the concept of dining activity along
Mill Creek is extremely valuable in generating activity in
this area. As mentioned in this memo, and in other
memorandums, the design is not adequate at this time. The
area has the potential to provide both the dining activity
and an adequate walkway.
l,. f~s~"TI U~
"Rekcr~rz_-r3~nrs are proposed for the north, south and west
sides of the present Red Lion Deck enclosure. Operable
doors will a an improved situation over what is
existing. ~~ he staff has serious concerns over the
existing d~.*+~^~ peck. Annroved ~n 1982. is~de~}~enclosur
wa~early a e on the Bridge Street
Pg~mework. o consider adds i -nclosure of this deck on
the north side is unaccep e. n addition, a staff
ee s the existing roof sho- u~T~e pulled back over its
entire length of Bridge Street frontage to allow for a row
of outdoor tables along the Bridge Street.
Street Enclosure
The enclosure along Bridge Street
Plaza Lod a building. It may be
s i e mass of the building or
towards the south. This has the
things:
relates well with the
appropriate however to
provide additional mass
potential to accomplish two
5 n~~~°
Shifting the mass to the south may lessen the impacts
on the Rucksack building.
Extending the mass of the building to the south could
serve to consolidate the existing mass and roof forms
of the building.
Street Edge
Proposed landscaping along the north side of_the buildinQ_
will dramatically improve the existing str e~.tiedc~e. As
proposed, a series ers and lanter areas would line
1
submitted is considereel~.~.^rrceptua~_'rL, The staff has just
begun working on a Vi eetscape improvement plan
with Winston and Associates. The intent of this plan is to
evaluate the public spaces between buildings with regard to•
street improvements. The applicants have a reed to work
with the staff and Winston as this protect evolves ,n or er
to design their improvements accordingly. This will assure
de ign an materia compatibility with o er future
streetscape improvements.
he_~s~-Banc road side of the building. This de
_~
u i l d in He i ht t S ~"' ~ ~ ~ l`'`'~ ~ S ~- ~,r'~-.~-~~''~~`°
uildin hei hts allow 40$ of the structure to be between 33
B g q
and 43 feet with the remaining 60~ of the .structure below 33
feet. As proposed, 66$ of the building is below 33 feet and
33.9$ of the building is above 33 feet but below 43 feet.
At its highest point, the proposed ridgeline is1 42.7 feet.
Views and Focal points -~~ ~~tC~~ ~~ ~°~~ ~~~~~~
The a licants have rovided a n of hoto overlays
emonstrating the relationship of this buil~di-n~ to many view
nnrri me ccc n n nc Aamnnstrate that tllE DrODOSal 15
generally responsive to most public a_ nd private view
corridors. s rom Rucksack bu Tdin-` g w~rl be
ama ically im a
e r an Design Guide Plan to rotect these riva
corri ors W i e the staff can certainly sympathize with
ners of the Rucksack building, the fact remains that the
Red Lion building has development potential that can be
built. The role of the Guide Plan is to ensure that the
development is designed in a way that is responsive to the
numerous design considerations of the plan.
The roposed ridgeline will enc into ado ted view
corridor No. i_ is view corridor is from the steps o the
existing parking structure over Vail Village. It is
intended to provide unobstructed views of Vail Mountain and
key architectural features such as the Clock Tower and
Rucksack Tower. As a general rule, the staff feels strongly
that these view corridors should not be disrupted to
accommodate new buildings. However, circumstances specific.
to this view corridor line support modifications of this
line.
The ~2LOposed ridge line of the Red s.ion zedeveloDment is
ti.,e~„~ ~~e ov;ct;nrr r;~~P line of the Golden Peak House.
_However, the view corridor line "dips" below the Golden Peak
House rid e. It is clear to the staff that the t nt of
the view corrido uld be met t,~ie re drawn at the
Go en Peak House roof rid e. For this reason and ec
im rovem Red Lion buildin are below the Golden
eak House ridge and behind the Clock Tower ucksac
Tower, s a can suppor i amen went rest
This amendment would relocate the view corridor line to the
Golden Peak House ridge line. A condition of this approval
will be that the applicant's resurvey the view corridor and
provide all materials and production of the revised photos.
It should be noted that the redevelopment of the Village
Parking Structure will eliminate the exact vantage point
from which this view corridor was taken. Efforts will .have
to be made to ensure that a comparable vantage point is
available to reposition this view corridor line.
., ~~, ,
_ ~. _+
_ , ~..
j.Y :_ ,
i i
Service and Deliver
As with many properties in the Village, there are no back
doors to provide service functions. Introducing dining and
the walkway along Mill Creek perpetuates the problem of not
having enough space for these operations. The existing
location of trash facilities is adjacent to Gore Creek and
remains unchanged. However, this location conflicts with
the dining deck and walkway. Unfortunately, this appears to
be the only solution available. Trash is typically re~yed
in the early morning hours thereby minimizinq_go~ential
impacts on diners. Given the f?~~?-t ~~':=°="~ T•'-"'-' L'1 ~ 1 }'-°
,operating the dining decks one can assume that they will
insur~Tia any impacts of this trash facility are minimized
on ere own i`ning ec ~~ ~u~
Sun/Shade
The proposed expansion will cast increased shadow a tern
on the stream tract end the Ruc y. Locating the
new building mass on this property is a very delicate
balance. The guidelines encourage the building to be pulled
back from Bridge Stree an~_~~~ _ ~ , ~ "e~~--
s i ing mass to the north and east. The obvious result is
increase s adow patterns a ong Mill Creek and the Rucksack
building. The staff is willing to accept the shadow pattern
on Mill Creek as a trade off for maintaining proper street
enclosure along Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road.
However, it would be worth while to see how shifting the
mass of the building to the south could minimize any shade
impact on the Rucksack building.
Architectural/Landscape Considerations
Roofs
The staff has serious concerns over the composition of the
r esoor d roo .e exis ing proposal is very similar
to graphic elements in the Guide Plan that demonstrate what
should not be done. There are certainly a variety of roof
forms throughout the Village. However, in general the roof
forms along this area of Bridge Street are very simplistic.
The roof height regulations do encourage varied roof
heights, which this proposal does in fact do. However,
there are a number of areas in the building where roof lines
could be consolidated to simplify the roof form.
~•
t
ransoarency
As discussed at the Planning Commission work ~ssion, the
degree of transparency proposed on the second and third
floor of this building is not consistent with the Urban
Design Guide Plan. As a general rule transparency should
decrease on the u er oors o e buildin Some c anger
have een made to the elevation that are in fact positive.
However, the staff is still uncomfortable
w e emen along Bridge Stree .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff can not support this project at this time. In fairness
to the applicants, this site is a very difficult one to redevelop
because of the many issues and concerns that must be addressed to
during the design process.
There are a number of ositive elements of this plan that
not a over d. Among e e im rovements
along Hanson Ranch Road, the introduct-; on of ~ ~ ^ ~ *+g an e
walkway along Mill Creek, and t e fact that development on the
s~-is not~eing maximized. However, the staff feels strongly
that many elements need refinement. Among these are the new
dining and walkway along Mill Creek, the overall massing and roof
forms proposed on the building, and the proposal to completely
enclose the existing Red Lion dining deck. Staff recommends
denial of this -_•quest as currently proposed.
The Urban Design Plan is based on achieving a balance between
rivate develo me ainta nin 3esign con~in ~ It is no
e purpose of this plan to have every building in the Village
look alike. There is considerable variety in design throughcut
the Village. The key is to ensure that new develo went res and
~, to the surroundin built environ
~bui ing, par icularly the massing and roof forms departs from
the vernacular. For this reason, and for other reasons re
~~in this memo, the staff recommends denial of this request.
t
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 19, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a stream setback variance in order to
construct an addition to the Red Lion building.
Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
The 30 foot stream setback is measured from the center line
of Mill Creek. The existing Red Lion building is located
within this 30 foot setback (encroachments range from one to
eighteen feet}. Proposed improvements within the required
stream setback include a small addition to the building, a
portion of the proposed dining patio and the public walkway.
The building addition adds between one to five feet of
encroachment. The walkway and deck would encroach between
seven to ten feet.
As defined in the zoning code, setbacks apply to both
buildings and structures. As such, all three of these
proposed improvements must be considered when evaluating
this variance request.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community
Development recommends denial of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
Stream setbacks have been established to ensure
buffers between buildings and stream tracts.
However, the expansion is a minor one and the
building is already located within the stream
setback. The building addition will not impact
existing or potential uses in this area.
t. r l P
.+.t f.
t
~~
The on grade walkway is consistent with the
existing and potential uses in the stream tract.
Indeed, the walkway will provide access to this
area to maximize its use. While the proposed
dining deck can also add life and vitality to this
area, the proposed deck seriously constraint the
design of the stream walk (see Exterior Alteration
and Conditional Use Permit memos).
2. The_dearee to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretatior. and enforcement of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives
of this title without grant of special privilege.
The proposed building expansion is a part of a
redesigned entry to an upper level condominium.
The degree of encroachment ranges from one to five
feet, and accommodates an entry vestibule, ski
storage lockers, and a small portion of a proposed
elevator. Given the existing location of the
building, the relatively minor encroachment, and
the recently approved A & D redevelopment, this
request would not be a grant of special privilege.
As outlined in the conditional use memorandum for
the dining deck, there are significant public
benefits that could result from both the dining
deck and stream walkway. However, as proposed the
dining deck expansion is limiting the size of the
public walkway to 3'6". While some degree of
encroachment for the dining deck is acceptable,
tie deck proposed is excessive when considering
the stream tract and its relationship to the
public walkway.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and
air, distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
The dining deck and walkway must be considered
collectively. The walkway does have the potential
to provide a positive affect on public facilities
by opening access to Mill Creek. However, the
extent of the dining deck proposal seriously
confines the dimensions of the walkway.
Both of these improvements will necessitate the
relocation of existing utility meters in this
area. The applicants' would relocate these meters
as a part of this redevelopment.
! .~
III. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
Sub area 3.8 in the Vail Village Master Plan encourages the
development of a stream walk in this area. The dining deck
and walkway are potentially very compatible. However, as
has been stated, the design proposed is not sensitive to the
needs of the public access.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before grantinv a variance:
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
B. That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the same
site of the variance that do not apply generally
to other properties in the same zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant
of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
V. .STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request is denial. Some
degree of encroachment for the walkway and deck is
warranted. However, the current proposal is unacceptable.
The Staff can support the slight building expansion,
however, our recommendation for this element of the proposal
is denial until a revised plan for this area is submitted
for our review.
3
f
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 19, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance in order to add
additions to the Red Lion building.
Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
Permitted coverage in Commercial Core I is 80•°s of the lot
area. In Commercial Core I, site coverage means "a portion
of a site covered by buildings, and ground level patios and
decks". Existing site coverage on the Red Lion lot is 83$.
This proposal will add site coverage in two areas:
1. 50 square feet for a building addition along Mill
Creek.
2. 173 square feet for a proposed dining deck along
Mill Creek.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community
Development recommends denial of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
The proposed dining deck is directly adjacent to
this building expansion. While some degree of
site coverage variance may be acceptable for the
dining patio, the extent of dining deck proposed
is directly affecting the potential development of
the pedestrian walkway along Mill Creek. (See
stream setback variance memorandum.)
The 50 square feet of additional site coverage for
the building expansion is partly offset by a
deduction of 27 feet of building in this area.
this amount of new building will not impact
adjacent uses or activities in the area.
- ~.
s
2. The dectree to which relief .from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of a
specified recLulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives
of this title without ctrant of special t~rivilege.
Including patios and dining decks in site coverage
calculations is~somewhat of a hardship for
applicants in that these elements are encouraged
throughout the Village. For this reason, staff
could support some degree of site coverage
variance to accommodate the dining patio.
However, the dining deck proposed is not
acceptable because of the impacts related to the
pedestrian walkway along Mill Creek.
The building site coverage variance is a net
increase of 23 feet with no appreciable impacts.
However, there is rjo ~ipparent physical hardship to
warrant this request.
3. The effect of the requested variance on licrht and
air, distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities and public safety.
As discussed in the Exterior Alteration and the
Conditional Use Permit memos, the deck and walkway
will affect the public enjoyment of Mill Creek.
III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
There is one element of the Vail Village Plan that is
directly related to this proposal, Policy 3.4.1., which
reads:
"Physical improvements to pro~~erty adjacent to stream
tracts should not further restrict public access."
The proposed dining deck would limit the space available for
a public walkway along Mill Creek to 3'6". This is an
unacceptable width for what will vne day become a
significant pedestrian corridor.
IV. FINDINGS
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
B. That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the same
site of the variance that do not apply generally
to other properties in the same zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant
of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATT_ON
Staff recommendation for the site coverage variance request
is denial. The design of these improvements will have
direct impacts on the area surrounding these proposed
improvements. The Staff encourages the applicant's to
consider design changes to this element of the proposal.
. '
~f
r~~
~r rev.,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
March 19, 1990
SUBJECT: A request to construct an outdoor dining patio at the
Red Lion Building.
Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL REOUESTED
This outdoor dining patio is proposed for the Red Lion
Restaurant on the east side of the building directly
adjacent to Mill Creek. The proposed deck encompasses 237
square feet,. 101 square feet of which are located on Town of
Vail land. The applicants have received permission from the
Council to include Town land as a part of the request before
the Planning Commission.
"Rekord" type folding doors will be installed on the
building to allow the existing dining room to open onto the
dining deck. A 3'6" public walkway is also proposed between
the deck and Mill Creek.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
Commercial Core I outlines 7 specific criteria to be used in
evaluating conditional use requests. These include the
following:
A. Affects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I
District.
This proposal should not appreciably increase vehicular
traffic in Commercial Core I.
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I.
This proposal should not appreciably reduce vehicular
traffic in Commercial Core I.
C. Reduction of non-essential off-street Darkina.
Not Applicable.
D. Control of delivery pick-up and service vehicles.
The area for the proposed dining deck is connected to
Hanson Ranch Road by an existing pedestrian walkway.
Directly adjacent to this walkway is a Town of Vail
loading zone. This loading zone will remain unchanged
by this proposal.
' T
As proposed, trash dumpsters for the entire Red Lion
Building are located next to the proposed dining deck.
The physical relationship between these two uses is
certainly not compatible. However, trash pick-up in
the Village has traditionally occurred during the
morning hours prior to restaurant openings. This
situation is unfortunate, but the nature of the Village
is such that there are no "back doors" to provide for
these operations.
E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians
As stated, 101 feet of this deck is proposed for Town
of Vail land. This has limited the width of the
proposed pedestrian walkway to 3'6". Staff feels
strongly that this width is inadequate for what will
one day be a major pedestrian walkway.
The redevelopment of the A & D building began the
development of a public walkway along Mill Creek. The
continuation of the walkway along the Red Lion Property
would leave only the Rucksack property as the missing
link in establishing this corridor. While the staff is
supportive of the dining activity in this area, the
existing building and the Mill Creek flood plain
seriously confine the space available for these two
uses. An acceptable width for this public walkway
would be between 6 and 8 feet.
F. Continuance of the various commercial residential and
public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to
maintain the existinq character of the area.
The introduction of dining activity, and creating
access to Mill Creek in this area, is positive. It is
a goal of the Vail Village Plan to establish more
pedestrian activity in the Mill Creek area. The two
ways to accomplish this are to increase retail and
commercial activity in conjunction with improved
pedestrian circulation. While this proposal is a step
in the right direction, it is in need of further
refinement in order to accomplish both of these
objectives.
G. Control ouality of construction, architectural design
and landscape design in Commercial Core I so as to
maintain the existing character of the area.
Current plans indicate existing trees will be relocated
in the MI11 Creek area. This may or may not be
appropriate depending on the final design of this area.
If this element of the application is to proceed,
additional detail and refinement will be necessary in
order to design an appropriate deck and walkway while
respecting the features of Mill Creek.
..
. ,r t ..
LY
1
III. i~'nFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this conditional use permit is denial.
While this concept is desirable, the design proposed is not
responsive to the needs and requirements of a public walkway.
Space is confined, however, it is possible to accommodate both of
these activities as a part of this design process. Please refer
to the exterior alteration memo for additional comment on this
element of the proposal.
~.
F' TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 9, 1990
RE: A request for an exterior
additions to the Red Lion
Applicant: Frankie Tang
alteration in order to make
Building.
and the Landmark Properties.
This application was last considered by the Planning Commission
on March 19, 1990., At that meeting, this request was tabled by
the applicant in order to allow them the opportunity to respond
to issues and concerns raised by both the staff and the Planning
Commission. A number of changes have been made to this proposal
over the past three weeks. This memorandum will outline the
staff's response to these changes.
A StTMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES
Based on input received during the March 19th meeting, the
following items highlight the major areas of concern relative to
this proposal.
Dinins Deck Enclosure alonci Bridge Street
As proposed, this element of the project has remained
unchanged and would enclose an additional 100 s.f. of dining
deck along Bridge Street. The staff remains strongly
opposed to this element of the proposal. To allow for the
continued enclosure of this dining area is contrary to the
fundamental goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan in the
Village.
While there are positive aspects of installing the rekord
doors on the walls of the existing restaurant area, this
door system cannot justify the continued enclosure of this
dining deck. In every case where rekord doors have been
installed to restaurants in the Village, legitimate outdoor
dining area has remained in front of the enclosure.
Operable doors do open up the interior space to the street,
but they do not duplicate the vitality of outdoor dining.
along Bridge Street.
One additional factor to be considered is the enclosure's
relationship to the adjacent pocket park. This portion of
the building will create an uncomfortable sense of enclosure
in the pocket park and cast increased shadow pattern in this
area.
rtr
The use restriction on Red Lion windows
The 1982 approval that permitted the original Red Lion deck
enclosure required that the windows be removed between June
15 through September 15. This condition was applied to
ensure that the deck remain open during the summer months.
The staff would recommend that this condition be modified to
allow the Red Lion to close up the windows during non-
business hours during the summer hours. Little has changed
with this space to justify modifying this condition of
approval. Given the existing solid roof enclosure over this
dining deck, requiring the windows to be open is the minimum
that can be done to replicate the experience of outdoor
dining.
Transparency
Considerable changes have been made to the fenestration on
the upper levels of this building. A major improvement is
that all windows on stucco wall plans will be recessed 3-4".
The current proposal is now much more consistent with the
Urban Design Guidelines. As was stated in the previous
memo, this design element is typically the purview of the
Design Review Board, and any final approvals concerning
window treatments will be made by the DRB. Given the
changes that have been made, the staff would recommend the
final decisions pertaining to fenestration be dealt with at
the Design Review Board level.
Entry to Bridge Street Condominium
Concerns were raised regarding the proposed condominium
entry that impacted an existing planter adjacent the pocket
park. While the original design has been modified, the
revised entry still affects the existing planter area.
Maintaining the existing stairway to this condominium would
have no affect on the planter area. Staff would recommend
that this alternative be used in lieu of the current
proposal.
Restaurant Vents
The proposed venting solution will consolidate the three
vents that serve the-two restaurants in the building. The
duct system will be totally enclosed and the fans themselves
will be screened with siding to match the building. The
fans will be located approximately 10' above their existing
location. This location should help the dispersal of odors
emitted from these fans.
,ter
n:: ~-
~•,, _.
`s
.f
Views from the Rucksack Buildinq
A number of Commissioners encouraged the applicants to study
design alternatives that would reduce the view impact of
this proposal on the Rucksack building. The applicants have
responded by pulling back the east face of the building
between 8 and 9 feet directly adjacent to the Rucksack
property. This design change will lessen the view impact of
this proposal on the Rucksack Building.
Roof Forms
Very positive changes to the building mass and roof form
have been made on the south-east side of the building. This
design change consolidates the building mass and entirely
eliminates one roof plane. This has reduced what the staff
has considered to be a "busy" roof form. Portions of the
west elevation will still have a "stair-stepped/wedding
cake" type of look. However, the staff feels this is
acceptable given the many design parameters that have had to
be addressed as a part of the design process.
Dining Deck/Walkway along Mill Creek
A number of changes have been made to this element of the
proposal. The dining deck has been significantly reduced in
size and is located entirely on Red Lion property. The
proposed walkway along the stream has been deleted, however
nothing is proposed that would prevent this walkway from
being constructed at a later date. The existing pine trees
along the back side of the Red Lion will remain in their
current location. In lieu of the walkway, the applicants
have proposed an informal open area in between the dining
deck and the stream. This should provide a small, but
pleasant informal seating area along the creek that can be
accessed from the existing sidewalk on the east side of the
building.
The staff remains a strong supporter of a walkway along this
side of Mill Creek. However, we understand the difficulty
in developing this portion of the walk without a design
solution behind the Rucksack property. The staff considers
this proposal a very positive improvement for this area.
The rekord doors and outdoor dining will still provide
activity along t:e creek, and the design does not preclude
the development of a walkway in the future.
Restrictions on Remaining GRFA
At the March 19 meeting the applicant offered to place
restrictions on the property that would prohibit the
development of any additional GRFA beyond what is approved
by this plan. While the staff had not contemplated imposing
this restriction, they would certainly be willing to work
with the applicant to facilitate this restriction.
Amendments to View Corridor No. 1
As stated in the March 19 memorandums, the staff supports
proposed modifications to View Corridor No. 1. After
evaluating the wording of the Ordinance and the other four
view corridors, staff feels the most prudent way to
facilitate this amendment is to adjust the line on the
photograph that depicts View Corridor No. 1. To modify the
wording in the Ordinance would create further complications
that may threaten the integrity and interpretation of other
View Corridors. Simply resurveying the line to run directly
over the top of the new Red Lion roof ridge (this line would
still be below the existing Golden Peak House roof ridge),
appears to be the most appropriate way to modify this
corridor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Located on Bridge Street in the heart of Vail Village, the
redevelopment of the Red Lion Building is certainly one of the
most high profile projects to be proposed in the Village over the
past decade. Numerous issues and concerns have been discussed by
the staff and Planning Commission in response to this
application. Many positive modifications to the design have been
made in response to these concerns, and the staff is now
supportive of the proposed design that is before the Planning
Commission. Our support, however, is predicated on two changes.
These included:
1. The deletion of the 100 s.f. of additional deck
enclosure along Bridge Street.
2. Further modification to the entryway to the
condominium along Bridge Street.
With these changes, the staff would recommend approval of this
exterior alteration. The staff would also recommend the
following conditions of approval:
v t
4~;-:f `-- ..
1. The proposed landscape/streetscape treatment along
the south side of the building is considered
conceptual. The applicants agree to work with
Winston and Associates and the staff during the
development of the Vail Village streetscape plan
and will agree to modify this design as necessary
in order to comply with the Vail Village
streetscape Plan.
2. The rekord doors (or other type of window system
installed) to the Red Lion Restaurant along Bridge
Street shall remain totally open during business
hours between June 15 and September 15 of each
year. These windows may be opened at any other
time during the year at the discretion of the
restaurant management.
3. The applicants shall be responsible for all
improvements shown to the Town of Vail stream
track between Mill Creek and the Red Lion
Building. The final design in this area shall be
subject to a review and approval by the Design
Review Board and Town staff.
4. The applicants shall be responsible for re-
photographing and resurveying view corridor #1
after the building ridge has been erected. this
work shall be coordinated with the Community
Development staff and shall be completed prior to
the issuance of a temporary certificate of
occupancy.
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 9, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a stream setback variance in order to
construct an addition to the Red Lion building.
Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
The 30 foot stream setback is measured from the center line
of Mill Creek. The existing Red Lion building is located
within this 30 foot setback (encroachments range from one to
eighteen feet. Proposed improvements within the required
stream setback are limited to a small addition to the
building. The building addition adds between one to five
feet of encroachment.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community
Development recommends approval of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
Stream setbacks have been established to ensure
buffers between buildings and stream tracts.
However, the expansion is a minor one and the
building is already located within the stream
setback. The building addition will not impact
existing or potential uses in this area.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of a
specified rectulation is necessary to achieve_
compatibility and uniformity of treatment amonct
sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives
of this title without ctrant of special ~rivileQe.
The proposed building expansion is a part of a
redesigned entry to an upper Level condominium.
The degree of encroachment ranges from one to five
feet, and accommodates an entry vestibule, ski
storage lockers, and a small portion of a proposed
elevator. Given the existing location of the
building, the relatively minor encroachment, and
the recently approved A & D redevelopment, this
request would not be a grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and
air, distribution of copulation, transcortation
and traffic facilities, cublic facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
This building expansion would not affect any of
the above considerations.
III. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
Sub area 3.8 in the Vail Village Master Plan encourages the
development of a stream walk in this area. The building
expansion would not preclude the development of this walk.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance:
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
B. That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the same
site of the variance that do not apply generally
to other properties in the same zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant
of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request is approval. The
slight building expansion will have no appreciable affects
and is not considered a special privilege.
~~
~z.
~~
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 9, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance in order to
construct an addition to the Red Lion building.
Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REOUESTED
Permitted coverage in Commercial Core I is 80~ of the lot
area. In Commercial Core I, site coverage means "a portion
of a site covered by buildings, and ground level patios and
decks". Existing site coverage on the Red Lion lot is 83~.
This proposal will add site coverage in one area:
1. 50 square feet of building expansion along Mill
Creek.
Construction in this area will actually eliminate 27 sq. ft.
of existing site coverage, resulting in a net gain of 23 sq.
ft. of coverage.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community
Development recommends approval of the requested variance.
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity,.
The 50 square feet of additional site coverage for
the building expansion is partly offset by a
deduction of 27 feet of existing building in this
area. This small amount of new building will not
impact adjacent uses or activities in the area.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of a
specified rectulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob-iectives
of this title without grant of special privilege.
The site coverage variance is a net increase of 23
square feet with no appreciable impacts. While
there is no apparent physical hardship to warrant
this request, the .2 g increase in site coverage
is certainly negligible.
.~
3. The effect of the rectuested variance on light and
air distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
There are no affects on any of the considerations
listed above.
III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
There is one element of the Vail Village Plan that is
directly related to this proposal, Policy 3.4.1., which
reads:
"Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream
tracts should not further restrict public access."
This design would not restrict pedestrian access to this
side of the Mill Cree stream tract.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance-
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
B. That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in
tree vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the same
site of the variance that do not apply generally
to other properties in the same zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant
of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
~`..,.
_.
c.~~:-
~~
Et
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for the site coverage variance request
is approval. The proposed expansion will have no negative
impacts on the surrounding area and the amount of increase
is negligible.
~.:
:~
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 9, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an
outdoor dining patio at the Red Lion Building.
Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL REQUESTED
This outdoor dining patio is proposed for the Red Lion
Restaurant on the east side of the building directly
adjacent to Mill Creek. The proposed deck encompasses
approximately 100 square feet and is located entirely on Red
Lion land.
"Rekord" type folding doors will be installed on the
building to allow the existing dining room to open onto the
dining deck. The deck will be accessed by an existing
walkway from Hanson Ranch Road.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
Commercial Core I outlines 7 specific criteria to be used in
evaluating conditional use requests. These include the
following:
A. Affects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I
District.
This proposal should not appreciably increase vehicular
traffic in Commercial Core I.
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I.
This proposal should not appreciably reduce vehicular
traffic in Commercial Core I.
C. Reduction of non-essential off-street marking.
Not Applicable.
.~
,.
D. Control of delivery wick-uA and service vehicles
The area for the proposed dining deck is connected to
Hanson Ranch Road by an existing pedestrian walkway.
Directly adjacent to this walkway is a Town of Vail
loading zone. This loading zone will remain unchanged
by this proposal.
As proposed, trash dumpsters for the entire Red Lion
Building are located next to the proposed dining deck.
The physical relationship between these two uses is
certainly not compatible. However, trash pick-up in
the Village has traditionally occurred during the
morning hours prior to restaurant openings. This
situation is unfortunate, but the nature of the Village
is such that there are no "back doors" to provide for
these operations.
E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians.
Improvements along the stream and adjacent to the deck
will be accessible to the public. This area will
provide a small, but pleasant informal seating area
along Mill Creek. Staff would encourage the placement
of a bench or large boulders in this area for public
seating.
F. Continuance of the various commercial,_residential and
public uses in Commercial Core I District so as t_o
maintain the existing character of the area.
The proposal will strengthen the pedestrian character
of the Village. The proposal does not include the
development of a streamwalk, but nothing in this
proposal would prevent the future development of this
walk. The staff still supports the concept of this
walk, but does recognize the site constraints involved
in "connecting" this area with the A & D building
segment. This proposal is a good interim solution
until a design for the entire length of the walk can be
developed.
G. Control duality of construction architectural desian
and la-~dscace desian in Commercial Core I so as to
maintain the existina character of the area.
This criteria is addressed in the exterior alteration
memorandum.
-,
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this conditional use permit is approval.
"opening" the restaurant up to the creek with this dining deck is
a positive step towards improving pedestrian activity in the Mill
Creek area. The informal landscape treatment along the creek
will increase public access in this area.
i 1~''7E~M! ~ _ f.~s~~ '71.. "~. ~'R I'~ dr .o-.~~'dt~+r$~+'~at+1i?. ....=: bn~. '. ~
~ ~~,i
~. ~_.~.
ORDINANCE NO. 16
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13, SERIES OF 1983, IN
ORDER TO MODIFY VIEW CORRIDOR NO. 1; AND SETTING
FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the
preservation of certain view corridors is essential to protect
and preserve the unique mountain character of Vail; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1983 formally adopted
four view corridors; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1983 recognized that
circumstances affecting view corridors may change necessitating
the review and if necessary, the revision of view corridors; and
WHEREAS, the redevelopment of the Red Lion Building has been
proposed and said redevelopment is consistent with the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan and with permitted Commercial
Core I building height limits; and
WHEREAS, the highest ridge of the redevelopment of the Red
Lion building will encroach into View Corridor No. 1; and
WHEREAS, the encroachment of the Red Lion Building will
remain below the ridge line of the existing Golden Peak House and
will not alter views of Vail Mountain or other focal points
within Vail Village;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
The surveyed line delineating View Corridor No. 1 shall be
amended to be redrawn directly above the ridge line of the
redeveloped Red Lion Building as depicted in plans by Morter
Architects, dated April 3, 1990. The realignment of this line
shall be limited to the precise location of the Red Lion ridge;
all other points of the line delineating View Corridor No. 1
shall remain unchanged.
Section 2.
The owners and/or developers of the Red Lion redevelopment shall
fund and complete the modifications of View Corridor No. 1. This
work shall include, but not be limited to resurveying the line
depicting View Corridor No. 1 and rephotographing View Corridor
No. 1. This work shall be completed after the highest ridge line
of the Red Lion Building is constructed, and completed before the
issuance of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Section 3.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would
have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that
any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses
or phrases by declared invalid.
Section 4.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and
welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof.
Section 5.
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.
2
Section 6.
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
April , 1990, and a pub
Ordinance on the 17th day of
in the Council Chambers of the
Colorado.
Ordered published in full this
FIRST READING THIS 17th day of
Lic hearing shall be held on this
April , 1990 at 7:30 p.m.
Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
17th day of April , 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
#~
.. V 3<
,t
r ~~~ ~, ~
~"~~x' ' ',;~'"
,,: ~ ~,
c~
1
1~~y~J
Q~
~,~:+~
~%ail Town Council
Vail Iirrlunicipal Building
Vail, CU. 81 h 57
~rlartin J. A~Iutlally
2Sfi Bridge Street
Vail, CO. 8165
April 1 ti. 1 X90
Dear Sirs,
I un filing an appeal to request that the Council fully review the decision of
the Fsannil^g and En:Tircnmental Committee regarding the remodeling of the Red
Licn Building.
~'4larti~l J ~iullally
Yvanne ~r1u11a1:~T l
/~
raiartin J.1~Iullall;r, I~~i.D.
~~~, BI'id~fe ~tre~t
V
ail, Co. 81 ~ 5~ 7
Th{~~ma. I. ~`.einber`;, I~;~i.D.
1 c~ 1 jaT .1~ti ~=:~ S;n*,~ Ir+r .
~a~r~l 1 ~, 1 y~au
T ~~'' ~!'fyi' }i~': 1 r. r..?T-. i`i ~y~ D i ~~~ /t f. 7 n ~ ~ n} v e.,~ ~ T
1 1~~1.': C ii .. i21 t1a~s tl~'t,.~.r 1•• 'Cl~ •.I 5..110 1.11-~;~Ci a. V~la.~~lil:~ :~1 ~•rll~.-~.. :rl.~i~' ~. il.f rlltlaa~!
n `+~4Y~ Iyi1'~ T' • `` ~-t}~YS• ~~t *1f7 { 1 ~ ~V~ }y,1r TTY':°.t ~•}y r~,f1 Y.#}y, r. ~.1~ ~ i11 ~„"
; -a ~. r~v a . L (.; ~,l ~1 al ~, C~.llw a a~;rll 'a '1 Wll:r ~ ~_~ I •:: t•L•C'11 ..1 li 411 • ~K.larlln~ +:.u :}
..n +' .1 -~i1Ti1~11 i~~.l S~~~iTir1'il:_fJi"t Ii1:?~'t2nTMO Gf t1i v' TV vVTi ~?f ~! ~ 11. I attx:nd5?d the=~ '
ty. c~ , rrc~ ;_f ~-•- ,~f :? F 11 `.,;?r ralSin~ ~~I the Pef~ I.it`;l 81111diP_~ r~:ti''•?~, ;rthich
111.: .~n,;, .ia11,:>v ~~. r~. ~ .~
?~7f~1t1f ::cc;rr~ri-:~ljzr t<~t:~11'* elirilin:~t? the tlr~k?~;+r,trt:.f~ 1 ~ti ~~enree jricL~r nt t~1e °Y1
:wrY_~.:~ri~:3 nl':;~i.ntaln~ jr~rlii~':l-! yt7.. ;'j;_;~:N ni~~l+%?ror~l ~?L'~r h~±nl?.
1 1:'ia~~ ~~c,~:~, ~..l.~ttt,.~,r tllY ~!•Ic2 7 the Flclri2lin~ :~Gnlrill:::~if~n iltiietttln-a'i~; r11~.~I r 3:eelllt~ll v
tli:• rC:Clt.1'-.~'2111Yw' LAY~":~t"'-i: I,+lallcl Ir+;,~'zlar~tli, t<l~ ti.~':ti'n ~'1aI12i~r~~, aui~ lIl tiiv ~::a;:.~ Gf tl~~
R~i.:3 ;,i~.~ri, _.`~:~:.rne~ j~;r Frter~ vn _tnd ar~vhite~~t jiLi I~vie~rt.~r. 'I~ie :~~~~..~;;~ ~-rtlrriti~::~n~d
~....~,:1~ ill F.._.11: ln`, i:.:~nanil.,~i~1n mlePtin`,; ar ~?<':lr t0 funC~.15~n ~~ One ~ic-_, h.aj:',r,;•
far~:il;?. Th~:~ ar? nf} suk~~~ntitr? dilferen~;4~• in the=ir ~~~inians and r~nz ~~1~ t.~
'?Fr;? <:;~Ilni*~ <?~'i1n1<?n that the rr':,F,~~~~;~ ~rn~F?.~,te are "dine deals" T~Jh~n fir,:>r;,~,~;~t
~v- av -J ~: A
{tn~~3 thr Ir~1~=+.nnin~,f ~_amniis~i~~r1 i~ j~1~:t g~;,in~ ~nr~~lgh the ni~,tat~nfi tc5 n1~t1:Y e~r~r;T~.hin
legal. This T~,7~ fii'ue nest Gnl`* in tlid' ease 02 t}le Red Lien, ~llt also In tllc di~t:u~ien
c~i ether pr~:,p~~e{~ ~r5:.~jef.:.-t~ t?y the Flt~i'iniilb %vrslitiis~ii~ii ttlat I '~itne~sed
T•. .T.1. Tti/ r r r ~i ± h •-~{u~ ~ ~ ~ }T LT~~r T~ 1 i
iii 1ritE-'21:1~~?- ~ytt rlannin +v~~lti:Illa..1•.~ri m:-etarl7~. t11at I au, n:3ea te~~r i il....nc..
1 ('t^. i. F, } T. Tll't err n ~ t ,- ~ 1MfJ t. *'`(1lr. ..
DS n ..:.~.n, t~..: ~A vv'il ~ .. nn ~ ~ and e;,p Cla.l,~ Jima aY~Ort2r .:ll..i Ja;' Fete• . al :Y~.i
iIuL1'=:e~?t~2?~. :' h?r? i'~ 3 t~;,t.Zl lafvr f,2 ~ Fi-f,f~'ss:~:'I?~'l :~tt1tL't~Y w~~T all ~~rlevr~t~:,:: tc~r}tea
r4 ilk' i ~ 2c r?~. SF r~flYt ~1y1 -]t? i?~"i7l ri~~~:i?I"iJi'~ ~~? ~i] T(ltftiTtr: hj ''Tali L-'1 i~i1
ut: ~:~.: e . l; ..r; imt.: ant j.. chat thy: ; a~'e 1.i.~ ... f t ~_ : Lt 5
Tilr;r ._<<:t:±.~ .~ :riut»a1 tr:3271iratii7rs s~elet~t W~'lt~ ::",cln~' sell-serviri~ ecm~~l~ents
~:ilir?~7 c~ile ,zilt~ther -~,ti_:~t a ~t~d joy they' all are dain~.
T~. .,r_`o __`..5 tom' Y it i ~ ~T i 5i ~ 2T ~~ ~ f" tit ail'
1li~:' :,a ~ ~~.•~:. ra t,l tl1C 1 1:~iCn b1 1_ib~.i ail~~ thc~ c.Ii"Illlctrl l~f its d:, •~t thr claiaa.L.,
+v~;;:Tlri1?_.~li:~ri ~~>+/5.111~,:~ I..Liat I att>Cnded ~vay S~ ~rrat that lt. ~'T~ta vit>~n ~..-1fli:'u~~., .~ ni:~t
i2T1~~~::s;~~lu'1-, ~.:.' (.:r~.--iii1 c' -r:'la'.' •r~"•~.v .r•'~;1Cti•C'111,1i ` vvh~, UC't ~~ niltSlin~ 5?1 'vYlicl: th~~.'
real i~st~.?~ ~S~ere. ~~/ strarlner ~~1k~n~Y into the ra::=etin,Y~ that I attenr~ed ThT~uld net
~• by t?
till' ~jJr?? ~~:~??•11 ti3 1+~F1':1'~ ~=.ti.~,'.: ~.f1 'it Z;i [? i] C >; -•~ c)1' lY rd:~ (~~? i
.. . - - - - - . 1- . - ._ th=:. _ ; F. ter can :~~as d.: t.: minin., r li : ; i ._~r the
Ir+lant Ir'vi1V~'aIi, ~~tS l,licl?r~~t~rc~t721 i~I t2ie F1aSlill2is +~OIfi2711s31~?il, rune. It lil a ;rert' 1:e;1 f'V-
lic:Ii;-~eCl ill~IL'1e. :%'~~ :_. -c 'it~f;' ii},i'rif:.~Lic~ lei' ilri' S' ~~ - r~lt;3 t~~ile f,;,j T1~e'il~'~•', ail:: G~f~f~~~-
~ lr, _lC r,!: ,ti:~ ': ~:'nl*? he~rtl~-i~inal?? t~~lerates -,r itieai in~,Ltt If+~n1 +:lt.l~:?n5 }t,h~tt t~i'
~,r;.`} ~r,,r1, ~,rr;,e<:t;; ad-: er~el;'~ affr<:t. Her attitude t~ vvarc~ the puk~lic in e~pre~.sing
their upir;ionti i2i ni~trl;T c:a~e~: Borders on ridicule Grid in~tut, eT'T~Ii t~'itYi long -
1 + _~v+t T 1~ YL~. L' Ir1 1 ~ ( Tr _ ^ Yr.. f; :1 } t ITT FN +~ 1
Stali:~li_ ;~'~i= :.t~ aai.w ~itlclIi..... ~ •,J~l• .Jf ail. .:,Pi~ app~'.ar, ~~: h~.. li.:.r aI.ind
slit~`..~`r 1 ` L`11'w 1. `:iC` - /' `~ " `~ ~ .~". TT ~ r ," ~ i ~i^, 1 -+~ .} r r } l • 'r
: t ~ .1.1 _'rl li; ~ .. f cri tef .;r , a pr ~p~4.._~ pr :~a -..:4 '~ V 1~-., ~}• ~'w 1
<.:In:~lfa~r•~ ~ 1u.
n~ i~*~r; Dt•:. +-, ;s ^ t1~•a 1~•~~ t'IC:. r~~.?ry1 cy t1 t"~[: G:::`i 17'= i~t:tt +t"
. _ .. ; .. ~:1::: r'_- •:aa _~.fY.. Ia a.ct a .:la : m~! ~t . --j- ~, Sur.. t.. ~.t. t.. nl+/_: _ .a?2y;_ -., 1/`yr.-. _1 fir:..
,~ r:? } 1: tai 1 i ~ it ~ 1_ '~ t ri11_,! 1 'a fi r. 111 r.` ~ ~. =~ c
-~nt:~ 'T1~:ISli 1. x:-111 Y1 Z :-+r i 'll~ r;;n ~ ~ ~1 t~1! ~r I~F!1~^~ ,~ f i _j • ~l'~. IT L.:
r',i SSI s~`1.;.. I n,•.i r t ~:itu ll~' ^'~ - l.h:J 1, Since the let, 2 C1? llle 1t ^J t}t t,~~-Iry '~ 1~J rZl. l:r-~ 1.11 .Lit:
:`
T~ T,T 1~T~' Y'.~! ~' T ~ 7T T 7 I11 ~ TT
Vt•§'ri 11~ r :ill vvaa Ili)t ~,1:•i• ~'Ii L.r.1ctC ari . 1 l r;.4 ..: Oi~a v, n~~t /vitll:::tandlI~r tYly' ,Tla~l;
TT^ r1'~ - ~ ~ TT TT -. TT - TT -. TT ~T
aria2ii,~s w:. ~ ~.:~.r~' u:~t t~~l; : i2i •.111 •: ~ti ~it:li e , ter; pr~je;:;t and are u;~uall 13 rar~tv`:~ in a
n~utin~ rr:~^nvr ~~ tr'ir ~•lanning ~ ommi.:sion. Fvrhap~- th= n_urse `_'f thr tlinniri
t~ommiw ion sl.ould be char.~ed to the "~'ommi::.sion to Grant ~Y ariance," inasmuch
a~ variance rA:~uevtr apt~ear to Granted as requested.
Re;;ardin~ '_:;e<::ifir_._t11y t,1ir Reti Lion e ~~pansion:
1. The Plariain~; ~-i;,~22irtii~:,ion rfieetin~ o2i isle Red Lion Project T'~Tere i7elt.i arl rely. ~f ,
~1 Y' ~ 4 1 I? Ir+ 1 A Y'~
~,I}}ri~li 1~}}, a:d a~.prii ~`, ci 1~+~+c?. The projrt Tau:, ap~:iwT e<i .~t th~ l~i~iil {^ ~..~ti;n.
i .~ .i TT r ~ T..w. .. f TT r T J T i~'.~.
~~, lri ~i F`e::=.P.. `.,~ or~l~ ,~iG 7Y~C1:~, a zT~'ry major prl~ject aflal.:tin~ mangy peon=~:.
ie~i•.~, -st tnli~lit and n: ~ tur:?.l li` ht, to say ncthir.`},,of the e~*~: emel;, si~nificClnt il^:pact
~ 1 T;; r 1 4 TT~ T AL. ~1Si'h• ~ t'1 unh acid
r.`•i ~ na:~.~ •_ lt. n'•; {'~ h1r i iJu~it.41n y, 12i thc~ CF-^+rT,7 cenU^r ~JI J ~ il• 7;F,'_t ~ a ,~y~~ ..yya..,, `~ may, a
:Ir,r--, r'.r?E;(y 1'-,q t)l-+ 7'^'~ T y1 in17 ~Yil t ~•_ (1 *'?7 f ~.t 2'~Iri f.~` I.aY
_:~_, r : : :..r ,: , .~_ I':aalla:_:`, : n12r.i~.~i. r. In r3 ire: ,, .dui::: a ..:~._'t ril:~nn ~:: .
~. ~lajrT:lirll2`s~ 1=r~~rr-*:+0*.::71er::j.- Y4ere n~.lt i1~~~.121e1:~. I k•rleT,~~ nl::ltiiin~ of the j=r~je<:t until
a ~-' ~ Y`r Wl~ ~ =vi11yY`•: 4~.r LSI f'1~?l .~ 1.~~: alti' jlrJ L•`~i t+~l vl R v' i ~~`v'll T 1:11 f _t+• ~ C' rl ,~ 1 YTT
.'=t . !_ i t . ~i i. 1 1 ;~f ~: tIl+'t_tl ~•
t }1 ., . ~t
•~i11•.: IiSA`•~~ .-_ Ivl`:',r`Ii lr : ~i2 ~\i J }i~1 ~t MJ. ~ T 1t T T i 1 • ~ 1ya~.•1 ~ ~ l4f tv 1 tXi~i T 1 : j
+~ t t;, i.i To +r21 ~:f ~ c 1 . 1'i,. of _ _ , p..' ;,1~'ii.`_-Cti
~.r=1 `-.Il ~"•: l- :,'t.= ~'ti=.: _'•.r Ar',,' :' a ~v=) 1 -~ +,;' Jrl F=` rtt';: t 1 :Yl l:~ ~ ~I y!: '.
th Fs nl ins . mmis._i Jn, t<; ~ s t-ti2ri 1.:ir1:t _
T.T ..L. .~ T.T.. 1..1 1w ..:. ~ T~ TT + MrT ,,7 r ni ..~ ni.+1 M ~
e (~ li= i 1 t ~i= ~ `" ~ rl+ t ~ ivirC.'~ I./ •. tht' ,CCU L1tln it+Jj!'i.,,l ~.1„Ljj
J -~ vv n :, ii.. ;'s •1 ~.t~a ~.:. . r~.' ~.e v e 1 v 1221 '%I 1' _ :17.•.:
r ~ i
S'1t~~' s+P1 +~i~.*itir,;`1 C ill,^,f,J Y1~ C , e ilr`. :% ..1. f. 1~i.'1i i;-
,..1: e. ...:-..:a:.:..r. hi_. t1Y ...~ in ,..Fit f th~ Iact that th~. :u::~=a. r.. :1_ :=..+any 1~:
rTr r; 1 i? t'll t2c?(`rt.:~ i1 c: ::.(~ T rl 1! 17 r~ :. 1?~'?l +1 ` i>+ '~ r'1 ,1i1~ _r' ~'f 1? r}
ph, i a 1 ::.n .: .r t. th.: ..: _ a.i n huil~.Tin;~ an._r th:: 5::~.:._i.:a2 t.n... r~:: al~:."1;~ i
tai:: ~,e1:~ Li~~r, i~ oni;r :+ fe~,~ feet from ~(~llrrr ~~e livt~_
3. Jay Peter~::~2i Stated that ttie t~T,N2'ie2''S a~SSO~riation of the hIill Grc".k Court Bttildin~,,
im22iediL~t:l^ tcl tt7e sUtith of the Red Lion a21d another huildinti ~.~'~'erely ir~ipactvd
bf tl`ie ne~~,, ti.-d Lion, had approved the prl~=ject. This' is nothin but z blattiRnt li?.
The otrvTner~ of the units in the ~•iill ~:~reelt Building YaTere, a~ of ~ pril '?, 1!~~?G, not
even notified of th? proj~:t and td this day most of them are n{Jt e~7en a'~Ta2'e of the
pro~;~~se<:i rai~n~ of tl,e Re.~ Lien Building. The same can he said for all of the other
living ~.n~a ~~~?~mer~:ial units iri the core of 4'ail ad Y'YrSely affected ~y the proje~:t.
4. The arcliit`~ctural eie Y atican_. mere put up on Jan. ~ 2, 1 ~+<?~ and takers doT~(~rl Jan.
5, 1 ~~~). nurin_ this t:niv iii:,= one from tllr Tci~v7i c`f tr ali ~'ir~~*ed tlieni fr~:IL""i our
lit?ins l~ua; <.::.
~. F~.Lt~" llirrribers cif th~'Mail Tc~T~rrl Council brieflp vie'~r~~~i t~;iY rle'7ati~~2i~. i72i pril
1C~, 1~~~ iir11 r fr~~Yli ULli" detiY. Ttlcl dId nrJt Cvrii~ Intii iitll' 11"ln',~ r.~Uai'te:'; 's~r~iwre t21
11.,'t~ ~ 'J iJ'tru!. liG1~ ~~ i .,'.:. ?~:: TT T ~-ir r ~ 1t~=
} 1„ =~ v T.:~ ~~ n dramatically ~Ycr~ In a~~!.~lti'_~n, bec~. _~ the
elecation~ had been up f<;'r ~eT?veal ~~a~T:~, the m~~.t important r~ne~ hack been big tiY~n
dc~rn b;t the ;alind; thus nit gi~rin~ a true picturA of the se~rere a~.zrertie impact cn
the Rucksack buildin
h. jim rvlor`~r, the archi r'::t pushing ttl~: Red Lill e~':pallsic'n, has said t'lat it dc~s
:iC't reati'f' tfI~ct uc:. iliii I,flr,:'rter Yia: rle'fN2" born in oLlr 'au~ttrrs. H'~T,Y t+,~c't_il~i he
krtc'T.~~? P1~itxi~r 11a3 ja' ~etvr:~':~rt. Unf'~rturiatvlr ,tile sii'vk; uiadel~ G'f tliw prc'j~;t
that titt.' j ~h'TiY' 3t ~.ilv' Fl~:..ririlrt^ t`~:'nlml~c•ltiln meet.,li"1~~ ~t~ n~~t ~riL'vv' itt' rIIvllntt:ln5
J
;1115-} •~_ii~ t.~i~t i~~Y 1jiJ S Y 1.I't1l 1-• tj Jt 1 ~`~+~ Tf r~~~a .mot- ~~.Vht ZY`~
. t 1 , 1 :3n ~ the ;, tl, diminilt - a .:l nli j..a .~....~ natural
1 j ,-r i~ +
.~~_- L.
1~? i.Y:w i iY i"i::C: ~i irt'i:: ~.j 11 'l. ~T i } -. i - }- -
:~.: _.1 ~:.rit.. t::.: ,f.:. _ t: ~..:1. Jran.~'_i, 1r1~;1L1';lill`-, _t rrt'':'~:ilfk~ati~v'n ~;~I s ,~,. rr~;,.iry
T T' ' T Y1
71e'a? l.c'rrld~:'?" I'1~:'. 1. ti:.' ~.c~:~ii!'::'i~~i.t: • tl'i~ jlr; *•,:;T 1Ti, V•tX Ll'~'n i~uiltiiln!Y hr~~j G2' ?a i ~~Iit:ES
V~
~; ;~}- s,Ycr; T T:.-; e r.~ ,. ._,e:a ;~ lrlatt~r ~f 4~tr-~-'. Litt1:. - - };:..•i '•~•~tc: ~Yi'7e11
~ ~:t as t~:v _• Yv r ju,:.. ~:a~;_ ... a.. ..~r ~ ;r'n~:i':irr:<<~~~.
J
~..
1T.
,' • ~ .iLl:~. liiaL~;:, v~f tlir ~iI ~,~"::':cad ~d Llv''Ii adi~ltlt:'rt ;il':-kiilti Llp ili ~i'~ ';:~:itr ':rf +r'ail
?'itTll~l '.~ htlli'.~il !"~ ~ iY~f }• ~„ ~ ~.j~ ` ~ r` r~l tYT~. f~iV. ~:~t T- rTT~ T~~~t'
..:i_:. ~rt..u~.~r.a_ f t~~t~ri .t`: ~-_t.• • ju,:.4 z ,.~ ~.: t a . -.r. ~ rr .~
(1 a~:t-':~'-.h {.1 th~"', t~ru'J tr'Sr~.,'~. i~ -.~. l - 1'~ l ~A ~Y l~titt~ cc ~vl ~N t ~-re th~:a
_~t- r n . n _,l~,r:..~3 Flallnin;, C< ~~ i~ ,i n m . t<n~.s, ..~_
RL'~i Lirn issue ~~TM~s• Iasi cn tll? agen~:ia. r~it :=ach'~f tYi'=1--? lii~stin~s pe<;'j 1':~ ha~~
1
gp?n~.tijrt tlfi to V(7ic;Q th~lr I/pr,~s~lti~.~n t~.~ t.~'2r R~ti Lh~n pr~~~.l.:t. ,fit t,h? ,~pr11 a nl~,:t1IIW
man; pe~.~c'le in opr.~;s~t~~n had shc't'vn up. The I~rd Licari pr~~ject ~~ nC't addressed
until r pert. and 'Yt'r~t~ apF~r{ave<:: at 10 prti. Aleei~lY:s tv say', mangy pee~~ie could nvt
sta;' until this late hi:'L1T' ~'ri:citl~~ ~}f prier C~mmlttmentS..~t alI thr~~ Iii-r%ili~~ the
late +~ime ;~f dis!:u~•~,ic'n rr=~tl;- rr'~u'~ed the cpp~~siti~~n ~ the Re~~ Li~:'n r~r':~ject. ~Tas
tale f.~.c± that the Re<~ Li~11 iS~ue 4r:'as al'vv~y'S last 4n the agenda cell;' coincidence Or
ultentsanal~? It made a tremend4t.~s impact on the opp~.'sitior.'s input. t;~ the pr~}jeet.
~. The Ruck~ck Est?i1~:tinG is a landmark in ~r'ail; iridred its tt1? c~nl'~ ori~~inal
building c'n R~ridge ;trret that has nit been remodeled. it. is the object ~f many'
photo~~raphs from the I~~iill Creek and Gore Creek Uri v r side by' tc}uri~.t`=. E~eirl~
}:;''11:".~; IIi the ii~~'~+tJ~r1T iif the r ~~~ Lii21 mill fiir~Vrl' ~ilIiilllatr~ this Unli~urli~~~.
Ii). F: _~;u=~ir i:J~n-~ ~.~ ~ ;..~ *- ~f the prono~pd Ret~ , , , ; -, y~~ ,,..,. T.w~j
~, the d.: ,..1 ,e. ,,. .. L:cn additicn, ..~1:..... ~~., °Yj1e
and m sell tc meet'Anth her. she e~~uest~?t:~ tom? Sl^'r a S~~CLL'17?nt ::tatin~ that shz
t~,~ul~ ?1117:in;t~ giz f:;?t. ref t}ia~2.`. ~ pal't':?I the nA~.~~ ad~:iit1~?n ~lll~:h T:iT''?t~l~
pre~~.*tr? c~?nl~ ~tii ~tittr 6i~~q, ''~I C*ol'.~rn Feak frOftl the C':~rn?r or 'at?r liTlnv, r~:~c?m if W?
4~t~Olll<:i .:ease i~u2' i}ppc'Sit..1Ln t~ ller project. ~j'E relllSEd ti? $1'~'ll the di;i;linlerit. She
e`;~~e.ttiall~. t:>ld us "t,~'1a;~li", and tii~tt Slie ~Vt~uld do wli~tte;?rr ..he ~varitea; y~rith no
~:~v'n~,idcratzc'ri ;+,~hat~Ge', er t<:' ~v~ur t~:'tal clinlination t:'i ~TirT:~~, stulli~_'ht, an'~ natural
light.
1 2. It is mT1 understanding that tape To~vri Council has caller: for the potential
t-: ~~ t r.-.. T r
p;:.~:.si:i,~ ~:i t'ise :.~.'.. I.i~•21 ~'i'J2c{;t at its ~i~'ril 1; , 1 ygt;~ meeting. ,e gain, YVh ~ the big
liL~ri rT ~~ r~ii-t',':1 a pr':';Y~:t':~f this sigrlifi'~ance ~tr~ci rr~_tgt..i~cle thr~~ugh in ;~ peri.~fi
+~ ~ Jr,T 1 • ` F'Eti.^'r • .. T+ !' (~ ^ i''r (r~.'J ^ : +JrG ~ r
;,=i ,..ni , .. e: . ~:a~ith m,~.n; hiohl;• ,~».. stivnahlC Fa .,....:ureJ tc ~..t it to tT.::
T''1~h.*na I~il f'Y"1) t~h r+.lY- T~« i r • ~T Vii' 4 r~ '- ~uil?T ~<<.I~T~'r~4'~ljj's~jjY(`tJ""-d ~~7 14
t `t u:.~,. 1 J J~.ut l• .~1. ~ji~` p .~p1C 9't11J ~3.rC ifl ~ ~ ~
f". ~.~t7c] rT T, T rr T 1 '~Y't if
~_ _... ~:'r.1. .T~r T re~: ctltt he3j d :3j': otlt 1t an~~ S~~r:I~? still h,~ t, e n ~ t hey., ~} ak~4t_ i t ~.t ~~.
?'~~ tre he~,t.'.jf rrv ~ni~~lle~:j!~e, there has been no ment~l~.''ri rJf lt. in the e2t~iier ~?il
~ J
pr~.per a~i<-.": ire•r:'}?22i the+?t <~IIlt:icti tAt~r'IIJinOrA.1C~'c. Lt?ntrr~.St th1S to tj3.a pur_~ji~: ~;o21;r;,~TPr~~~:
Z} Y Yr tji~ 1~1 ~~ IJu ll~~li~ N~ ST ~.r~ ~'T~CAS J 1..1~V.
'~ ~ ~~ TT 1. T1}}~~ p j ~ ~ }
1.:.. iilrCri'. ~, YY.t.a.a t.~hC Rt-`.1 I.1'.ln F1r:'~Cv4 n~Jt -:TTCu llt1Ct11 Y {t~~~1r'JV w'~ ~"T:"f., Thera iv
y~
mud+ll ~~'~1tL~i~~.+C iZj~ ~.'I ~C'T4Tpa al othFr buil!~ings ire t11 in~rea^inb therr hey; lt~ to
tie m._:~mum in Con~~ier':ial Core I of Vail, vdith conse{~~~e.^.tral neb?ti~e ~~~=a~tv on
~~i~=T~iT ~:orri{+~,'r i~Ir~. 1 an':~ n~~tvra.l ji~ht and sunlight in the rn~~t prominent part in
the Tozr,~n of ~Tai1. Po we really .nt high-rises in th? he:~rt of Vail?
I would like to think tjiLtt there are ethical con~:ider;~tions ui a governmental matter
irf thiti kul~~. TrioLr,~Fiy tT-~ j- it ctpp~ars that athics l1I t iiis %:~~e h~ v e taken ~. b~Cl~, ;eit tG
~:~~;:Y,~ien'~;r b{ certain pe':~pla for pro2ittzbilit?~, as thc~ L~~empt to push thr'.~ugh ?Ii
e~`xemely ~en.~ti,~e project in the very heart of do*fYTnto~-n Vail in a quicU and
':~uiYt manner. It. is c:bt7ious that the; a*e attem},~:n` to minimize public afi~.enton,
t~~hi~'h I :~SI~ ct~ra urn^~it j~~ jib c'~nsi'~ierabje if It ~a*cr~? pilt?ll<.' YnO~:tTj~~;7a nI the prnpnwr;
11:tIl -~Ti:'Ll ii>; yiiL'•.~ ~.I'!~~' =tI1'=:1 k:Ilti ~.olitil~::E'ratlt?I1 C)f ttllc~ iii;lttt'r.
~.irirerel?,
I~;.ar~~in j. A~itall?l1TT ~fi.yt.
If.:;. ~ vu li;i ~ e rti y perrnis~sion to copy this letter at pour discretion to w~i~~rraeTTer
~~~.'~ S~t'Clrl ap~.'i l.'prl~t~ .
~~ ~ls~ ~-~ a ~-~ c z w ~ to du ~, cr ~j y~~~ 1 ~/J io ~ r,~ S
Q~i . y e' Q. / ~UW~t S /q fv~e S rlq S `juf ~-e e`/
S~~tS ~-~e~ lhas~v~ ~
h u S /~fC ~lCjil~liK9 ~ p~,,,~H'1 ~1S1~7 ASSPc!
G ~ ~,~ p!~ Gf Jjl~, ~ CI l 940 G N ~ %f ~ S 11 r ~
~u w yr ~U ~ c i ~ o ~ /-~ (~y,- j y° y ~4 ~xa»~~ ~c
r~h~s~~ ~ -/~1 /pro -. J`S~ ~~U e,>{o~~ f1~,J
D YV p'G~ ~ ~ I.
0 ~ e ~ w1 ~ ~ ~i,~ S, ~~ JO ~i't~ IhJB~s/J w~/
eX~~p~1n~a ~ S~-rte ~ a y~ Gl~f ~1Pss Gti ~ oh J
~ ~ ~9~r ~ fi~~.7'oU
cl'~a~c~ a =~!~ .S. 1~uz~fc~
J~. Cn. Lox 1?~0
~UQiL, %'otoza.do 8168
April 9, 1990
To: The Planning Commission
Town of Vail
Vail, CO
From: Marge Burdick
P.O. Box 1268
Vail, CO 81658
I am writing concerning the proposed addition to:
The Red Lion Inn Apartment
304 Bridge Street, Vail, CO 81657
Mrs. Oscar Tang, owner
Morter Architects, architect
The blueprints and model were just shown to me and I was
told the GRFA of the proposed addition is 9,327 S.F., well
under the allowed 11,166.32 S.F. The massing is attrac-
tively done and has a graceful flow to it. There are
three units proposed in lieu of eight units allowed.
Frankie Tang has shown her usual good taste in design,
which pleased m e. My deep interest in this project stems
from the fact that Larry Burdick and I built the Red Lion
Inn in 1962, and that apartment was my home.
This plan brings a proud legend of a building back to lif e.
The present owner of the apartment and the lessees of the
restaurant seem to be working well with one another in the
corporate plan of the front of the restaurant and the new
expansion of the apartment.
It was brought to my attention that a small amount of
space on the front, northwest side of the building is
t
c'L~a¢9a~~f ~~. Lu,c~ic~t
J~. (~ . Lox 7250
ail, ~o~ozac~o fs165&
needed to be included in the covered patio. I understand
that need and hope you will be able to allow it. The
lessees will have a short time to recoup the loss of
funds expended for the improvements, due to the remaining
time in their lease. It is commendable to me that they
are willing to make so great a contribution to this plan.
Bridge Street was Vail's first street, our first block.
The Red Lion Inn was the first privately owned restaurant
and skiers from Vail and the world met there. It is part
of Vail's history and did not deserve .the shabby treat-
ment it has recieved since being sold. Now, this proposed
plan should bring Bridge Street the style it used to have
and if it is acceptable to you, T, for one, will be filled
with gratitude.
Sincerely,
Mar aret S. Burdicti
g
>a
~asthvf
Gramshammer, inc.
Te to p h o n e: 303 /476-5626
Pepi Gramshammer
Sheiks Gramshammer
April 9, 1990
Planning Commission
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
231 East Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
Vail has become a very successful ski resort. We're constantly working
to improve our town and mountain, and it is a wonderful place. Now is
a critical time for us, and we must take the right steps to maintain
the unique qualities of our town and control the growth of the Village
that everyone loves.
As many older buildings in Vail Village are remodeled, we must be
careful to maintain the scale on which the Village was originally
designed. The issue we're talking about today concerns the Red Lion's
request for variances to add two stories to their existing building,
which would almost double their square footage. If this is allowed to take
place, the precedent will be set for the expansion of other buildings,
which would add many, many square feet to the Village core. Where
does it stop when so many variances are granted upon request?
With increased density will come many negative impacts, in terms of
deliveries, parking and trash removal. These will be long term, not
temporary, problems. For so many years, the Village has been a
construction zone in the summer. Just when we thought all of the
construction was completed, we're starting again! And, let us
not forget that enormous increases in property taxes for all Vail
Village business owners will result from such expansion.
If the Red Lion construction project - with 4 stories - is approved,
other buildings will follow suit, and Bridge Street will be like a
shaft of high rises, with only a narrow walkway for foot traffic.
With increased deliveries, etc., if there's one car parked on Bridge
Street and another attempts to pass, there will be no room for
pedestrians.
I urge you to consider all of the implications of the Red Lion's
request carefully, so that our town can grow gracefully .and function
properly.
Sincerely,
` ~~~
'T`.'°
Pepi Gra::~.ar..:_:;r
f3r~ncJ~ss - Cadmus f~~c~l CsE~E~, Inc.
281 BRIDGE STREET • VAIL, COLORADO 81657
- April 13, 1990
Tc;wn Council Members
'own of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Cou~:cil riembers:
On behalf of the owners of the Bridge Street Building,
we are opposing the proposal under consideration to
raise the height of the REd Lion Building. A rough out-
line of the proposed str~acture has been erected on the
roof of the building, alerti.lg ,~s about the upcoming
project; however, no notice was ser_t to this Association.
The sending of such notic?s to :.eighbors is, I believe,
a requirement.
The Bridge Street Condor..inium ~.~~:,ciation is strongly
opposed to a~zy amen-9.xlE?~.t t;~.? *_ 7:•Y ~ be gr. anted to the
proponent wish retard to ciisruprior. of view corridors.
If variances cf this sort are granted new and in the
fu~Lure, tr.e village will :? only ~.~se its charm and
sunlight. If we rant see the mountains, we may as well
work in New York or Cr~icagc.~ .
t,7e urge the Council to deny any por-~iox: of this and
~uture proposals that contradict Vain Master Plan guide-
lines concerning building height and view corridors.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
BRIDGE STREET B CON SSOC.
b // ~
Craig Gra i~nd
CMG
REAL ESTATE (303) 476-1450 • DENVER TOLL FREE 893-3101
RESERVATIONS 1-800-222-VAIL • FAX (303) 476-3188
Martln Mullally
288 Bridge Street
v ail, CO 81657
hls. Kristan Prig
Director/Senior Planner of Community Development
Vail ~4unicipal Building
7 S S. Frontage Raad ~
Vail, CO 81657
P,e; Progosed raising of Red Lion building roof
Dear Ms. Pritz:
Feb. 14, 1990 ~ ~ ~ -
i •~M~~
~v.~~
I'~'
I have owned and lived at 288 Bridge Street in the upper levels of the
Rucksack Building for many years in the winter and also in recent years in the
summer. The Rucksack is lacated immediately north of the Red Lion Building;
indeed the Red Lion is within three feet of my home, directly between us and Fail
mountain.
Only recently, it has come to my attention that there is a movement underway
by the Tang's to enlarge the present, long-standing, one large condominium on the
upper Hoar of the Red Lion into three new units to sell on a speculation basis. {In
spite of the fact that ibis has been known by the Town of Vail for sometime and
that I live within three feet of the Red Lion, I received na official notice
whatsoeti er of the proposed action until Feb 12, 1990.)
This proposed enlargement will require very major renovations, including
raising the present high-point of the red Lion aver ten feet. In addition, there will
be another entirely new Red Lion roof Viand vertical supporting wally built only 21
feet from our home. This new roof and oval! will be otter ten feet high and is
directly between us and Vail mountain. as is the entire Red Lion roof. old and new.
Zfi'e mould have then in effect two much higher roofs Viand one new wall) an
the Red Lian. All of this greatly would greatly cut dog n on the sunlight and
natural light to our home and would give us the very definite effect of living in a
dark cave and loojring into a blank wall only 21 feet from our home.
Also, on the Bridge Street side of the Red Lion roof, a new five to sig feet wall
is to be built only seven feet from our bedroom which eliminates our view of the
south end of Bridge Street.
Fe-r all these years u-e had a panoramic view over the present Red Liun reef.
from ~~cli ease «l' GL>1Jcn Pewit, up Vail ?~Iuuntain tv Riti-a's Ricike, continuing to the
west o;-er the Vista Bul1i1, and then to a full View of Gia*;t Ster=, Inter~l~tio~.ai, o~i~
the sc;uth end of Br edge Street.
BY RAISING THE RQOF OF THE RED LION, THESE PRICELESS
MOUNTAIN VISTAS ARE TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, IOOX OBLITERATED.
I have been in Vail since it opened in 1962. I fully realize that in matters of
this type, seldom is anything black and white- especially in Vail. But if any-
situation approaches it, this is surely the one. The proposed raising of the Red
Lion roof does not diminish, decrease, or restrict our view of the mountain and ski
area to the south - IT TOTALLY WIPES IT OUP'.
The Tang's have very r.,~n~,er.ie?'.tly .!pft themselves a view mrrid;;r throug,'t
the proposed new Red Lion roof' so that their view to the east oi` the Gore Range is
preserved fron their condominium in the Plaza Lodge.
In the earl>- 135'=, a similar attentpi was made to raise the roof of the Red
Lion. The project ~-as rejected by the Town of Fail due to vigorous opposition by
m~~°self and other.
~'h?n tLe T2rg's cnntpi?ted their mndontinium on the t~~li floor al' the l;!aza
l:ocj;e ~n !'~~~`, this greatly decreased our view to the G-est. again, t.h~.~ u~as dr>z1e
v~Jithout any pritjr notification whats~teti°er to us by the Town of Vail.
Fi,ur years ago, t1-ie a & D building was constructed immediately tU the north
of us on the southeast corner of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Dri ~ c. Pre~•ious to
this, there wws a single story building there, and we had an unobstructed ~-ie~.- to
the north, including the Clock Tower, the mountains to the north, northeast, and
northwest, Bridge Street, and Gore Creek Drive. The A & D building has essentially
totally eliminated these views. The A & D building was bunt without any prior
notification to us whatsoever by the Town of Vail. This b-.~il:ling is actually built tc:
within 16 inches of our building, and its roof-line actually overhangs our building.
I hatie been advised that the A & D building is illegal according to the statutes of
the Town of Fail at the time it was built.
Enough is Enough? ~'"°n ~~e bought this residence 12 years ago, we had
unobstructed views to the north, south, east, and west. The north and west have
already been taken away. Now, for purely monetary gain by certain individuals,
the irreplaceable mountain view to the south is again beinK threatened.
It is impossible for me and my family to even begin to understand how the
Town of Vail could be so insensitive chat it would even seriously begin to consider
the proposal to raise the roof of the Red Lion wish all the adverse effects on us and
many others in the heart of Vail Village purely to satisfy the greed of a developer
when it does nothing else for the Town of Vail.
At this point I do not even like to think what totally blocking the mountain
view would do t~ the Rucksack and other property values in the area.
I vu can be sure that this blatantly selfish and totally insensitive proposal will
be fought by me and many others by whate~-er means is necessary to stop it.
Enclosed are photos taYen from our home when the architectural plans and
ele~~ations were put up on the Red Lion roof the week of tan. ??, 14~Q. The
pic;.ures are `e1-e~planatr~r-~~ in regard to what the prr,~,o:eci c~.-nstru~:Tic~n wc?uid c~a
to Dear sunlight. natural light, and view.
Thank-}~c;u fc~r your hind consideration of this matter.
Sincerer-, ~ ,
i'v(~~--I~~C~~~~~ ~
Martin Mullally
MMlmbtn
cc: lent Rose -mayor of Vail
Diana Donovan -Chairperson of Planning anti Envirinmental Commission.
Thomas de C:-~ene
Peter Jaffe -atty.
Ivei! G. Mullall}~ -atty.
kiembers of Vail Town Council
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: April 9, 1990
SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision and for a major
amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A,
Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley -
Phase III)
Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossem
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The applicants are requesting a major amendment to SDD No.
16 and a major subdivision for the Valley, Phase III, also
know as Elk Meadows. The requests will require two PEC
decisions:
1. The review of a preliminary plan for the major
subdivision request.
2. The review of the SDD amendment request. The
recommendation of the PEC on the SDD will be forwarded
to Town Council for final review.
The applicant's requests are summarized below:
1. The current proposal is for the subdivision of the 3.6
acre parcel into five building sites, or "envelopes".
The "envelopes" would range in size from 3,397 sq. ft.
to 6,141 sq. ft., and. each envelope would be allowed
one single-family dwelling, plus one employee-
restricted, rental unit as defined in Section V,B,2 of
this memo. At a minimum, one of the five lots will be
required to provide such a rental unit. The remainder
of the site would consist of 25,700 sq. ft. for roadway
and parking, and 2.5 acres to be dedicated as open
space.
2. The total Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)
designated for Phase III in The Valley is 16,000 sq.
ft. This would allow each dwelling unit within the
project a maximum of 3200 sq. ft of GRFA.
3. Access to Lots 1-4 would be via a private, 22' wide
common access drive off of Lionsridge Loop Road. This
road is currently roughed-in place. Access to Lot 5
would be from an individual driveway cut from
Lionsridge Loop Road. The individual driveway cut will
minimize the amount of asphalt paving in the open
meadow.
1
II.
The Valley project was originally designed as a planned
development of 150 units on 61.2 acres. On July 26, 1973,
the Eagle County Commissioners approved a preliminary plan
with a Planned Unit Development zone designation. The
approval of the preliminary plan was valid for three years.
In July of 1976 the original preliminary plan approval
expired. However, the Planned Unit Development zone
designation remained on The Valley. The zone designation
for Phase III allowed for 10 dwelling units and a total GRFA
of 16,000 square feet.
The developer was required to resubmit a sketch plan and
preliminary plan once the approval had expired. From the
Town's planning files, it appears that several requests to
extend the approvals of the preliminary plan were granted by
the County Commissioners. In March of 1980, the PUD plan
and protective covenants were filed with the County. Once
again, this document indicates that 10 units and a GRFA of
16,000 square feet exists for Phase III. In 1980, the West
Vail area was annexed to the Town of Vail. The Town
accepted the 10 unit and 16,000 GRFA as the allowed
development for Phase III of The Valley in March of 1981.
Subsequently, The Valley was de-annexed from the Town of
Vail and re-annexed in May of 1987. (Please see the
enclosed summary of events relating to The Valley Phase III
attached to this memo.)
The Town's information indicates that it is very clear that
Phase III is allowed 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000 square
feet. In 1981, the Town of Vail accepted the zoning of 10
units and 16,000 square feet of GRFA as the .development
standard for the property. Ordinance 13 of 1981
acknowledges the land use restrictions of 10 units and
16,000 square feet of GRFA but states that, "for any zoning
purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals,
agreements, or actions, the development of parcels of
properties specified in this subsection (E) shall be zoned
Residential Cluster." For this reason, the Special
Development District has been compared to the underlying
zone district of Residential Cluster which serves as a guide
for the development standards of this phase.
2
On July 7, 1987, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 19,
Series of 1987, which approved the development plan for SDD
No. 16, Elk Meadows. Nine dwelling units were approved.
On September 15, 1987, the Town Council approved Ordinance
No. 32, Series of 1987, which amended SDD No. 16 by reducing
the project's density to seven, single-family dwelling
units. All other aspects of the development remained the
same. However, the developer has failed to record a Final
Plat for the project.
III. EVALUATION OF CRITERIA FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION
The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in
Section 17.16.110 of the Town's Subdivision regulations and
are as follows:
"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."
A. Public Agency and Utility Company Reviews:
Notification has been mailed to the following
agencies, and as of this date no comments have
been received by the Town:
1. Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District.
2. Public Service Company of Colorado
3. Holy Cross Electric Association.
4. Mountain Bell.
5. Heritage Cablevision.
6. National Forest Service.
7. Comments from the Town of Vail Public Works,
Fire and Police Departments have been
incorporated into this memo.
3
B. Relationship of ProQosal to Town of Vail Policies:
Staff believes that the design of the subdivision
and the recommendations made in the environmental
impact report will create a project that meets the
intent of Vail's subdivision controls. The
.density is actually less than what was originally
approved for the site by five units.
The EIR states that the potential negative impacts
of the proposal include the "visual impacts and
impacts associated with the location of the site
within a rockfall hazard area" (see attached
rockfall study). Staff's opinion is that the
developer has designed a plan that protects the
open meadow area as much as possible, given the
high severity rockfall hazard and slope
constraints on the northern portion of the lot.
In addition, design guidelines are incorporated
into the SDD zoning which will "ensure
architectural and visual continuity with regard to
building design and materials."
The Public Works and Fire Departments have also
reviewed the request and the proposal meets their
standards as far as road design, drainage, fire
protection service and adequate fire truck turn-
around areas.
The staff finds that this proposal does meet the major
subdivision criteria and actually is a significant
improvement from the original sketch plan for Phase III
that was reviewed under the County in April of 1980, as
well as the existing SDD. The main area of improvement
is the preservation of the primary natural feature of
the site--the large, open meadow. This has been
accomplished by proposing the building sites on the
north side of the access road.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Staff did not require an additional environmental impact
report for the changes requested. We believe that the
proposed changes do not necessitate a revised EIR. This is
based on the fact that the proposed development plan is very
similar to the development plan addressed in the original
EIR, the overall project density has been reduced to 5
dwelling units, plus five optional employee units, and that
updated rockfall reports and drainage reports have been
included in the new submittal information.
4
V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW
A. Reasons for SDD Zonin
The proposed SDD allows for greater flexibility in the
development of the land than would be possible under the
underlying zoning of the property. In order to help
preserve the natural scenic features of this site, building
envelopes will be established which designate the areas upon
the site in which development will occur. The establishment
of these building envelopes will also permit the phasing of
the development to proceed according to each individual
owner's ability to construct a residence. Staff believes
that the SDD provides an appropriate development plan that
maintains the unique character of this site given the
difficult site constraints which have been addressed in the
overall design of the project. (Please see Section VI,
which relates the proposal to the underlying Residential
Cluster zone district.)
B. Design Standards
Section 18.40.080 of the Town's zoning code lists nine
development standards that a proposed SDD development plan
must comply with. The purpose of the review is to show how
the development meets the standards or to demonstrate that
either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a
practical solution consistent with the public interest has
been achieved. The design standards are listed below:
1. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment neighborhood and adjacent properties
relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height buffer zones identity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.
The proposed SDD is actually much improved in respect
to overall design and density of the project. Although
the general site layout is similar to the previous SDD,
the lot sizes are slightly larger than originally
proposed, and the density has been reduced from 7 units
down to 5 dwelling units. It should be noted that each
of the five dwelling units would have the ability to
add one employee, rental unit and that even if every
lot included an employee unit the project will not
exceed the 10 unit density maximum.
5
Previous
SDD
Lot 1 0.0647 Acres
Lot 2 0.0617 Acres
Lot 3 0.0534 Acres
Lot 4 0.0483 Acres
Lot 5 0.0929 Acres
Lot 6 0.0641 Acres
Lot 7 0..0498 Acres
0.4349 Acres
Proposed
SDD
0.095 Acres
0.089 Acres
0.078 Acres
0.093 Acres
0.141 Acres
0.496 Acres
The developer is also including specific architectural
guidelines for the SDD (see attached). The guidelines
have been reviewed by the Design Review Board and have
received conceptual approval. The design guidelines
will ensure consistency in the use of building
materials, roof forms, general colors and landscaping.
The northern property line of Phase III is
approximately 25 feet from the edge of the pavement of
Lionsridge Loop. Many of the existing trees in this
area will remain. However, approximately 2 dozen trees
will be removed. Staff's opinion is that this area
provides an adequate buffer on the northern portion of
the project. Phase I to the east provides access to
units directly off of Lionsridge Loop. Staff prefers
maintaining the public right-of-way in its natural
state, as opposed to having paved access and parking
areas adjacent to Lionsridge Loop. It should be noted
that this Special Development District will require
that no structure be located less than 3 feet from the
northern perimeter line of the building envelopes, nor
less than 2 feet from the east and west building
envelope perimeter lines.
On the east side of Phase III, the nearest building,
The Valley Condominiums, is 190 feet from the
easternmost building envelope.
On the west property lines for Phase III, approximately
25 feet of open space is maintained between the
building envelope and the western property line.
No lots or structures are proposed on the south
hillside of the project. This area is to be designated
as open space.
6
2.
uses and activity.
The proposed SDD amendments are essentially similar to
the previous SDD with regard to uses, activity and the
relationship with surrounding uses. The permitted uses
for Lots 1-5 are limited to single-family residential
dwellings, with an optional employee, rental unit and
customary accessory uses.
The major amendment to this SDD is the applicant's
request for a reduction in the project's density.
Staff is very supportive of the request to reduce the
density down to five dwelling units. We believe that
such a reduction will have a positive impact on the
neighborhood.
In order to assist in the additional. employee housing
need in Vail, the developer has agreed to provide one
employee dwelling unit within this subdivision. The
developer may provide up to five employee dwelling
units, including the one required dwelling unit, if so
desired. Employee units shall meet the following
criteria:
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 number of employee units shall be listed under
the allowable density section for Special
Development District No. 16. GRFA for the
employee dwelling units will come out of the total
GRFA for the project. No additional GRFA is
requested to allow for the employee units.
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.
7
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, 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.
3. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as
outlined in Chapter 18.52.
All parking requirements will meet the Town's
standards, as outlined in Section 18.52 of the zoning
code. This includes the required parking for the
employee units.
8
4.
Plans.
The Land Use Plan identifies this parcel as one which
is suitable for medium density residential uses.
Medium Density Residential is defined in the Land Use
Plan as follows:
"The medium density residential category includes
housing which would typically be designed as
attached units with common walls. Densities in
this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling
units per buildable acre. Additional types of
uses in this category would include private
recreation facilities, private parking facilities
and institutional/public uses such as parks and
open space, churches, and fire stations. "
The following are the applicable land use policies
regarding this proposal:
1.6: Development proposals on the hillsides
should be evaluated on a case by case basis..
Limited development may be permitted for some low
intensity uses in areas that are not highly
visible from the Valley floor. New projects
should be carefully controlled and developed with
sensitivity to the environment.
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.
5.4: 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 the above policies.
9
5. Identification and mitigation of natural and or
geologic hazards that affect the property on which the
special development district is proposed.
This site is located within a "high severity rockfall"
zone, as shown on the 1984 Rockfall Study Maps and as
adopted by the Town. The applicant has had geologic
studies completed and the results of such are listed
below:
A. Study by Donald G. Pettygrove, PE.; Project
Manager with Banner Associates, Inc. (2/23/87)
Mitigation methods:
1. The structures should be situated so that at
least six vertical feet of wall is exposed on
the uphill side. The exposed face should be
designed (preferably of reinforced concrete
integral with the foundation) such that it is
capable of withstanding a force of not less
than 2000 pounds applied over an area of
approximately two square feet. The face of
the wall should be protected, as before, with
6 inch timbers for impact absorption and
replacement. The design of these walls
should be similar to those shown in my letter
of July 3, 1986.
2. All other areas with uphill exposures should
be designed to withstand a 2000 pound force
as well. No windows should be placed in
walls with uphill exposures. It should be
understood that there exists the possibility
that falling rocks could impact Lion's Ridge
Loop Road above and be launched into the air
sufficiently to impact roof areas, although
the probabilities of such an impact are
significantly lower than those which will
impact the wall.
3. Insofar as possible, it is recommended that
rooms with the greatest occupancy be located
away from the upper stories and to the
downhill side. A terraced floor arrangement
appears to fit quite well at this site and
will blend into the side of the hill better
while providing less cost through reduced
excavation. A layout of this type will also
provide for maximum southern exposure to take
advantage of solar heat gain.
10
B. Study update by Donald G. Pettygrove (3/12/90)
"As a result of computer simulations, we believe
that our original recommendations are basically
sound but the impact force should be increased to
4,000 pounds."
The development of each building envelope, or lot, will
need to comply with the design recommendations cited by
Mr. Pettygrove concerning design mitigations for
rockfall hazards. Each individual lot owner will be
responsible for completing the rockfall mitigation
measures. The mitigation measures will be reviewed at
the time of building permit for each lot. This
requirement will also be stated on the Final Plat.
6. Site plan, buildings desictn and location and oven space
provisions designed to Qroduce a functional development
responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vecLetation and overall aesthetic quality of the
community.
The applicant has made a strong effort to preserve the
open meadow area and the wooded hillside as open space.
In fact, over 69$ of the site will be designated open
space. Staff supports the site plan design as we
believe the layout of the lots and the access road will
preserve the most significant features of the site.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and
pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic
circulation.
The access drive has been designed to adequately serve
the traffic needs of the development. The project
meets Fire Department and Public Works' design
standards. Staff believes that a project of this size,
and in this location, does not require a separate
pedestrian circulation system.
8.
recreation, views and functions.
Although a review of the specific landscaping for each
lot will occur at the Design Review Board level, a
conceptual landscape design has been included in the
design guidelines for the project.
11
Landscaping will be strictly controlled by the
Homeowners' Association as well as the Vail Design
Review Board. Prior to review by the Vail DRB, each
lot owner shall first obtain approval from the
Homeowner's Association. Landscape provisions have
been included in the proposed covenants and are as
follows:
The concern of the Committee (Homeowner's
Committee) 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:
a. Minimize disruption from grading.
b. Revegetate and restore ground cover for
erosion and appearance reasons..
c. Use indigenous species of plant materials as
established by the Committee.
d. Select the man-made elements that blend and
are compatible with the land.
e. Use existing or natural drainage paths
whenever possible.
f. Conserve and protect topsoil, rock formations
and unique landscape features.
g. Sod such areas as determined by the
Committee.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workable functional and efficient relationshi
throughout the development of the special development
district.
Elk Meadows subdivision is proposed to be developed in
two phases, as follows:
Phase I - The construction of a single family home on
Lot 4. Improvements include the installation of one
fire hydrant and the paving of the access road to Lot
4. The remainder of the access road will be covered
with top soil and reseeded.
12
Phase II - The market will dictate completion of this
phase. However, with the first building permit in
Phase II the developer has agreed to install a required
second fire hydrant, and to build and pave the
extension of the access road (including fire-truck turn
around).
VI. PROPOSED SDD IN COMPARISON WITH UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL
CLUSTER ZONE DISTRICT
The proposed SDD varies only slightly from the underlying
Residential Cluster zone district. Due to the fact that
building envelopes are being used as opposed. to lots, it is
difficult to compare the SDD to Residential Cluster zoning
in respect to lot size. The density is actually five
dwelling units less than what would be allowed under the
original approval and does not exceed the original density
of 10 units if the employee units are counted towards
density. Site coverage is also difficult to compare in that
the building envelopes will be covered by buildings, but to
what degree the coverage will occur is impossible to
determine until the units are constructed.
However, staff believes that there is adequate open space
around the building envelopes to maintain an aesthetically
pleasing amount of open space and separation among the
units. The minimum separation between building envelopes is
35'. Setbacks also vary from those that are required in a
Residential Cluster zone district. The separation among the
building envelopes varies from 18 feet to 21 feet. Staff
believes that this separation provides adequate space
between the units. All other development standards meet the
underlying zone district requirements for the Residential
Cluster zone district.
PROPOSED SDD
PERMITTED USES•
-Single-family residential dwellings.
-Optional employee dwelling unit/building envelope.
RES CLUSTER
-Single-family
res. dwellings.
-Two-family res.
dwellings.
-Multiple-family
res. dwellings,
w/ no more than
4 units/bldg.
13
LOT SIZE: Lot 1 = 4,138 s.f. - single family lot 15,000 s.f.,
Lot 2 = 3,877 s.f. - single family lot containing
Lot 3 = 3,398 s.f. - single family lot no less than
Lot 4 = 4,051 s.f. - single family lot 8,000 s.f. of
Lot 5 = 6.142 s.f. - single family lot buildable area
21,606 s.f. Total for building envelopes
SETBACKS: East & West sides = 2' fr om bldg envelope line front = 20'
North side = 3' from bldg envelope line side = 15'
rear = 15'
HEIGHT: 33' sloping roof 33' sloping roof
30' for flat roof does not apply as design 30' flat roof
guidelines requires sloping roof
SITE COVERAGE: no standard for bldg envelopes 25$ of site
GRFA: 16,000 s.f. or 3200 s.f. per building envelope. 16,000 s.f. per
annexation
agreement.
DENSITY: 5 dwelling units + 5 employee dwelling units. 10 dwelling
units per
annexation
agreement.
LANDSCAPING: Tract 1: 2.5 acres will be dedicated open 60~ of site
space; or 69~ of the total site. shall be
landscaped.
PARKING: At least one enclosed parking space, per Requires at
dwelling unit, will be provided. least 1
enclosed space
per dwelling
unit.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval
of the preliminary plan for the major subdivision and the
revisions to SDD No. 16 for Elk Meadows. Staff believes
that the request meets the intent of the major subdivision
regulations and special development district's review
criteria. The proposal basically follows the underlying
Residential Cluster zoning and Planned Unit Development
zoning originally approved under Eagle County.
14
A) The staff recommendation for approval of the
preliminary plan for the major subdivision includes the
following condition:
1. The development of each building envelope will
comply with the rockfall mitigation reports
prepared by Nicholas Lampires, Project Geologist,
and Donald G. Pettygrove, P.E., Project Manager
with Banner Associates, Inc. Such reports are
dated February 23, 1987, February 25, 1987, June
12, 1987, June 15, 1987, July 22, 1987 and March
12, 1990, and will be kept on file in the Town's
Community Development offices. Each individual
lot owner will be responsible for completing the
hazard mitigation for their lot, per the above
named reports. This restriction shall be noted on
the Final Plat.
B) The staff recommendation for approval of the major
amendment to SDD No. 16 includes the following
condition:
1. That approval of this major amendment to SDD No.
16 be contingent upon PEC approval of the Final
Plat for the subdivision.
2. That the developer construct a minimum of one
employee dwelling unit, and that said employee
dwelling unit be a part of either the first or
second building permit for the project. All
employee dwelling units shall meet the criteria
listed in Section V,B,2 of this memo.
*For information purposes, the staff would like to note that the
major subdivision regulations require the completion of general
improvements for the subdivision as outlined in Section 17.16.150
to be installed within three years of the date of PEC approval or
the plat shall become instantly invalid. All right to improve or
develop the property on the part of the owner or subdivider shall
thereby be relinquished. This requirement is stated in Section
17.16.330 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations.
Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, a written agreement
between the Town and the subdivider will be required in order to
guarantee the construction and maintenance of the proposed
improvements. This agreement shall be in accordance with Section
17.16.250 of the Town's Subdivision Regulations.
It shall also be noted that in respect to SDD approvals, the
applicant must begin construction of the Special Development
District within 3 years from the time of the project's final
approval according to Section 18.40.120 of the Town of Vail
zoning code.
15
\\ ~~ ! ..
~/ ~elE v4rlfv .
EJN[~JMINIUM~
1:~:-
y i `\.
- -./ - // / ` ` ~-~ -HIGH SC VCRITY ROCvtA:.L -
~ LOt ~ ~ ~~, ~~
r:~NG vii z :C`~ .-_ i~ C ~ ~~-~/ .~ ~`/' // i / _
_ .... ... ___ ~ _ L T _~_~~ ~~. '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~J ~ ~~~;
.~
.'
~- ~ ~ ~
._ __
-__ '
_ ___
- _-' ~°
_~--.~
-_ ._ ~ ~~ ~/jam /%e.tv[N•/ - /,~/ j.
_ - ~ j' ~ ~' j ~ n'TE. S~AOEU AREA 1095 AC I :uDIf tTES ans.: '°f
'. - / i / / u9 AROVE
i
__ '/~ /:
i' ,~
~ //
/~f
- I ELK MEADOWS SUE3DiVISION
{~ PRELV~IINARY PLpN
ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
To accomplish this goal, the owner has developed a protypical
building design as well as specific design guidelines for the site.
The owner's intent is that these guidelines be adopted as a
condition of approval and that they be utilized along with the
Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines to provide the necessary
visual continuity necessary to provide both existing and future
residents of The Valley with a pleasing visual experience.
A Homeowner's Association will be formed and, along with the
Town of Vail, will be responsible for enforcing these Design
Guidelines. A copy of the Declaration of Protective Covenants
for the Subdivision are contained with the Appendices of this
Report.
The prototypical building site plan and building elevations are
shown in the Appendix. The Design Guidelines are proposed to
be as follows:
1. Roof pitch shall be between 4 feet in 12 feet and 6
feet in 12 feet.
2. Roof material shall be Cedar Shakes.
3. Siding material shall be either log or stucco with log
perlins, log railing, or other log members, natural rock,
or a combination of the above and shall be applied hori-
zontally as indicated on the prototypical building
elevations. Only ligi~t colored stain shall be applied
to siding.
4. Either stucco or siding shall be applied to exposed
concrete foundation walls. If stucco is utilized it shall
be light in color.
5. All windows shall be white metal clad or wood windows,
and will be "divided light" style.
6. All roofs shall have overhangs of at least 1 foot in order
to protect walls and wall openings from rain and snow and
to contribute to the building's character.
m
~(
~a }
~ /~~j~l
~,~~~~`
'~` o
i~ ~
~~ \
~~~~
~ `' ...~` - t`
~ ~~ ~ ~~
.\
.1lr.
..11~~
`~
I ~~
. 6~~ i~ ~
\ ~
i
.~ ~~
.~ I \~~
I~
a~~
~~ ~
~ ` ~~
I ~~
a' K ?~;~4~-W= SUfSDMS QFJ
J Ir'~
~~ ~~ i
..~ _ '~ - - - ~IIJI-' I.JL.JLJI.J~
..--_.`,4,b~ ~ ~ ~
Fri~nw
-v-
~~
,` --~__ ~
I
~~ SY
`` _~I
5t"~'O1.,.~ Y~fTT11 .1~j1U~ .: L .-. _ __-_. _ _
G~.~E~ To N~AT~-i
' ~~ ~-
__ _
~~
~~ I __
I .1S hltj~'.11s~ ~I 1S~hl
Si~UT7CFiS ~ ~ I.
N' ~ .. \ ~ II ( I I ` II} ', :I 1' II + ~ II I II it ~ i ..
f'.c~0 15.5. FACV. \ I , ~ ~~ I I~ ii 1~ ~~ n ~ I ~ '~ i~ ~I 1~ ; F.
I ( r { I ~ ~I I~ ~~ 1 II i~ ~~ i~ II ' ~ ! 1 ~I j!
rgcNL T.o.1.~. \ ~ i-_' (.. 1, a _y' _~_~~ ,` i 1: II •: i ~ ~~ I~ I~ is i.
~"` ~
a
wu~li ~wu
".:v" eo...ro y.;!
5suo
puau-+~ \
i
.r - ._ -
~,~..> ,
_~ - `
! 40'~ t To P o F ~ ~ is ~ Fb~T . _ _ _ '
ptapGH cu~E~ tcp ' 4nd~~.W'S~ .~ ~ u ,:~ . ~,- °--~-------'-'--- -~ ~~~ I
alo'~ t Top of - --- - -- ~l - °` -_-- y. __'- -' r - _-~,-._~~-s a.~~..~~.~ '~
P~H ws~,LL. RiR,I.~N'S -- ~f0 .b EACE'q t84 -- , -` *=i
\ I ~ ~- 1 ~. ~ ~ I ffl~ I I' ~ - '~ I
t _ 1
., .--rte :h ` ``, ~ ~!-_~' I ( ~ _~ ~J ~ ~~ -~ l I `II ii'~! ~'';
: I I ~ I I _' i i\ ' v
_ ,
..- -- - _- ~ ---t
- - ---i ~ .
1' _ ~~ ~ I I r ', :
P ~-+ _
~ ~ i' :.I
~it .j I I { I -
GY, ~- ..r ~ I~t I ' ~ ' I
,~, ~ ~ 1 ~ I
.I, I ice; ,I _ ~
i~211 R Ga-!G. ` I { ~_ ~ ws. G Roe _, . _ _ - - ~- r ~ I I
~~ - -
~J _..
. SOU TN EAST ~ ~LE~/AT ION ~®~. ~~~
GtLfRLPS f ~'" ~ .
~p~~'~T `'`.
~ \\
.,.
'~ ,`
,, _-
~ 12
` 1~
t { ~ ~ ;I I IG
~il'~'
i~ ~ ~ ~j ~~ ~~ '' I ~' i ~ it l
/. ~TuP_~ P4R~:N5 -
1 1 i1 iI ~~~ {I iI I' I~ ~1 ~ { j~ i ~~ ~ li 1. ~ ~.1 '.{ ~ I ~ I~ ~l f ' /// ! `°S.JU' 'r 0.{..1. _~~
{ y
I t~ ~ '~ _ r
®,s~,. r~.-_. -- -' ~`_`~ _..~._; ~ ~ -cuTrER w~row~t~rdl.tT ctYr.J
«s ~' i { ~'~ ~ f~ -
. -~ ~ T-- r-~--~---
... T- _ ._ _ ~ -- __~- _
Appsac. {:12 ~ ~ , ~ LALL V'G1S .a- ~.,_z--= ~~..~.~-.~~ ~~ --
- cr-----
~.PEP, P ~ i 10 _ .~~,_ e~ .a.~,.e,. _-- . ~.. -_ ~ ~_~. __ . _~-.....~
3 3iD!5 - ~.. - _~ -
W4 F vL'H~
- _~- ,
_ ~
^EJ~:1~:IN4 hJ~t-1- - --_ --- - - _ -- -- - - -
---- -
I
- ~.
z ~ ~~ CA. 1r9
------- -
.~ y .. :_ _. .'--- -- ~d ru>,t - _ - _ - 'riPnc~epPPClnrl _ - --
_ _. _ - -- -- - .... _. - - - ~L-J T C~.Tr.S
_ . _ .~ T _ '- --- -- ----- - -- - -
I ...~ I -___- _,__ ..f
y'~T
- <,:
- ~ - ~:*
.. M 'y i~
_.. ~{
An
~_/
~;y
~lot~T N~~ST ~~E.~n~T i o~i :.t
;y
,7
:,
~~~ ~®~3
SKY~Y~ FFf
-- 'G~'JaA.F1 _ _ .
• - _---- ~SHa.KE.~ - - --- -
• - - --
I ~ .. ~ -
~-
i
'_'" -.~
-_ 2:
IG~i~t Tor OF -- ---a~~. ~a
'~`- Igo n
'` q I I f 1 ~ '~~.
~ o~ loG C~TUM ` ~ '
~- ~~ .~ -
~.~ ~ '' _ 1 ` ~ ~ ~--,- I .,rte
'' _e. ~_ ,• / __ ,.--r • , .. , 'ti. i P~TAINING bJAtt ,
~ '~ 1 }--- - ----r - - - - - --i
~ ~ 1
.---
r~- - - 1
NOf~TN ~.5~" ~LEUAT'IO~.
t
r-
12
APf"~sx. ia2
TTP_R
3 5~c~3
I~se.JUNI-~=r wu.c.
~.. _
``
:~~'
• ~ .'~:
~r:.~
`:
-~°~,
EsYY 's'' .=' • I L..4Ti.X GHiiJ KtlJGj
F ~~
,~~
i
4:. _ _ ~
.. N. ..
• ~• , .
r;~;i ~ --
_ ~~ ~ i '
~~.
:,
i ~ x ~ ~ ~
}~ t~ ~ ..
a r.
,,,v. , ~ .
L_ _
_,~K -'~ _- _. i -_, i r
.~ d >
~~x - L-- - - - - -~ 1 - - - - L 1- -+- ~'I ~
~M Y; ; '
~~= ..
T L1
p;.,~-
~3~~ ,
yc1~ s l~vATto
50UT ~I T ~.
_:
~, ~...
.:.
WPPED I~aL~
K. s. 5%=•~~T
. `~
+~i.
~ v.
~~.
x;
BANNER
March 12, 1990
Mr. Bradley Tjossem
Post Office IIox 2975
Vail, CO n1657
RE: Elk Meadows Subdivision
Geologic Hazard Mitigation
BAI Job No. 8095-U5~01
Dear Brad:
In response to your request fvr revie~•~ of our recommendations
for geologic hazard mitigation, we have reviewed our original
work and i_n addition have performed a computer rorkfall
simulation analysis using CRS" (Colorado Rockfall Simulat:.ion
Program) which was develUped by tYie Colorado DcpartmPnt of
Highways and Colorado School of Mine.
This computer software was noi~ available when we performed
our original analysis, however, we k;eliove it i, prudery, to
check past analysis with the latest; state-of-the-art methods
when afforded the opportunity.
As a result of these computer wimulatians, we believe that
our original recommenda*ions are basically sound but the
impact fore should be increased to 4,000 pounds. This
Should be applied to an area of approximately two square
feet.
The attached drawing has been included for information since
only the impact force has ct-r3nged.
Tf you have any questions, please feel lr.ee to call.
Very truly yours,
BANNER ASSOCIATES INC.
Donald G. Petty grove, P.E
DG P/ bg
file: [GRJ.9003.BLGJTJOS~EM.LET
Enclosure
BANNER ASSOCIATES, Qtc. BA?:N~t ASSGc';A7E5. !NC
CUNSLR3RVG ENGMEERS & ARCHfTf_CTS C.ONSLR.ifNG ErrCrIN[-F:.ftS 6r AR('NI7ECTS
277) CkOSSROADS BOULEVARD SUfTE ~~ ~' FAST'tAQ~
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 • 1:3(!31 2.13-2242 /15t'~N, (;CLOi~n(~c> 8261! • (?+~3( 92S•5A57
BANNER
July 22, 1987
Mr. Michael Lauterbach
P.O. Box 3451
Vail, CO 81658
Re: Elk Meadows Subdivision
BAI #8095-05
Dear Mike,
I have enclosed a reproducable mylar of the drainage plan for
your project with the change made from "Preliminary" to "Final",
as requested.
With regard to your question about the building configuration
above the 12-foot height, the structure above that level may be
vertical wall, pitched roof or other construction. It really
doesn't matter what is above the 12--foot level from the aspect of
hazard mitigation. Windows are acceptable above that level as
well.
It must be remembered that all of the hazard mitigation is based
on a reasonable level of protection against the probability of an
event occurring. The probabilities are low so the level of
protection can be commensurately low also. If the design were to
protect absolutely against all Possible events, it would be
prohibitive to build at this site, as it would be in all of the
mountains.
Should you have any questions, plea;~e feel free to call.
Sincerely,
BANNER ASSOCIA , INC.
Donald G. Pettygrove, P.,E.
DGP/rlg
Enclosure
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 • (303) 243-2242
U ~r~! 5 i2- ~~CaE.. Lcr~~+
.-r o ~ ~~ Sz~~
1ooc~` t M-}~GT
1.-n~L .
awes ~~~1, ~~
,~ ~~i
~.* ~'
p2oT EGT ,~./ ' ~ tJ o
tM'?~G.T {~~~ vs.r~yJ~rnt~/S
SLo~ ~ ~` M ~ N t-l-T,
~~~ `~
T 1 N~~G 1Z'S
'.. ~ _r-
J~1t! L L~uT~~-~~~-N
~F c`am'.
~Y
~~7-1 N~-`~- ~ SSc c. t ~-T~S , t 1J G
`30-~~ ~~1.3- 2242
2
G-t'~--~ Lo L-~1 G 4~ ~~.~'c~-~ ~ t T 1 ~ ~ Tl ~~1
~,.T. S,
.Z,
1
-~.CL ES ~
-~-o-~L~
BANNER
June 18, ]. ~'3~'
Mi i_hael ~7 . Lautt~r-bach
F'. ~. LjC]:: ?~51.
R.E: E11- 1`ieadows Sut,~~ivisi.r=,r, fit.., (_: t::~ti'~ill
Clear I`1r. Lauterbar_ti:
In response tca one of thEr i. seises rai=_ed i n the Collins
letter-, I feel `eery comfortable o-~ith t,aviny no mii:igation for
patenti al rock:f al 1 into cc;mrnon , open =pace areas within tt-,E'
proposed deVel opment. T~>'p i cc.l..l y , {_h~~ intent of o~aen areas .
a5 long as therec'ire no p~~rrr,aner,t_ c:ornmr_(~ity structure=_ such
c7.S Caff.lCE~_'~ or- m~~c?ting p1aCf_'..~~ 1=:> j~_i:) F]Y-O'/7.df? SpaC.e fOr f~rctV].tV
rC?7. cit t'd QECal O(:] 1 C: phE?n OrTl ~'I-, ~i t! i r_t C:: C:: l..(r t°J 1. ttl nC] Cj dfTidCa C= t<:i
- -
I- -.. --
s{:ruct.urc~s, a.l;d m:LnlO,ctl C.}l:dl'li_(=' Cai- {';. .t_!'_ot_Ir(:? tCl I:a(:_'rsC)nctl.
l.ll_lU.r'y.
IJt,Gn I pr-etaare a repor-i:. i or c. 1. i. t:~r-,'=s or•:n i nq , for- instance , ~i
one ar_r-E~ par-ct~.l for thi= d(=.vi~lor~mc~nt of onF- •~in~a7.e family
residence, the site is E~ithEr- located a.alay tr-om a 1-~a~ar-d,
;nr1(_tding perhat.~s rot_k.fraa 1. , i~r- rn:it;.gat=ion tcc_hniq~.re= ar-e
°f(i[].io:'r'ca tt~ d1rE'Ct ;='.ri':' F-iC]'LE?n~:1.ctl C_~If'?(.71t:;Ca7.C Oi_Cl_!1•"r-C?nCF' c+.rGl.ll'id
1-h,-- hc)me-:i. t.e i nta L:.I-~i~ open '_~pa(_:e:~. "i },i = i. s tI-)e most pr-1_tdent
?.1, p r- Li a r_ t' i , <=i 5; 4U ii' c.:~t. r_I r, ct i.. t:, r- c:, i., i:^ i:: ~_ i_ ''J i;? f- `J ;:3 C~ I_l •-i 1- ~ ~ r j ~_y % C) # i7 r Ct C' E 1" t ''.'
;;a r, t.! s L :i. 1 1. 7. i. ~'.~ (~ i. n . I , c r) ca ._ ri t-
1 tiC'!Eat' I },Fi`.'E? ~t(:j~_C:II_iiai:.r='1V ~:'t.rJCir-E't'~.4:?r:{ 'hl-!1-3 p:-ar-t.iCl_ll~il- CijriC`:`r-rl,
F-' 7. (? c?. S i2? (= Ca r'i i_ ct l= t i ft t3 1 '~ I_. t, F• t" r _~ ;=t I' t-: 't' l.U" ~' }l Cis F- C-J I_I E' .5 t 1. O n _> .
II f r- r
i"~ ~` l~.II~,Ji 1i . I~~i~ ~~:: ~I_~ 7 I i..lt
~/~il~
)~' i ~ t_7 ..~} r•~' (: 1. t:J'.~~ 17 i. ll (:I 1. `- ~:.
~..1 i _ .: '.. 7. ~::
f.
Br,rvNER ASSOCIATES, INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
SC11TE 6, 6(15 EAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 • (303) 243-2242
BANNER
June ice, .19F;:
t~lichar~l J. Laui_erba~_.h
F'. D. Ro:: "4~ 1
Vail, CO. 816°
F;E: Elk: Meadows Subdivision f;ock:fall
Dear Mr. Lauter-bach:
I have reviewed the reports prepared the weeF:: ending 3une i^,
1987, by Don F'ettygrove, our structural engineer, concerning
the roc E::f al 1 mi t i gat i on for the E1 E:: Meadows Subdivision. As
pre•iiously mentioned, potential ror_E::fall into this ~it~ ari.ll.
be very infrequent aver the ye~~r-s, but this type of
n-;iti~~ation i= still. pri_~dent.
? f the engineered deli. qn criteria presented b•.~ Don F'ett~.~yr-ovF~
i:-; his above r~=fer-enced repart i.s f~~llowed, th~~e r-ack:fall
h.~.~ar-d to ~r_cupants a1i thi n structures to be 1 ocated ~:~i thi n
E1 ~: Mee~do~•~s Sub~d i vi si on wi I I be mi n i mi ed . Further , i f i.he
r- ecomrnended eng i. nee~ri nq i s accan~;pl i shed dc.ir i r-;q the
i_:onsi-.i-ucti.on of <_.t.i-r_)cti-tro=s u{~an t_he proposed I:~c.rildi.ny
rnveloG~es, tliE•re should be no increased hacard to othr._•r
F:,roper-t:v or- str-u~_tur-es, or tc~ pub.li.~ buildings, r-oad~>>,
'>trE'4.~t_-,, rJ.q_i'It'-af-W~+}~, e~<<;Frrterlt5, Lltll ltle~ Gl~ 1.=tC111tJ.e~">.
rc yi)u. have an•.~ fc~ri_hr~r yur~=_ti.ons, I_~1ea e do noi_ Iii=si t:~tt-~ tip
Sincerely,
E:ANn1ER ASSOCIATES , I hJC .
t~~~~ "`~
~/ ~ ••,
~~~
~ '
I'Ji chat. a.s L_~~rr;pi. r i ~z, F•r,r..,
Project C7eologist
Bh~.~~ER ASSOCIATES, INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCI{ITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS & AKCHITECTS
SUITE 6, 6(15 EAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 31506 • (303) 243-2242
BANNER
June 12, 1987
Mr. Mike Lauterbach
P.O. Box 3451
Vail, CO 81658
Re: Preliminary Drainage Plan/Geologic Hazard Mitigation
Elk Meadows Subdivision - Lion's Ridge Subdivision
(The Valley), Filing #2, Phase III - BAI #8095-05
Dear Mike,
I have reviewed the revised roadway drawings developed by John
MacKown as well as the Preliminary Plan developed by Eagle Valley
Engineering with respect to the existing and proposed drainage
conditions. We have developed the enclosed Preliminary Drainage
Plan from the grading contours provided by John MacKown.
Drainage Plan
The existing drainage path through this valley carries the runoff
of approximately 178 acres. The peak flow from this area (as
previously submitted) is calculated at 8 cubic feet per second.
The flow through the drainage path is generally wide and shallow
with velocities of less than five feet per second.
The construction of this subdivision will separate an area of
approximately 0.84 acres north of the access road from the main
flow pattern and recombines the flow from these two areas at the
18" CMP culvert located at Station 1+65. Any access walks to the
buildings on the north side should have an 18" CMP or equivalent
in order to allow for the passage of flow to the west.
The maximum flow from the smaller area is 2.0 cubic feet per
second for which the minimum 18" culvert is more than adequate.
The maximum flow (8 cfs) along the south side of the roads will
be adequately transmitted by the typical ditch section in all
areas except the small, four car parking area at the extreme west
end. It will be necessary to install approximately 55 lineal
feet of 18" CMP at this location in order to convey the surface
waters beneath the parking area and avoid forcing them onto. the
adjacent property. The 18" CMP will carry the full 8 cfs with a
headwater/diameter ratio of less than 1.5.
It is my understanding that all areas of the site, except the
seven building locations, will be dedicated to open space uses
which will include use for surface drainage. This will eliminate
the need for any specific drainage easement.
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 • (303) 243-2242
Mr. Mike Lauterbach
June 12, 1987
Page Two
BANNE(~
Natural Springs
During the geological hazard investigation, the site was
thoroughly inspected with no signs of natural water springs
appearing on the ground surface. Any marked increase in
vegetation in isolated areas would indicate the likelihood of
natural springs. None of these indicators were observed..
Ground Water
The Preliminary Subsoil and Geologic Investigation prepared by
Chen and Associates, Inc. in May 1972, indicated that no free
water was observed in any of the 10 test pits excavated. The
primary drainage channel is an intermittent water-course without
significant year round flow.
Geologic Hazards Mitigation
With regard to the recommendations made in my letter of February
23, 1987 for the mitigation of the geologic rockfall hazard, I
offer the following clarifications.
My recommendation for a six foot vertical height of wall exposure
on the north side is a minimum and refers to the reinforced
concrete wall with timber impact absorption. If walls on the
north (uphill) side are to be taller than the minimum 6 feet
height, then they should be capable of withstanding a 2000 pound
force, although the structure above the six foot level and below
the 10-12 foot level, recommended by Mr. Lampiris, need not be of
concrete or have the timber impact absorption. The difference
being the frequency of anticipated rock hits and subsequent
damage. Below the six-foot height, more frequent strikes can be
expected for which damage should be minimal. Above six-foot to
the 12-foot level, rock strikes can be anticipated but need. be
protected against significant structural damage only.
If a roof area will be constructed with uphill exposure, that
portion below the 10-12 foot height and above the 6 foot height
should be designed to withstand the 2000 pound impact force as
well. Reference is made to the attached sketches for the areas
of consideration.
The heights discussed above are relative to the natural ground
elevation at the uphill extreme of the structure and projected
along the slope not at the edge of roadway.
Mr. Mike Lauterbach
June 12, 1987
Page Three
BANNER
The terraced floors to which I made reference. in my earlier
correspondence was intended to allow for offset floor elevations
in order to provide buildings which better fit the natural slopes
of nearly 2:1 in places.
Should you have any questions please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
V
Donald G. Pettygrove, P.E.
Colo. P.E. #16543
DGP/rlg
Encl: 14 copies - Preliminary Drainage Plan & Geologic
Mitigation
Hazard
cc: Kristan Pritz - Town of Vail
Lebruary C5, 1SG7
Mich:zel Lauterbach
Lamar Co:T~pani es/CF: Development Inc.
F'. 0. Po>: .451
Vail, CO. E1658
RE: Geologic Hazard Mitigation
E1 (: Meado~•:s Subdivision
Vail, CO.
Dear Mi k:e:
I have reviewed your most recent plans and also r-evi er•:ed the
report by our structural engineer, Don F'ettygrove, concerning
tf~e r-oc(::tall mitigation for the Eit: hleador•:s Subdivision. I
agr-2e, tha.t i f the design cri ter-i a presented by Don
rettygr-ove in his letter of Febr-uarv ?:~, 1^87, are folloa:~d,
r-ock:fall hazard wi 11 be 4;ept to a minimum for this
develnpment.
F'c~tenti al rock:f al 1 into this site r•:i 1 1 be very i of r~yuent
o•.er the y~_ar-s, but this t}~pe of mitigation is ti.till prudent.
T~:e mitigative dGsi gr. a~i l l not advtreel y affect any ether-
t/e':~elopment in the ar-e?.. If you have any f~_tr-ther q!testions,
please de not hesitate to contact us.
Si ncer-el y,
LiAtdt•!ER taS~SUC I RTES , I PJC .
i,'.' / ~ n
Nicholas Lamp,i r-i s , F'hD.
F'ro iect Geologist
~!L/cl -::
BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC.
(~t~,`:Sl~1.Tl\'G E\GI\EF.HS fi :'1KCIIITECTS C(l\~t;l.Ti~~, E1(5i\r-ER~ K ARt:r?ITFCTS
tiUITE G, 605 FAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
ASPEN, COLORADO Slbl l • (303) 925-5357 GRAND JUNCTION, CO fi1506 • {303) 243-2242
February 23, ].9(37 `'~' ~' " • " ~ R
Mr. Michael Lauterbach
Lamar Companies/CR Development Inc.
['.O. Oux 34:)1
t/ail, CU t11G:,f1
Re: Geologic Ilazard Mitigation - -
F.lY. Meadows Subdivision
Vail, CO
Dear Mike;
As requested, I have reviewed the appropriate measures for the
mitiyati.on of the rockfall hazard at the subject site. The
current location for. t:he lots does not allow for the mitigation
to be handled as easily as before, however, it appears that it
can be accomplished with a Lew considerations.
1) The structures should be situated so that at least six
vertical feet o£ wall is exposed on the uphill side. The
exposed face should be designed (preferably of reinforced
concrete integral with the foundation) such that it is
capable of withstanding a force of not less than 2000 pounds
applied over an area of appr:oxiurately t-wo square feet. The
face of the wall should he protected, as before, with 6 inch
timbers for impact absorption and replacement. The design of
these walls should be st.lllllar tU those shown in my letter of
July 3, bII6.
2) All other areas with uphill exposures should be designed to
withstand a 2000 pound force as well. No windows should be
placed i.n walls wi t:h u]>hi :Ll. exposures. 7t should be
understood that there e:;i.sCs the possibility that falling
rocY.s could impact l,i.an's Ridge hoop Road above and be
bunched into the ai.r suff.icient.ly to impact roof areas,
although the probabilities oC such an impact are
signi.f.icantly lower than those which will. impact t:he wall.
3) 7n:;Car as possible, it: is reconun~,nded t:haC rooms with the
greatest occupancy be located away from the upper stories and
t.o th(~ dnwnhi7.1 side. A ter. raced il.oor arrangement appears to
f.it gni.t.e wc].]. at this site and will blend into the side of
1.he hill bet trr while providing l(~s ~ coe;l. t hrouyit reduced
excavati.vn. n ]ayvut oL t:hi:; type wi 1.1 also prov.i<le -for
maximum southern exl,<)sul.-c t:o take advantage of solar. heat
gain.
BANNER ASS( )i'IA I CS, INC.
CONAULi1NG LNGI~I CRS R~ AIiCIIIrrCTti
'1717 (:RO~SROAn5 ROULCVAI{D
GRANn.ILINCiION, CU NISOfi 130'(} 243-'242
Mr. Michael. l.aul:erltactt [~ A N N C
- Pehruiry "l3, 1rJ87
[`;tyc Two
'I'hc utn_Lhc~r] oL' hanrilinrl ::Ir,rm w;tf_cr runc,ff ,hc~ul.d again he
rs~enlially tltc .:amc a:; I,rr•vinnsly urcnl_irrncrl i.tt my letter cif
;:~Irtemlx~t Ili, 1)IIG. ['ruvi:;irnrn wi i I In: nr•rxr.;sat:y to allow fur an
111" c7ianu~l:ct: cul.vcrt I,enr•:rl_ir Lhe r:u.l--rie--mac al_ the ea ,t earl,
I,c~ncal.h Lhr~ main r~nl.r:,ncr, r u:rrl :rnrl ac:cr•r::: rrrarl to 1oC:: G :utd 7
nt,<i I,r-nr~al.lt Lhr: f r,ur Ir:,t k i nrl :;Ir,rr:r•:: .rl Ihr• r•r.t remr wr:;L r~nrl of
1 I, r• {rrrr jr~r.l I n :,rlrl i 1 ir,n, I hr. r rr.rrlw.r)• ::hr,u 1 rf l,r: r:un:;I,ruCtr2rl at.
1ca:;L 1'-9" al,r,vc• i.lr<~ Irtw I,rrint r,I Ihr• Irr im:rry rlra.inayc [utl.h
Lhtourlhrntl_ thr• Ic•nrJllr ul Ihr• Irrrrjr~r:L. I1 i:: nut. :rnticilrtCeri that.
:: .i.rln i.fic:anl. r.ilr-r:rl, wi I I Irr• nr•r:r•:: r.:rry ::i nr•r• I.hr• rlra.i nnyc i,:tlh i:;
to rr:mai.n Jaryr~ly ttnrli:;l.url,r•rl.
Sheu.lc7 you have any yucst.icnt, [,lr,:tse LeeJ Lree to call..
Sincerely;
[1nNlJlilt ASSUCIA'1'1;;, 1NC.
~\
I)onalrl G. I'ett-yyt:ovc, 1'.1:.
Project Planaycr
cc: Ni cY. Latn[>i ri.s
file: ElU7`.i'i1t.r.2Ja
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS CONCERNING THE VALLEY PHASE III
April 25, 1973: Conditional approval of the preliminary
plan by Eagle County which zoned The Valley
Planned Development (PD)
July 26, 1973: County Commissioners approve The Valley
preliminary plan and PUD. This approval is
good for three years. The approval
included 150 units on 61.2 acres.
July 30, 1973: Eagle County Commissioners' special meeting
to confirm Valley approval.
July 26, 1976: The Valley preliminary plan and PUD
approval of July 26, 1973 expires. Some of
the units are under construction. The 120
units that have not been built will require
a new submittal starting with a sketch plan
and preliminary plan review (letter from
Ms. Susan Vaughn, 1977).
May 20, 1977: The Vail Town Council sends a letter to the
Eagle County Commissioners in favor of
extending the Valley's approval as long as
development is carried out according to the
preliminary plan and recreation amenities
are provided.
May 24, 1978: The Eagle County Commissioners grant an
extension of the Valley preliminary plan
approval. This approval would expire on
June 1, 1979. If the approval expires, it
would be required that sketch plan and
preliminary plan review informtion be
submitted. Also, if any change in the
present plan, it would have to be reviewed
by the County Commissioners.
November 13, 1979: Eagle County Commissioners review a sketch
plan and have several concerns.
March 26, 1980: A PUD plan and protective covenants docu-
ment is filed with the County which indi-
cated that Phase III was subject to the
land use restrictions of 10 units and a
total GRFA of 16,000 square feet.
March 27, 1980: Resolution No. 80-20 allowed the phases of
The Valley to be sold separately without
any further compliance with the subdivision
regulations.
April 16, 1980: The Eagle County Planning Commission
reviews a sketch plan for Phase III. The
Planning Commission suggested that the
units be tucked into the hillside on the
northeast side of the project and that the
developer use berming and landscaping to
buffer the project. Staff recommended
approval of the sketch plan.
April 16, 1980: Town of Vail staff sends letter to the
Eagle County Planning Commission which
recommends more tighter, clustered layout
of the buildings toward the hillside. Vail
staff also recognizes the steep hillside
and sensitivity of the meadow area. Letter
from Peter Patten and Dick Ryan.
April 30, 1980:. The Eagle County Commissioners reviewed the
sketch plan that the Planning Commission
saw on April 16, 1980. The sketch plan
showed 10 townhomes on Phase III.
May 5, 1980: A resolution was passed by the County
allowing three years for the developers to
file preliminary plans from the March 26,
1980 PUD plan approval date.
December 1980: Ordinance No. 43 annexed the West Vail area
including Phase III of The Valley.
March 17, 1981: The Town of Vail Council applied zoning to
The Valley which was recently annexed. The
ordinance was No. 13, Series of 1981.
March 15, 1983: Resolution No. 6, Series_of 1987, the Town
Council approved .rezoning of The Valley.
Sept. 11, 1985: The Valley is de-annexed from the Town.
Summer 1986 A development proposal is .submitted to
Eagle County by Lamar Capital Corporation.
The proposal begins with a sketch
plan/preliminary plan review.
Nov. 5, 1986 The Lamar Capital Corporation Phase III
proposal is withdrawn from the County due
to complications with the time lines for
review and how they .will relate to the
property being re-annexed to the Town of
• Vail.
~`
May 16, 1986 A grading permit is released by the County
for an access road into Phase III. The
applicant was Lamar Capital Corporation.
May 6, 1987 The road work on Phase III is red-tagged by
Eagle County.
May 7, 1987: Red tag removed by Eagle County.
May 11, 1987 The Valley is re-annexed into the Town.
May 11, 1987; The Road is red-tagged by the Town of Vail
May 11, 1987: The Road is red-tagged by Eagle County.
May ll, 1987: Lamar Capital Corporation submits a major
subdivision and special development
district zoning request for Phase III.
ORDINANCE NO. 17
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 32
SERIES OF 1987, TO PROVIDE CHANGES TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO. 16 THAT CONCERN A REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS
PERMITTED; ADJUSTING THE GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA PER UNIT;
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. 32, Series
of 1987 establishing Special Development District No. 16; and
WHEREAS, Brad and Susan Tjossem have requested to amend the
existing Special Development District No. 16, Elk Meadows, for a
certain parcel of property within the Town know as The Valley,
Phase III, part of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No.
2; and
WHEREAS, there is an identified need for employee housing in
the community; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has not adopted formal policies to
encourage the development of employee housing units; and
WHEREAS, the Special Development District provides for
creativity and flexibility to allow for the development of
employee housing; and
WHEREAS, the Town Planning staff and Planning and
Environmental Commission has recommended that certain changes be
made in Special Development District No. 16; 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. 32,
Series of 1987 to provide for such changes in Special Development
District No. 16, Elk Meadows.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 32, SERIES OF 1987, IS
HEREBY REPEALED AND REENACTED WITH AMENDMENTS TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission
Report.
The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail
Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has
received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission
recommending approval of the proposed development plan for
Special Development District No. 16.
1
Section 2. Special Development District No. 16.
Special Development District No. 16 (SDD 16) and the development
plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Phase
III, The Valley, part of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision
Filing No. 2, within the Town of Vail consisting of 3.6 acres.
Section 3. Purpose.
Special Development District 16 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 complimentary to the Town, by the Town
Council, and meets all design standards as set forth in Section
18.40 of the Municipal code. As stated in the staff memorandum
dated April 9, 1990, there are significant aspects of Special
Development District 16 which are difficult to satisfy through
the imposition of the standards of the Residential Cluster zone
district. SDD No. 16 allows for greater flexibility in the
development of the land than would be possible under the current
zoning of the property. In order to help preserve the natural,
scenic features of this site, building envelopes will be
established which designate the areas upon the site in which
development will occur. The establishment of these building
envelopes will also permit the phasing of the development to
proceed according to each individual owner's ability to construct
a residence. SDD No. 16 provides an appropriate development plan
that maintains the unique character of this site, given the
difficult site constraints which must be addressed in the overall
design of the project.
Section 4. Development Plan.
A. The development plan for SDD No. 16 is approved and shall
constitute the plan for development within the Special
Development District. The development plan is comprised of
those plans submitted by Brad and Susan Tjossem and consists
of the following documents, which will be finalized at the
major subdivision final plat review:
1. Elk Meadows Subdivision Phase III, The Valley,
Preliminary Plan, a resubdivision of part of Parcel A,
Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, Eagle Valley
Engineering and Surveying, Mr. Dan Corcoran, Surveyor.
2. Final DRB Landscape Plan, Elk Meadows, Phase III,
Dennis Anderson Associates, February 26, 1990.
3. Prototypical building design plans, Alpine Log Homes,
August 21, 1989, sheets 1-6.
2
4. Environmental Impact Report submitted by Mr. Peter
Jamar, Associates, Inc., August 5, 1987, which includes
the rockfall mitigation requirements. Such rockfall
reports are dated February 23, 1987, February 25, 1987,
June 12, 1987, June 15, 1987, July 22, 1987 and March
12, 1990, and will be kept on file in the Town's
Community Development offices.
5. Other general submittal documents that define the
development standards of the Special Development
District, dated March 10, 1990.
B. The development plan shall adhere to the following:
1. Acreage: The total acreage of the site is 3.619 acres
2. Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for the site are
proposed to be:
a. Single family residential dwellings
b. Open space
c. Private roads
d. Employee dwelling units as defined in Section 5,
paragraph C of this ordinance.
3. Conditional Uses:
a. Public utility and public service uses
b. Public buildings, grounds and facilities
c. Public park and recreation facilities
4. Accessory Uses:
a. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses,
attached 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.
d. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a horse
grazing permit, in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter 18.58.
3
5. Parcel Acreages and Uses:
a. Building Envelopes: as set forth on the Final
Plat.
1. 0.095 acres, 1 single family dwelling unit +
one optional employee unit.
2. 0.089 acres, 1 single family dwelling unit +
one optional employee unit.
3. 0.078 acres, 1 single family dwelling unit +
one optional employee unit.
4. 0.093 acres, 1 single family dwelling unit +
one optional employee unit.
5. 0.141 acres, 1 single family dwelling unit +
one optional employee unit.
b. Tract 1: 2.5 acres, open space.
c. Tract 2: 0.59 acres, private access road.
6. Setbacks - Minimum setbacks for the location of
structures in relation to building envelope perimeter
lines shall be as follows:
a. No structure shall be located on any easement as
so designated on the final plat of the
subdivision.
b. No structure shall be located less than two feet
from either the east or the west building envelope
perimeter line.
c. No structure shall be located less than three feet
from the north building envelope perimeter line.
d. Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove to
the contrary, roof overhangs and decks may
encroach into the setback areas described in b and
c so long as such roof overhangs and decks are
totally within the perimeter lines of the building
envelope. No portion of the unit, decks, walls
etc. shall encroach beyond the building envelope.
7. Density: Approval of this development plan shall
permit five (5) single family dwelling units, plus five
(5) optional employee dwelling units.
A minimum of one (1) employee dwelling unit shall be
constructed, and said employee unit shall be a part of
either the first unit's or second unit's building
permit for the project. All employee dwelling units
shall meet the criteria listed in Section 5, C of this
Ordinance.
4
A building situated on a single unit residential
building envelope shall not contain more than 3,200
square feet of GRFA.
8. Building Height: Building height shall not exceed 33
feet for a sloping roof.
9. Parkinct: Parking shall be as required in Section 18.52
of the Vail Municipal Code. At least one enclosed
parking space, per dwelling unit shall be required.
Each employee dwelling unit shall have one enclosed
parking space.
10. Landscaping: The area of the site to be landscaped
shall be as indicated on the preliminary landscape
plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to
the Design Review Board for their approval. The Design
Review Board approved final landscape plan shall
represent the subdivision's general landscape
requirements.
The entire portion of every building envelope, not
covered by pavement or buildings, shall be landscaped
as well as any areas outside the building envelope
disturbed during construction.
11. Design Guidelines: The Design Guidelines .shall be
submitted to the Design Review Board for their Final
approval. The DRB final design guidelines shall
represent the approved design guidelines. Design
guidelines for SDD No. 16 are as follows:
a. Roof pitch shall be between 4 feet in 12 feet and
6 feet in 12 feet.
b. Roof material shall be Cedar shakes.
c. Siding material shall be either log or stucco with
log perlins, log railings, or other log members,
natural rock, or a combination of the above, and
shall be applied horizontally as indicated on the
prototypical building elevations. Only light
colored stain shall be applied to siding.
d. Either stucco or siding shall be applied to
exposed concrete foundation walls. If stucco is
utilized, it shall be light in color.
e. All windows shall be white metal clad or wood
windows, and will be "divided light" style.
5
f. All roofs shall have overhangs of at least 1 foot
in order to protect walls and wall openings from
rain and snow and to contribute to the building's
character.
12. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreational amenities
tax shall be assessed at the rate for the Residential
Cluster zone district.
13. Protective Covenants: Prior to major subdivision final
plat approval, the developer shall file protective
covenants on the land records of Eagle County which
will provide that each owner who builds a structure on
a designated building envelope shall comply with the
design guidelines and rockfall mitigation requirements
as outlined by the EIR by Jamar Associates August 5,
1987. Copies of the guidelines and mitigation
requirements shall be available at the Town of Vail,
Community Development office.
The covenants shall also provide in regard to the
covenants dealing with design guidelines, rockfall
mitigation and employee housing that the Town of Vail
shall have the right to enforce the covenants and that
the covenants may not be amended or deleted without
Town of Vail approval.
The protective covenants shall be approved by the Town
of Vail attorney, prior to major subdivision final plat
approval.
Section 5. Conditions of Approval
A. Special Development District No. 16 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 development of Special Development District No. 16 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
6
Development District No. 16 shall provide employee housing
on site. The following restrictions shall apply to all
employee dwelling units within SDD No. 26:
The developer shall build a minimum of one employee dwelling
unit 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 developer may provide up to 5 employee dwelling units,
including the 1 required dwelling unit, 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.
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,
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
7
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.
D. 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
improvements as designated in the applicant's phasing plan
for the project, per the staff memorandum, dated April 9,
1990, Section V, 9.
E. 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.
Section 6. Amendments
Amendments to SDD No. 16 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.
8
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 be 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 the
Vail Municipal Code as provided in this Ordinance shall not
affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any
prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or
repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall
not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or
superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 11.
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.
9
INTRODUCED, READ AND
1990,
Ordinance on the
in the Council Chamb~
Colorado.
Ordered published in
PASSED ON
and a pub
_ day of
ors of the
full this
FIRST READING THIS day of
Lic hearing shall be held on this
1990 at 7:30 p.m.
Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
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
10
TOPIC
8/8 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN ANNEXATION
(request: Lapin)
2/20 JOINT MEETING COUNCIL/VMRD
2/27 SATELLITE POST OFFICE (request:
Osterfoss)
3/13 TRIANGLE OF GREEN SPACE ADJACENT
TO VILLAGE CENTER
3/27 COMPENSATION FOR PEC, DRB,
LIQUOR AUTHORITY
4/3 WOODY BEARDSLEY LETTER (request:
Lapin)
4./10 CML CONFERENCE/Colorado Springs
4/17 REVIEW UNDERLYING ZONING IN
RESIDENTIAL AREAS ANNEXED WITH
COUNTY ZONING IN PLACE, I.E.,
BIGHORN, WEST VAIL, INTERMOUNTAIN,
ETC. (request: Fritzlen)
4/24 DOBSON ARENA/WWCG USAGE
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP
N
LARRY: Proceedi~~g w/legal requirements for
annexation.
Caroline: Prepare to clarify any misunderstanding
about the Town's continuing road improvement
projects and the County's disinterest in repaving
in West Intermountain in conjunction w/our summer
project.
PAT: Apply in writing to Council re: ground lease
of Booth Creek 9 hole par 3 golf course.
RON: Pursue sta°Lion "in town" and/or increase
summer bus service?
RON/LARRY: Contact re: possible gift to the Town?
RON/KRISTAN/LARRY: Should additional compensation
be considered for appointed, standing Town
boards?
RON: Request further detail on 6 parcels available
for land trade with Forest Service.
COUNCILMEMBERS: Conference will be held June 20-23
this summer ° reservations should be made as soor
as possible.
4/26/90
Page 1 of 2
UP SOLUTIONS
Petitions are being circulated, but not successfully. Flyer
delivered to residea~ts 4/26/90.
Kent sent letter outlining proposed process to Tim Garton.
VMRD has reviewed and TOU/UMRD commi°~tee will meet in May.
Meeting to be set up with Ernie Chavez.
Fred Hibbard and Ron have talked. Fred is doing a survey
and examining his options.
Will prepare alternatives and recommendation for Council.
Staff needs a copy of the letter.
Ron and Tom signed up so far.
KRISTAN/LARRY: Review current zoning in Bighorn an Staff will prepare alternative ways of dealing with this
other older residential areas where at the time unique area for discussion with PEC and Council.
of annexation to the TOU, buildings were already
constructed.
RON/SYLVIA BLOUNT/UMRD REPRESENTATIVE: Negotiate Will meet with WWCG representatives on May 9.
usage of TOU's yearly 20-day allowance to
accommodate WWCG.
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP
TOPIC QUESTIONS
4/24 SPECIAL WORK SESSION RON/BRENDA: Set special work sessian on M^nday,
April 30, 1990, at 1:00 P.M., in Council
Chambers vc review VTRC bids submitted and
select alternate deducts.
4/24 PARKING/TRANSPORTATION TASK COUNCIL: Meeting has been set in the Library
FORCE MEETING (request: Osterfoss) Room at 1:30 P.M., on Thursday, May 3, 1990, to
review current task force recommendations and
study impact, alternatives, etc.
FOLLOW-UP SOLUTI
Done
4/26/90
Page 2 of
DAN SCHAEFER ENERGY AND COMMERCE
6TH DISTRICT, COLORADO
COMMITTEE
1317 LONGWORTH BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 SUBCOMMITTEES:
(202) 225-7882 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
FINANCE
3615 SOUTH HURON STREET, x101
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80110 TRANSPORTATION AND
(303) 762-8890 ~II1t~rP,~l3 Df #~E ~1~itP~ tt#P,~ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
.'~ID1iDP D~ iRP~1rPDPIt#tt#tUPD
~ tttt~ington, ~ . (ZL.
April 16, 1990
The Honorable Kent R. Rose
Mayor, Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mayor Rose:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the
proposed trade of Colorado lands for an acre of Forest Service
property at the base of Vail Mountain. I appreciated hearing
from you.
Land trades are routinely used by the federal government to
obtain new properties, or to dispose of property it deems
undesirable. In many situations, it is an effective means of
accomplishing a goal which otherwise may not be met.
There is not any formal legislation in Congress to
accomplish the land trade you are referring to. Until that time,
it is not pertinent to discuss the relative merits of this
particular land exchange. Given the local disagreement on this
matter, it is unlikely that this trade will be given serious
consideration in the near future.
Again, thank you for getting in touch. Please feel free to
let me know of your additional comments on this or any other
matter.
Best regards.
Sin rely,
DAN SCHAEFER
Member of Congress
DS/tdt
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL PLEASE REPLY To.
3D DISTRICT, COLORADO
^
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
7724 LONGWORTH BUILDING
WASHINGTON, OC 20515
COMMITTEES: (~/~~~- ~
AGRICULTURE ~1/ongre~~ of t~je ~tttteb ~tate~ (2021 225-47 6 7
DISTRICT OFFICES:
^ MAIN ST
720 N
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS .
.
t
ib
o
f ~ SUITE 400
e~
uge o
e~re~en
at
g PUEBLO, CO 81003
~agfjington
~~ 20515 (7 1 91 54 3-962 1
, ^ 835E SECOND AVE.
April 1 2, 1 9 9 0 SUITE 128
DURANGO,CO 81307
(3031247-9300
^ 225 N. STH STREET
Mr
Kent Rose SUITE 311
. GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501
Mayor (303) 242-2400
Town Of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Rose:
Thank you for your letter regarding a proposal to swap one
acre of Forest Service property within the town of Vail,
Colorado, for property elsewhere. I appreciate your concern about
this exchange. I have not seen the actual proposal, and first
learned about it after reading an article in the Rocky Mountain
News.
As a member of both the House Interior and Agriculture
Committee's, I realize that land exchanges are an important tool
in acquiring valuable private lands within forests, parks and
monuments. Congress has been attempting, unsuccessfully, to keep
up with the demand for land acquistion through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. An exchange of this nature would require
legislation, and no such legislation has been brought to my
attention.
More important than the need for land acquisition, however,
is the need to respect the wishes of the community. After reading
about how adamantly Vail opposes this proposal, I cannot imagine
the proponents will continue to seek congressional help.
Thank you again for your letter.
Sincere y,
t
Ben Nighth se Campbell
Member of Congress
BNC/dm