The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-05-22 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session~~.z VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 2:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Vail Village Criterium Request for Funds 2. Site Visit - 2334 and 2354 South Frontage Road 3. Design Review Board Report 4. Discussion of Possible Annexation of 2334 and 2354 South Frontage Road 5. Information Update 6. Other VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 2:00 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 2:00 1. Vail Village Criterium Request for Funds ($10,000) Ted Martin Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ted Martin's request for up to $10,000 for Vail Village Criterium Bicycle Race. Background Rationale: Ted Martin's trying to save the bicycle race, which was being handled by John Horan-Kates for Eurofaire on the weekend of July 7. Vail Associates has committed $10,000, and Ted is asking the Town for $10,000. 2:15 2. Site Visit - 2334 and 2354 South Frontage Road Mike Mollica 2:45 3. Design Review Board Report Mike Mollica 2:50 4. Discussion of possible annexation of the McClintock property Mike Mollica and the Creekside Condominiums. The properties are located on the South Frontage Road, immediately west of the I-70 West Vail Interchange and north of Gore Creek. Applicant: Melanie McClintock Action Requested of Council: Review the proposal and give direction to staff. Background Rationale: The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed this request at their December 11, 1989, public hearing and although a formal vote was not taken the PEC was generally supportive of the annexation and rezoning request. 3:15 5. Information Update Ron Phillips 3:20 6. Other r.w.~1 «-ar.n wi.~l ~lwn..rt~rl..rR Iill C+~n>1 cLb/a,... Qr. OR Mat laerla sli ~ w wc+q+..+aa<x...ew lo.~law...,n. ~... 7ua u.... f1TMTM ILaf '+f. I~OM.tI TI( 7'fYN . .... ..-..~.. ...~..~.... ~.~ ., .~. .... . '!SN/tioy GU dDl~7 34Y1JY 737/ tYS~y~t Itrrl Ill.t-b~k l x0067. )lWllf fefT 6pr~ dT IMl+dl TT ~ubl Fw/ 91~b1d+- taf . /Qfrl. K IowalO~o W~.r}y Mr.ln T . . 1~M..as.+a ftf..`n~ IIr4(i- Ofcfln~ TT1vA. I 1 t t >1 /t~.l FTwdlti4l. PllwO Mta`1 1111 W~4~ I~Q lbl~wy Tvj O.o1n.1 O7 46210{ ffEf161b/.b , /1• U~Anl l4aw t/'i~/Il ~ 10061 7'061'M174S1 . ~WP` Ib~410/It't~a~ l 60(MSt, T0117ilID f007 Ibfy...-, IL faeat JoeTlfoalxT 9r 1x1 ~ 1lr,rla0rw 6'bd ffb a>w Jib l 117 tr~ faw4/ L Tntl t~MnYpti Nc~.d ~lT, 1+61 , , /o-NMI r ~~11 ~ -ai/ Mrrq lit NMwta1 1-T•~ r~R 1-!ra M7frA. t T 1 f)lr~ern Ibwl ~ +M . " - 1-r~~pr~ Rvtl Ia11M~k l f000Z 76rC>•1 O'er U~Od ~ Qt, 8l lMr~ 10 OI611 31{1662'60.11 ifs lib Tbd ~. Alro6e ~6t 1060 Er6r+t 0r1./. w~wl M SpDI a0a1Q/1~TD1 /o-C>4~ flwr f-w Mrsl~Y1y TMvaal 600 Ml Ib~~M. t a00a2. a06Q7'1-7100 1a~•M QT ~ Slrlull IO*ii 6MI~ 12000 K~dy 9t loll MO 0111. OI 1Ia741a/6 p.lwM T7[ 7D7tR1~ 0/1bIJa61flQ ~ 14d 91Aw Ort HO ~Vll llflYtll.1 ~t a~~ $10, 000 PURSE The Vail Village Criterium Rehuns Friday July 6th, 1990 Promoter: U. S. Sports Cycling, Vail, Colorado ~AS~-~INGTUN 7'RUSrI~ SING CLASSIC JGUST 20-26, 1990 } KAN E~, VIIASE-~INGTON F~~:~IRING TEE C?R MEN'S NATIONAL TOUR NAL PRESTIGE C~.ASSIC ~Nlt~lz MEN'S RACE ~vfiL x~',~EJiiuc LL.tiSSAC 1IOI: ~1lOIV1EN' S RACE OR C.AI'AGORY ~' ~' MASTERS' RAC ixx~r 1421 ~~ ~ ~~ T Fle1d Ltln.ited t~ 125 riders ~,. . 50 lap criLerilun, with a $ LO,WO pttrsc. The Vail Village Criterium is open to all Category A, Sr. 1 & 2 Fro Men. $50.00 per U_ S.G F. licensed races Make checks payable to U. S. Sports., Ins, and send with entry form to: U. S. Sports, Inc. P.Q Box 477 Vats, Colorado 81658 STAN TIMES AND PRIES Glass Shit '){'ime Dishnre Na of Pri¢ea Gv. A Sr. I Rr 2 14,1)(1 am Cn y.,~,/5n s r„ w t~~~ ;Z,50(F tsi The Mail Viltagc Criterium is the same course that was used by the Coors Classic the last year it was held. It is a S4 mile, 50 lap cottr9e with a Its foot elevation gain per lap. For more iniormatron cal! LJ.S. Sports, Into. at (343} 949-5199 r. . ' ~'0 ~~ 2s DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA MAY 16, 1990 2:00 P.M. REVISED 5/11/90 SITE VISITS 12:00 P.M. 1 1. U.S. West Building - Reroof SM N. Frontage Rd MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: George L. VOTE: 5-0 Consent Approval. 7 2. Russell Residence - New Single Family w/2nd Unit Lot 15, Block H, Vail Das Schone #2 SM MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: Chuck C. VOTE: 5-0 Approved as submitted. 15 3. Berg - New Single Family Residence SM Lot 19, Vail Meadows Filing #1 MOTION: Pat H. SECOND: Chuck C. VOTE: 5-0 Approved as submitted. 4. May Palace - Remodel Exterior Bar BR Creek Side Building, Vail Village MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: Chuck C. VOTE: 5-0 Approved as submitted. 2 5. Alpine Townhouse - VIII, Single Family Homes MM Lot 34, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch (Parcel 2) MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: Patricia H. VOTE: 5-0 Approved as submitted. 5 6. Weber - New Single Family MM Lot 6, Lionsridge Filing #3 MOTION: Patricia H. SECOND: Chuck C. VOTE: 5-0 Approved with conditions. 3 7. Wells - Balcony Addition MM Lot 2, Block 5-C, Vail Valley 1st MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: George L. VOTE: 5-0 Approved as submitted. 12 8. Dauphinais-Moseley Construction - New P/S KP Lot 3, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: VOTE: 5-0 Approved with conditions. 4 9. Talon Townhoues - 20 Townhouse Units (Vail Pointe) Lot 1, Blk 3, Lionsridge #3 / 1881 Lionsridge Loop MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Conceptual. KP i .~ e 10. Vail Pointe Townhome Sign - New Sign BR Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge #3 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Tabled. 11 11. Perot - Remodel of existing residence & 250 Add. Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village 1st MM MOTION: Patricia H. SECOND: George L. VOTE:4-0-1 McCluskie-Abstained Approved with conditions. 12. Elk Meadows - SDD No. 16 MM Final review of Design Guidelines for Subdivision. MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: George L. VOTE: 5-0 Consent approval. 13. Tjossem - New Single Family SM Lot 4, Parcel A, Lionsridge #2 (Elk Meadows) MOTION: George L. SECOND: Pat H. VOTE: 5-0 Approved as submitted. 13 14. Stewart Addition MM/BR Lot 14B, Bighorn 2nd Addition MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Tabled. s 9 15. Herzog - Separation of Garage SM Lot 23, Matterhorn MOTION: Pat H. SECOND: Chuck C. VOTE: 5-0 Approved separation of garage and second unit from primary. 6 16. Smith - Addition SM Lot 16, Block H, Vail Das Schone #2 MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: George L. VOTE: 5-0 Consent approval. 8 17. Milner - New Single Family Residence SM Lot 25, Vail Village West Filing #1 MOTION: Chuck C. SECOND: Pat H. VOTE: 5-0 Approved with condition: all trees outside excavation area must be protected. 14 18. Ruder - New Duplex SM Lot 18, Bighorn 4th MOTION: Pat H. SECOND: Jamie M. VOTE: 5-0 Tabled. 10 19. Muhearn Group - New Primary/Secondary Residence Lot 9, Glen Lyon Subd. (Conceptual) SM MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Conceptual. 20. Lionshead Banner Poles SM Lionshead Mall MOTION: Jamie M. SECOND: George L. VOTE: 5-0 Approved as submitted. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: McCluskie Gwathmey Lamb Crist Herrington STAFF APPROVALS: Dobson Resid. - Addition of Sliding Door and Airlock/996 Ptarmigan. Lorimer Fence - 2537 Arosa Drive. ELA - Sign on Awning and Bay Window/Lionshead Arcade Building. Grassis - Paving Driveway and Snowmelt/2800 Aspen Lane. Herman Resid. - Deck Addition/141 East Meadow Drive. Strunk - Window for Bath/4237 Bighorn Terrace. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 11, 1989 SUBJ: A WORK SESSION to consider possible annexation and zoning on the "McClintock property". The property is located on the South Frontage Road, immediately west of the I-70, West Vail interchange and north of Gore Creek. Applicant: Melanie McClintock I. Description of the Proposal The applicant has scheduled this work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission to initiate discussions regarding the future annexation, of a 1.06 acre parcel of land, into the Town of Vail. The property is currently under the jurisdiction of Eagle County, and is zoned Residential Suburban Medium (RSM), which allows for four dwelling units on the site. Surrounding land uses of this site include a 10-bedroom bed and breakfast (currently under construction) on the Elliott Ranch property to the southwest; the Streamside project to the east (short-term rentals); and the South Frontage Road and I-70 to the north. Upon annexation, the applicant would propose to zone the property Residential Cluster (RC). The proposed development plan calls far a total of four single family homes on the property. II. Zoning Analysis A. Lot Area Gross area: 46,287 square feet Area in flood plain: 14,048 square feet Net buildable area: 32,239 square feet B. Pro osed Zoning Residential Cluster - this zone district allows for a total density not to exceed six dwelling units per acre of "net buildable area". Four dwelling units would be allowed on this site if it were to be zoned RC. C. Development Standards The applicant is proposing to meet the RC zone district standards for setbacks, building height, GRFA, site coverage, landscaping and parking. No variance requests are proposed at this time. D. Geologic Hazards According to the Town's geologic hazard maps, this parcel is not within the boundaries of any geologic hazard area, with the exception of the flood hazard zone (i.e. 100-year floodplain). However, no development is proposed within this flood hazard zone. III. Compliance with the Town's Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan has identified this property as suitable for . "Low Density Residential" use. This category includes single- family detached homes and two-family dwelling units. According to the Land Use Plan, "the density of development within this category would typically not exceed three structures per buildable acre." IV. Zone Change Criteria The following criteria would be utilized for a proposed zone district amendment: 1. Suitability of existing zoning. 2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with Municipal objectives. 3. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community. V. Issues -May want to consider primary/secondary zone district, which would still allow 4 units - only 2 .structures.- less impact on site. -Preserve existing large trees. -Employee housing - may be appropriate to consider. -Safe, reasonable slope on access drive down into project. -Open space - stake site to determine more specific locations of structures -Undergrounding of utilities rr ~.. r rr r rwr ~-1nr Lr. wr 1r4 1, w v^ u.w r /.(. M ~.Ir1YAwY r~ r /Ir l 11 Y.w : 4r1.. r.M.M 1./. ..11. )ww MM YMw/. /.w.u r r.w 1..1.11 /.wnwu u Mw 1"' y W i r. w1 Y .. Y rw11. x -.111 .r w r M•rY My r • rlr ..4 y .•4 1 N r ~ r . w1 = ~ . Iw1 ~.. I r. IIM1 /.wr. v ..1. I r•.. .-.r.l :~ wr IM •w• trw11. ~.. 1,1 ~ :t eh r1.1 •1. ir..rr ...1. \.I • M ~•'~"• I..•./ 11..1 w.. 1 L.nwu 1 r.11 r it 1rr iN(rK rlrri M / rwa r.1r ~ ,1 .4 M ~/ ~..~ ~~ » / w/n •u..w /•Knw Pitt N ~~. I./l M1.1 N1 ~If.. _ ... 11 / 1w< ~• '•1q.~ • ~}~ ~ V II.Ir • tlt14.1 -- .S . r11E-Sa~ _.r~iAt~r~t, ~~__ Iw4awwl / . a rovol Rll / . v i w . ~ fi' ~, l.wlww r.r W ~ ~. , 4v1n - nrN.11 ~ i .... (~ i~~ ~ t .~. ~ •Y ' . j;i .- -l1N [M .(.(( ••/~ ~~ / ~"~ . VICINITY .l...r..,.... MAP .rl. f[Y[ 11 •~700 • rr 1N Ke .r1 Ier rIr wr1 wN r KNOW BTORA~E r.wwwrwl..1 rv.rl.l. rr A11r.1.1 r. r /~.1+ 1 l.M 1.1. • Iw t.1. ~ w 1.1. r [.(. ' M 1.1. 1'w i ~ ~ ' ' M.1 r.. r.IM l.N I.r. • r.w ,~}"~q aw/r rww .i ' b' Ir' ...o r.lr rl Iwr .i ~1' r rr to ~~, ~r . ~R w r\ qUN-OPP PILTgAT/0N /Y ~\~ Kul N i j -r• ~'~~/ /, / '~ ~ ,l ~ 1.1. / • r j 1 j y ., 4 ~ • • ~ M i •~ ` r ~ r- .-1~ r J. M ~ ~ [ ' ~ ~'•'.•'~~ \ ~ f' . .~.~ ~ ~ ~N1 r r' 1141\ _ ~ri Nlurll r / It N ~' ~ - '4: F ,.• C ~., / ~ `. / 1. ~; I ~ ww aorN. w. a L -j .' F- t l..rN 1 r.w1r.1 ~ ~°- _ .. - _ . ~~.. _~~. ,I ,, ~ - '~;' .`,' r , J - • . ., ~ - w.r- ^ ~ ~ 1/r /T~.. N. . w w w w n n UNIT r' rtu11 lNl~fwl M[a1[I r Hut. µ rwwr nwlw nn[r r( rra N SITE PLAN ® ® ,(4l. ,•. 7,• • w M • N w NI lw IN . 1e11[al IMrwM r.w rwl[I 10.1..1. /rRl .~.. m 11D YY OaTC N141.r O(~Ot ~ W RV6m rr1.Iw I wn ra 11h1 /Mlt INN•N UI O u~ 0 ~W _.. ~ IOf M ~ w~ V111 (ta, r,sww /NI I r•1- !•N rr41N1 Ir .. r.w.1K. w.1. [•v .111.Nr wru.mm.rww wslm~ln 1 t i ~/`' ~ tnatr uT. nmm ~ atrM _~.~ .. _ Q tYiOl[~TgN tt 1 O 11 ~~-1i ~ ~' t~-I ~~ ` if, •t a Ji' 'ill. ~ 1 :.-•_1~1 ~--t ... 1- •'• ' "~„{ ~ 1 t --r REAR ELEVATION +~ ~ OtCt ~ ~ ~ , MTq _ ., ~: ~ ~ ~ tea. aQ~~a~ ~- MAIN LEVEL PLAN LOWEq LEVEL PLAN auu ~ ua•. t-o• ac.u • ut•. l'-o• ~tiu ~~'~ '~4 ~ ~ ~~t' ~,,4 j~ ~'~ dt FRONT ELEVATION .~ l ~ tnicee l _. ~ __~ SITE 6 VICINITY PROFILE ~~ ..~.,; .- ~,;= `. tx: ;-r' ~~ tn.t, ..~...~ oacwo ~: .~1..... IMt p t~1N1i lR1LtTt+1.00~MM0 ttul 7~1•iN1 KKMI .t tlt. 1YGif/0d •M/ yR IU~vM11 b~.1~001,1%OIYI p171..11t1 3 g SIDE ELEVATION / ~~ ~Z' ~~' ~~ h'IiNJ~S 4. South Frontage Road Peter Patten explained that this property had once been annexed to Vail, but was now back in the County. He added that the owner had been meeting with the staff concerning development of the property dating back to 1980. The proposal was for a total of 4 detached townhomes, including the existing residence. It was zoned RSM in Eagle County, and the owner wanted to know how the Town would feel about the proposal before they asked to be annexed again. Peter stated that the density would not change from that allowed by the County. Mike Mollica reviewed the zoning analysis, compliance with the Land Use Plan, zone change criteria, and other issues concerning the proposal. He stated that the staff was concerned about existing trees, maybe having P/S zoning, perhaps including employee housing, having a reasonable slope to the driveway, and the undergrounding of the utilities. He wanted to see the proposal staked. Peter explained that the reason this property was designated to be zoned Low Density Multiple Family in the Land Use Plan was because adjoining property was low density. However, now the immediate property to the west was building a bed and breakfast structure with 10 bedrooms. Kristan added that Creekside had 12 units. Craig Paul, representing the applicant, stated that they wanted a firm reading on what could be done with the property, and that they were ready to petition to annex subject to a positive reading from the PEC on the proposal. Chuck questioned why they wanted to get back into the Town. Paul mentioned owning other property in the Town. Peter asked if the existing house had a basement apartment, and Mary McClintock replied that it did, but that they would take out the kitchen. Peter asked what if the Town let them keep the unit as employee housing, and Mary replied that then they would probably agree to this. Jim asked if the land would be condominiumized, and was told it would be deeded as townhomes. Mike asked if Primary/Secondary zoning had been considered, and was told it had not been, and that they were disinclined to consider Primary/Secondary zoning, as it would make the units less desirable to future buyers. Chuck asked if the existing unit would be remodeled and was told it would be. Ken Taniguchi, project architect, showed a site plan and described undergrounding the utilities from the property line. Diana asked if they had considered asking Creekside to underground the utilities in front of their property, and Mary replied that she hadn't looked at the possible cost to include the area in front of Creekside. Connie asked what the distance would be between homes, and was told it would be about 10 feet. Peter stated that new easements would have to be drawn for undergrounding the utilities. Kristan felt the access driveway seemed tight. Chuck asked if the Fire Department needed to check the proposal and whether or not two exits would be needed. Staff responded that the Fire Department would check the submittal. Connie felt the proposal sounded good; Diana wanted to see the largest number of trees possible saved. She wished that there was some way they could have 1 employee unit with the Residential Cluster. Sid asked if the property could be divided so that the existing home was on land zoned Primary/Secondary, and the rest of the property be zoned Residential Cluster. Craig asked that the zone question be resolved so that they could get the annexation scheduled. Peter replied that this could not be done at a work session, and that the PEC could not pass resolutions. He stated that they could summarize the minutes and as a staff could give Craig a summary of what was said here. Craig said he did not want to request an annexation before the Town Council and then come back to PEC and be "zeroed on the current proposal." He asked for a letter summarizing the views so that he could go to Larry Eskwith to formalize the request for annexation. Jim asked that once the annexation was completed, if they would be. willing to have the property zoned Primary/Secondary. Diana stated that it looked as though RC or Lower density would be acceptable to the board. AGREEMENT Between: Town of Vail, a Calorada home rule municipality 75 Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 [hereafter Town], and and concerning: PET Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership c/o M. Melanie McClintock, Vice President R.A. Eddy, Inc., a Corporation P.O. Box 2759 Newport Beach, CA 92659 [hereafter PET], Creekside Homes, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership c/o M. Melanie McClintock, President EmCR, Inc., a Corporation P.O. Box 2759 Newport Beach, CA 92659 [hereafter Creekside], Joint Petition for Annexation of Unincorporated Territory In The County Of Eagle, State of Colorado To The Town Of Vail, Colorado, dated May 31, 1989, as submitted by PET Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership and Creekside Homes, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership [hereafter Annexation Petition] RECITALS A. PET and Creekside are the owners of certain parcels of real property which are more fully described in the Annexation Petition as parcels A and B, which. Annexation Petition is here incorporated by reference. B. PET and Creekside desire to annex parcels A and B to the Town if and only if the Town grants final approval for zoning satisfactory to PET and Creekside. Parcel A is owned by Creekside and on which is found an existing Condominium regime described in a, "Declaration of Covenants. Conditions And Restrictions of Creekside Condominium. A Condominium Project Located In The County of Eagle. State of Colorado" which were recorded in the public records of Eagle County, Colorado on April 17, 1980 at Book 301, Page 793, Reception Number 198181 [hereafter Creekside Declarations], and a condominium map titled "Creekside Condominium" which was recorded April 19, 1990 at Reception Number 198182, Book 301, Page 794 [hereafter Creekside Condo Maps]. Creekside desires that the Town annex Parcel A granting appropriate zoning to permit this current use to remain indefinitely on Parcel A. PET desires the Town annex Parcel B granting appropriate zoning to permit construction of improvements which are the subject of an, "Application For Zoning Approval" as submitted by PET to the Office Of Community Development of the Town, dated August 23, 1989, [hereafter PET's Zoning Request] and which was the subject of a work session before the Town "Planning and Environmental Commission" on December 11, 1989 as reflected in the minutes of that meeting at section "4. A Work Session On The McClintock Property Located In West Vail At the Intersection Of I-70 And The West Vail Exit On The South Frontage Road" page 6. NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1.0 PET AND CREEKSIDE TO PROCEED WITH ANNEXATION SUBJECT TO ZONING APPROVAL. PET and Creekside agree to proceed with all acts necessary to bring their Joint Petition to final vote before the Town Counsel to approve the annexation of parcels A and B to the Town in exchange for the Town's agreement that the granting of approval for annexation, if such approval is granted, is subject to PET and Creekside's obtaining zoning approval from the Town to the satisfaction of PET and Creekside within Ninety days from the date that the final vote approving annexation is made, if such final vote for approval is made. PET and Creekside promise that they shall supply all information, provide full cooperation, and pay all expenses, if any, connected with both their petitions for annexation and their applications for zoning. 1.1 ORDINANCE TO DE-ANNEXATION IF ZONING APPROVAL NOT GRANTED. The Town, PET and Creekside expressly agree that should the Town grant final vote in favor of approving the Joint Petition for annexation, and that after fulfilling all reasonable requests and requirements of the Town in _connection with the applications for zoning in regard to parcels A and B that PET and/or Creekside are unable to obtain final zoning approval to their satisfaction, then either PET, or Creekside, or both may give written notice to the Town of the fact that satisfactory zoning approval has not been obtained, and upon receipt of any such a notice, the Town shall forthwith pass an ordinance and do all other acts necessary to cause the annexation to be reversed, and to cause the result that any land annexed pursuant to the Annexation Petition shall be de-annexed. The written notice referred to in this section shall be mailed to the Town by postage prepaid, certified mail return receipt requested and must be post marked not later than One Hundred Twenty (120) days following the date the town grants final approval of annexation, if such approval is granted, and in the event said notice is not timely made, PET and Creekside expressly waive their rights to nullify any annexation approval as might have been granted by the Town. The notice to be given under this section shall be Agreement, Page 2 (03/20/90) substantially as the form, "Notice To Nullify Annexation" as displayed in the attached Exhibit 1. 1.2 No Representations Or Warranties By Town. By entering into this agreement, the parties expressly acknowledge that the Town is making no commitment whatsoever to either granting approval for the annexation as set out in the Annexation Petition or to the granting of the zoning as requested in the PET's Zoning Request or any zoning approval as may be requested by Creekside, and that any and all such approvals shall 'be considered by the Town upon their individual merits and in the sole discretion of the Town. The parties further expressly agree that by entering into this agreement Creekside and PET are not in any way bound to continue with their respective applications for zoning approval and for .annexation, but may in their sole discretion abandon such applications ar~d petiticn in their sole discretion. The parties expressly acknowledge that this agreement is intended only to enforce the contingency set out herein and to grant PET and Creekside the rights to nullify and reverse any annexation granted by the Town upon their inability to also obtain satisfactory zoning approval. GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.0 Merger, Incorporation. All prior and contemporaneous agreements, negotiations or understandings have been merged here and the terms hereof may be altered only in a writing executed subsequently to the date of this document. 2.1 Binding Effect. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their respective heirs, devisees, assigns and successors. 2.2 Assignment, Successor In Interest. PET and Creekside may assign the benefits of this agreement in connection with any transfer of any interest in Parcels A and/or B. The benefits of this agreement shall accrue to any person or entity who acquires an interest in .parcels A and/or B by way of foreclosure or deed-in-lieu transaction. 2.3 Headings, Gender. The headings as displayed herein are inserted for convenience only and are not to be interpreted in any way contrary to the meaning of the text of the agreement. The use of any word characteristic of a specific gender shall be interpreted to include the other gender. 2.4 Recording. The parties agree that should at any time in the future it be necessary to record this agreement for purposes of conveying merchantable title, that it may be so recorded without obtaining any permission or consent from the other party. Agreement, Page 3 (03/20/90) 2.5 Notices. All unless otherwise specifies mailed postage prepaid, shall be addressed to the as stated above unless previously been given. notices as required by this agreement, 3 herein, shall be in writing, shall be certified return receipt requested, and parties at their respective addresses written notice of change of address has 2.6 Enforcement. Nothing contained herein shall preclude any party from seeking enforcement of the terms of this agreeifient and to obtain any and all remedies as a court of competent jurisdiction may find appropriate. 2.7 this follows: Date of Agreement. day of Town of Vail Town of Vail By /Date PET Ltd . PET Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership By R.A. Eddy Inc., a California corporation, by M. Melanie McClintock, Vice President Creekside .Creekside Homes Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership By EmCR Inc., a California corporation, by M. Melanie McClintock, President ACKNOWLEDGMENTS STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE The agreement is entered into 1990 by the parties as ) ss Agreement, Page 4 (03/20/90) came before me this day of 1990 and acknowledged the signature above given in the capacity of the for the Town of Vail, Colorado. My Commission expires: STATE OF COUNTY OF WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public ss M. Melanie McClintock, as the Vice President of R.A. Eddy, Inc., and as President of EmCR, Inc., came before me this day of , 1990 and acknowledged her signature above. My Commission expires: WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public Agreement, Page 5 (03/20/90) * * * NOTICE TO NULLIFY ANNEXATION (Exhibit 1) To: From: and Town of Vail, a Colorado home rule municipality 75 Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 [hereafter Town], PET Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership c/o M. Melanie McClintock, Vice President R.A. Eddy, Inc., a Corporation P.O. Box 2759 Newport Beach, CA 92659 [hereafter PET], Creekside Homes, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership c/o M. Melanie McClintock, President EmCR, Inc., a Corporation P.O. Box 2759 Newport Beach, CA 92659 [hereafter Creekside], concerning: Agreement dated the day of 1990 between the parties and the subsequent Town Counsel Vote granting approval for annexation, rendered the day of 1990. Ladies and Gentlemen: PET and Creekside hereby serve notice that they have been unsuccessful in obtaining satisfactory zoning approval for certain parcels of land which were the subject of a Joint Petition for Annexation of Unincorporated Territory In The County Of Eagle, State of Colorado To The Town of Vail, Colorado dated May 31, 1989 as submitted by PET and Creekside, and which are therein referred to as Parcels A and B. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement between the Town, PET and Creekside dated the day of 1990, this notice is served to trigger all necessary proceedings in the Town to cause the Town to pass and approve of an ordinance causing the land referred to as Parcels A and B to no longer be annexed to the Town. Agreement, Page 6 (03/20/90) Done this day of , 1990. -~ PET Ltd . PET Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership By R.A. Eddy Inc., a California corporation, .by M. Melanie McClintock, Vice President Creekside Creekside Homes Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership By EmCR Inc., a California corporation, by M. Melanie McClintock, President Agreement, Page 7 (03/20/90) WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 5-15-90 Pagel of 2 r. ESTIONS LLOW-UP SO 8/8 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN ANNEXATION (request: Lapin) 2/20 JOINT MEETING COUNCIL/VMRD 2/27 SATELLITE POST OFFICE (request: Osterfoss) 3/27 COMPENSATION FOR DRB/PEC/LIQUOR AUTHORITY 4/10 CML CONFERENCE/COLORADO SPRINGS 5/1 TENNEBAUM LAND SWAP (request: Gibson) 5/8 TENNEBAUM RESOLUTION 5/15 ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE DEBATE 5/1 RECYCLABLE PAPER PRODUCTS (request: Rose) LARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements for annexa- tion. PAT: Apply in writing to Council reground lease of Booth Creek 9 hale par 3 golf course. RON: Pursue station "in town" and/or increase summer bus service? RON/KRISTAN/LARRY: Should additional compensation be considered for appointed, standing Town boards? COUNCILMEMBERS: Conference will be held June 20-23 this summer. Reservations should be made as soon as possible. CHARLIE/PAM: Provide owner's names, addresses, and phone numbers for additional parcels to be consid- ered in the proposed land exchange. RON/LARRY: Prepare resolution for County Commission• ers. Council to deliver in person, en masse. COUNCIL/STAFF: Scheduled debate on proposed land exchange begins at 7:00 P.M. at the BMHS Student Center. STEVE WARWICK: What is the cost differential and degree of difficulty involved in purchasing all recyclable paper products? Has the TOV already pursued. this? A new advocate for petition circulation is being sought. Cindy Callicrate to be contacted. Kent sent letter outlining proposed process to Tim Garton. VMRD has revised and TOV/VMRD Committee will meet early June. Meeting to be set up w/Ernie Chavez. Will prepare alternatives and recommendations for Council by 6/15/90. Ron and Tom have signed up so far. Pam has received no calls from property owners so will proceed to gather required information. •Council is on the County Commissioner's Agenda for Monday, May 21, at 9:00 A.M. All Council members, as well as interested members of the public, are encouraged to attend. Kevin Lindahl has drafted a resolution, which Ron will review. Send similar resolutions for their adoption to Aspen, Crested Butte, CAST, TOA, etc., re:transfers of publicly held land for personal gain. toff will investigate. 5/1 REQUIRED BOTTLE DEPOSIT RON/LARRY: Composed letter to legislators/CML re: Letter considered by CML Policy Board on 5/18/90 to encourage CML mandatory bottle/can deposit requirement (both state sponsorship of legislation. and federal). TOPIC 5/1 ANNUAL CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH AWARD (request: Lapin) 5/1 UNUSED GRFA IN CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS (request: Lapin) 5/1 AMEND CODE, 12.04.240 5/8 INTERMOUNTAIN SWIM CLUB 5/15 REDUCTION OF LOCAL TELEPHONE RATES (request: Steinberg) 5/15 $ITE VISIT FOR MARRIOTT/MARK (request: Gibson/Lapin) 5/15 ZONING CODE RE-WRITE (request: Lapin) WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP ESTIONS 5/15/90 ~ ~~` Page. 2 of 2 FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIO BRIAN JONES/JOANNE MATTIO/PAT: Apparently this youth award fell through the cracks last year; pur- sue selection and presentation for BOTH years. KRISTAN/LARRY: Devise notification procedure for individual owners in condominium projects where collective GRFA may be required on an individual case-by-case basis. EXAMPLES: Crossroads/Northwoo STAN/LARRY/KRISTAN: Per Council direction, proceed. STAN: If the top were removed, could this be opened for public use on an interim basis? CHARLIE/STEVE BARWICK: Investigate why the tele- phone company is "dragging its collective feet" in lowering rates for county-wide usage? KRISTAN/MIKE: Alert Council to the PEC site visit schedule for the proposed Marriott/Mark addition. TOM BRAUN: Add to list for consideration the covered parking requirements and GRFA for single family and duplex, as opposed to applicant's requesting a site coverage variance. EXAMPLE: Perot Set up meeting w/Kent Rose to select individuals and schedule for evening Council meeting in June, Caroline Fisher to sub- mit application. Schedule for June 19 work session. Will be developed by July, 1990. The demise of the facility is complete - NO WAY could it be used by anyone. Stan and Pat will. speak with Fritz Allen. Will do. Tentatively scheduled for Monday, June 11. Council to receive notice. Added. 5/15 EV LETTER RE: BERRY CREEK I CHARLIE: Respond in the affirmative and schedule (Will do. (request: Osterfoss) meeting. D0214A TOWN OF VAIL VAIL TRANSPORTATION CENTER VAIL. COLORADO PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 1990 U5 17 Pager 1 of 1 ES900026 LEGEND Planned 5 Day Work Week i 30 MAY 1990 07 14 21 28 JUN 1990 04 11 18 25 JUL 1990 02 09 i6 23 30 AUG 1990 O6 13 20 27 SEP 1990 03 10 17 24 OCT 1990 01 08 15 22 29 NOV 1990 05 12 19 26 DEC 1990 03 10 17 24 31 NOTICE TU PROCEED MAY O1, 199U MOBILIZE _ _ _ _ SHORING EXCAVATION DEMOLITION _ FOUNDATION GROUTING STRUCTURAL STEEL VISITOR CENTER fOOTING FORMWORK FOOTING CONCRETE PRECAST ERECTION SITEWORK _ FINISHES CONCRETE TOPPINGS SEALERS STRIPING INSTALL PARKING EQUIPMENT MEP SYSTEMS ELEVATORS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION NOV 21, 1990 Uail's little acre ssuming that both sides in the Vail Land Swap War had Aarguments of nearly equal heft, we endeavored to fully consider each. But the fact is, land swap advocates fielded an 800-pound gorilla of a case,. while critics pushed a somewhat limp-wristed waif to the center of the ring. The underdog went down early in the first round; funeral arrangements were incomplete at press time. This isn't to say we don't understand Vail's position. City fathers and mothers don't like the idea of a rich California couple proposing to exchange 2,000. acres of private wilderness elsewhere in the state for one acre of Forest Service property that lies beside the ski slopes. They complain that the city's land-use plans will be subject to outside tinkering, and add that the prospective swappers - dan't even own the land they propose to swap, althougllFwe .understand that options will be forthcoming should the government approve the plan. , But we're not living in Eden, right? And at an~xchange rate of 2,000 to 1, why not make the trade? The one acre in question, after all, is not something that the general public would take a day trip to visit, or, for that matter, even walk across the street to see. What's needed now is for a member of Colorado's congressional delegation to propose legislation to allow the swap. Seems to us this is a pretty safe one, with developers and ent-ironmentalists both signing on. This acre is sur- rounded; it might as well be surrendered: