HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-19 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session ~v~
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1991
1:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Planning and Environmental Commission/Design Review Board/Town Council
Joint Meeting to review and discuss final draft of Vail Streetscape
Improvement Project
2. Discussion regarding approval request to proceed to Design Review Board to
allow for the renovation of the playground at Red Sandstone School
3. Discussion regarding 1991 Town of Vail Resident Survey
4. Discussion of Special Events Money Allocation
5. Information Update
6. Other
7. Discussion and Site Visit of a Proposed View Corridor, extending from
Frivolous Sal's to the east, over the Red Lion roof to the Gore Range
(Applicant: Town of Vail)
8. Adjournment
VAIL TOWN. COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1991
1:00 P.M.
EXPANDED AGENDA
1:00 1. Planning and Environmental Commission/Design Review
Mike Mollica Board/Town Council Joint Meeting to review and discuss final
draft of Vail Streetscape Improvement Project
Action Requested of Council: This is a joint work session
with the PEC and DRB, to review and comment on the
Streetscape Plan. Jeff Winston and Paul Kuhn, of Winston
Associates, will present the draft plan. Staff is
requesting comment so that the project may be revised if
necessary and then proceed to final design.
Background Rationale: The Streetscape Plan is nearing the
final phase of design. Numerous public meetings have been
held during the span of the project and many of the public's
comments have been incorporated into the proposed design.
In order to address as many site planning issues as
possible, coordination with all utility companies, as well
as with the Town's drainage plan consultants (Muller
Engineering), has also occurred.
3:00 2. Discussion regarding approval request to proceed to Design
Betsy Rosolack Review Board to allow for the renovation of the playground
at Red Sandstone School
Action Requested of Council: Deny/grant permission for
project to proceed to DRB.
Background Rationale: The property belongs to the Town.
The plan includes relocating the slides so that they are
closer to the existing jungle gym, constructing steps (at
grade) between the upper and lower parking lots, and
refurbishing the exterior of the school.
Staff Recommendation: Grant approval to allow the project
to proceed to DRB.
3:05 3. Discussion regarding 1991 Town of Vail Resident Survey
Caroline Fisher
Pam Brandmeyer Action Requested of Council: Input and feedback from the
Council regarding this year's resident survey - including
sample size, specific survey questions, etc. Council
members were given copies of last year's survey in your
Council packets for this week. We requested that you review
the survey and be prepared to give suggestions for changes,
deletions, etc.
Background Rationale: Last year the TOV resident survey was
sent to approximately 8,300 residents, business owners, and
second home owners. This was the first year that such a
large survey sampling was conducted. For public outreach
purposes, as well as a more complete view on public opinion,
the large sampling was effective. Last year at this time,
the possibility of conducting a reduced sampling every other
year was discussed. General opinion was that Town service
levels and areas of interest do not change that drastically
from year to year, and perhaps an extensive survey is needed
on an every-other-year basis.
Staff Recommendation: We might want to consider doing a
random sampling of 1,000 residents, business owners, and
second home owners for this year's survey population.
3:25 4. Discussion of Special Events Money Allocation
Rob Robinson
Sylvia Blount Action Requested of Council: Council will receive specific
proposals for the next two community-wide special events,
Memorial Day and Vail America Days (July 4th), at the work
session. VRA and URD are in concert on these monetary
requests and "taking the lead" on each event. Following a
joint meeting of these two groups, the Foundation, and the
Town of Vail, VRA and URD have held 2-3 subsequent meetings,
have agreed upon the orchestration of these two specific
events, and will be bringing forth additional .requests for
the remainder of this year. In the future, a bid process
for special events will be implemented.
Background Rationale: Council requested Ron to meet with
the UUF, URA, and URD regarding monetary allocations for
town-wide special events, and who is designated to take the
lead on orchestrating events, .and therefore should be
receiving the Town's financial support. The future process
was discussed, comments from each group noted, and these
requests are the outcome of that meeting.
3:35 5. Information Update
Ron Phillips
3:40 6. Other
3:45 7. Discussion and Site Visit of a Proposed View Corridor,
Andy Knudtsen extending from Frivolous Sal's to the east, over the Red
Lion roof to the Gore Range (Applicant: Town of Vail)
Action Requested of Council: Discuss the proposed view
corridor, commenting specifically on the boundaries proposed
by staff, the assumptions made by staff to define the
corridor, and the "grace period" proposed, which would
provide time for projects currently in design development to
be approved. The proposed ordinance adopting the corridor
would also clarify wording in the existing view corridor
ordinance.
Background Rationale: The PEC voted 6-0 on March 11, 1991,
recommending approval of the corridor. The enclosed staff
memo provides an analysis of the issues the PEC discussed.
4:15 8. Adjournment
-2-
memorandum
TO: Vail Town Council Members
• FROM: Caroline Fisher
Pam Brandmeyer
DATE: March 7, 1991
RE: 1991 Vail Resident Survey
It is Vail Resident Survey time again and we will be seeking
your input at the March 19 Town Council work session
regarding the specifics of this year's survey effort.
Attached is a copy of the annual Vail Resident Survey sent
last year to 8,300 residents, business owners, and second
home owners throughout the community. Please read through
carefully and give us suggestions regarding question style,
areas of inquiry, rating system, etc.
Last year was the first time that a sampling of such
magnitude took place, and we felt it was a positive effort
not only for public outreach purposes but also for a broader
range of feedback. The effort was considered fairly
successful, with 1,416 completed surveys returned.
We discussed last year the possibility of conducting reduced
and random samplings every other year, alternating with
samplings of last year's magnitude. It was felt that areas
of concern don't change that drastically from year to year
and perhaps a random sampling in the off years would be
adequate.
Please give us your thoughts on the possibility of this year
conducting a random sampling of 1,000 Vail residents,
business owners, and second home owners. We are hoping to
get the survey out by the beginning of April.
Thanks for your input.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 11, 1991
SUBJECT: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983, to establish
an additional view corridor, and to clarify .wording in
the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from
Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building
toward the Gore Range.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Since the PEC work session on February 11, 1991, staff has
rephotographed the Gore Range and identified the view corridor
more clearly. Attached to this memo are two photographs taken
from a 5'-2" height that show alternative ways to set the
boundary of the corridor. The first is staff's recommendation,
which runs the boundary along the roofs of the existing Red Lion
and Christiania buildings. The second reflects PEC's discussion
during the work session, which runs the boundary directly between
two balcony railings on either side of the corridor. The
vertical boundaries which frame the two sides of the corridor are
the same on both alternatives since there was general agreement
on that issue. The 5'-2" height is consistent with the height
staff used to photograph other view corridors in the past. Staff
believes this is a typical eye level height for pedestrians.
Two other photographs are attached to this memo which were .used
at the work session, which were taken from a 3'-10" height. A
potential Christiania expansion has been identified on one of the
photographs by Paul Johnston's architect.
Regarding the text of the proposed ordinance, staff has changed
it so that it is clearly understood that existing encroachments
which are focal points (like the Clock Tower) are intended to
remain.
During the PEC work session, it was mentioned by Jay Peterson
that the Council, when discussing the proposed changes to the Red
Lion, had said that. view corridor number one was to exclude the
Red Lion chimney. Staff has included the chimney as part of view
corridor number 4. Staff could find no portion of Town Council
minutes stating that the Red Lion chimney should be excluded from
the view corridor. Staff understands from individuals involved
with the original definition of this view corridor that the
boundary was placed around the chimney, excluding it. Staff
would like to enable pedestrians to see as much of the Gore Range
as possible, and as a result, staff recommends including it
within the boundary. By including it, staff would encourage the
Red Lion to remove a portion of the chimney if and when the Red
Lion applies for a major remodel. Even though the .original
discussions may have excluded it, staff believes that corridors
in general should be defined with building roofs and walls, not
architectural projections like chimneys.
Before this view corridor is established, it must be considered
by Town Council twice and adopted as an ordinance. .Staff
believes that this addition to the code should be treated
similarly to other code changes. There should be some kind of
"grace period" for developers to pull building permits for
projects designed under the current regulations. Staff proposes
to use the same process that was used for the .recent code change
limiting the number of woodburning fireplaces. Once adopted by
the Town Council, staff proposes that there be a six week period
for individuals to submit a complete DRB application for projects
that would otherwise encroach into View Corridor #4. Approval of
the project by DRB, or any other board, is not needed. A
complete application submittal is all that would be necessary.
The staff memo from the February 11, 1991 PEC work session is
attached to this cover memo. It has been modified to reflect the
concerns the PEC expressed, including the discussion of the
chimney and clarifying the language regarding focal points like
the Clock Tower.
' MEMORANDIIM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: February 11, 1991 (Revised March 11, 1991)
SUBJECT: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish
an additional view corridor and to clarify wording in
the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from
Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building
toward the Gore Range.
Applicant: Town of Vail
I. BACKGROUND
The primary purpose of this request is to add another view
corridor to the four existing view corridors the Town
Council has adopted. These four views_ are numbered 1, 2, 5
and 6. These numbers are based on a large list that was put
together in an effort to comprehensively identify as many
view corridors as possible. The view that is under
consideration with this proposal is number four from that
list. In addition to adding a view corridor, the proposed
ordinance would clarify some of the language in the current
view corridor ordinance.
II. PROPOSED VIEW CORRIDOR
The proposed view corridor will read as follows:
"View No. 4 - The point of origin for this view is
8'-2" east of the southern side of the door frame of
Frivolous Sals, located at 244 Wall Street. The view
was established by setting a camera five feet two
inches above this point, using a 50 millimeter lens.
The Hill Building and the Plaza Lodge buildings flank
the corridor on either side. It then extends above the
Red Lion roof, then above the Christiania roof over
Hansen Ranch Road, to the Gore Range."
III. PROPOSED LANGUAGE
The current ordinance is attached to this memo for
reference. The portions which are proposed to be changed
are marked with an asterisk in the margin.
A. The first change is to delete the following sentence:
"Minor modifications to the roofs or structures (i.e. a
new flue) located above the line may be permitted if
appropriate approvals from the Community Development
Department are obtained."
Staff proposes that this sentence be replaced with:
"any modifications to the roofs or structures which are
proposed to be located above the line of the view
corridor may be permitted if approved by the PEC and
Town Council."
B. The second change is to modify the following paragraph:
"As circumstances affecting views change, such as
rezonings, variances and height or new buildings, the
view corridors will be reviewed and if necessary
revised. If a conflict exists between the maximum
height allowed and the view corridors, the more.
restrictive regulation will apply:"
Instead of the above, staff proposes the following
language be added:
"If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code
exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view
corridor, the more restrictive height as defined by the
view corridor shall apply."
C. A third issue which staff would like to add to the
ordinance reads as follows:
"Any expansion proposed above the view corridor line,
even if it is proposed to be built below, behind or in
front of an existing structure that is in a view -
corridor (a chimney or other architectural feature for
example) shall not be allowed.'!
There are three reasons why staff would like to add
this section. First, it clarifies the existing wording
of the ordinance which is presently interpreted in this
manner. Secondly, it will prevent new buildings from
competing with existing focal points like the Clock
Tower. Third, it will help keep corridors open so
that, eventually, when existing encroachments are
removed, corridors will be completely clear.
Hypothetically, new construction could impact existing
view corridors in the following ways:
View 1: (From the parking structure looking out to
the ski mountain.)
Potential applicants may want to construct
additions above the view corridor line, which
would not exceed the height of the Gold Peak
House. This is the situation that occurred
with the Red Lion. A thorough review of the
encroachment shall be required, which staff
believes is appropriate.
View 6: (From Gore Creek Drive looking east over
Gorsuch to the Gore Range.)
Additions to buildings could be done in such
a way that the mountain views are preserved.
However, staff believes the prominence of the
Clock Tower should not be reduced with any
other construction that would exceed the
height defined by the view corridor.
View 4: (Proposed new view from Frivolous Sals
looking east to the Gore Range.)
Expansions to the Red Li-on or Mill Creek
Court Building could be located behind the
Red Lion chimney. This should not be allowed
as the existing chimney blocks part of the
Gore Range from view which, ideally, should
be removed.
The reason staff would like to add this to the
ordinance is to clearly communicate to developers that
the view corridor boundaries are not exclusively
determined by existing buildings but instead are
determined by the view corridor line. This
clarification is needed to make the point that no new
construction above the view corridor line is allowed.
D. Lastly, a fourth point that staff would like to add to
the ordinance is that:
~~Some view corridors include portions of existing
structures that currently encroach into the corridor.
Pre-existing encroachments in view corridors shall not
be expanded or enlarged to. create further .encroachment.
For example, decks which extend out into a corridor
will not be allowed to be enclosed or expanded. Appli-
cants requesting changes .to buildings within view '
corridors should be aware that any existing encroach-
ments will be encouraged to be removed from the view
corridor as part of any major building modification.
Encroachments like the Clock Tower and Bell Tower,
which are focal points identified in the View Corridors
described in the View Ordinance, are excluded from this
policy.
IV. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental
Commission recommend that Town Council adopt these revisions
to the view corridor ordinance. Staff believes that the
clarifications will make the development review process
simpler for both applicants and the Town in the future.
Staff believes that adding view corridor number four, to
those already adopted by the Town Council, is important as
it is a beautiful view of the Gore Range from a high use
pedestrian area of Vail Village.
M
y -
Y .
-
.
-
a_~.
4 y _ _ ~ ~ - _ iii - "
~ ~K~. di J , r ~'Y _
l':~ r : ?.+ti.:
_;j..
t
~~r. - -
{ z
i { ;.p
. ~7`. t
_ ' ~
, ; ~ , :vim-.r=~
1- ~ `~i 9't . ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ _ .ter a ; - ~ / ~ -
~1:'-~
~`r-'~''''-~ 'fir. -N' _
'~C:a'drY't'_ _ -
.:r ti=p'%r, i -s
. = ~ ~1L ' : icy . i ~ ' - -
t ~"a
. .
y • ~ r <
a " rVa -b:~ - j, _ ~ i K J was . F..~- .
~ ff-~:~ ~ ! ~~Il III .r ~ Y L J•I/j•
- ~ .wn I ~ Staff Recommendation
` ,~r _ 5' 2" height .
- , 50 mm lens
N ~ fit. 5
s -
. ~
t ~
~ _
~ -
' -
~ ~ ` I _ is ~ i
• _ _
j.: l
1 f µ~k ' t ~ y,
•?.f"-..
t ~
._"J.. ~ ~ ~ . der N,~ ' i'' ~i' J... ~ r _i , _ - -
. ?y',t. _ j-^7iF. -4. I~ .ice .-pct.
R_
'X.. ? ~ ~
~ / .fit i i~`
,a4., ? .Y. y s"" ; ,tee
•~~~ti ~ l~~ +y Conclusion of YEC discussion
~ from worUsession on 2-11-91 •
S'2" height
" - j SO ~ lens
` ` ~ ' t. y1; ? 7t 1 ~ 1 yir ZI ~v; :w` L. 1 h ~
1 `f` ~ ~ ~ y.;t.., t 4 t. . r rr r'••K~ •'`~''l• ~+t ~ . 'kl~ .
{ ;i~ 'd; ~ 'rte 1:1. ~ '~1
t ~ .t,. 4 t :.;If~,~ n
l y. ;,.i;
r'~~r J' • ~ Vic,
~.p~ L 3"~•Rti~1 r ~ r' x~ • %i t t
r- : V.~•~i v , Iq a , ti a fit, + `
. RSr ~ ~ • ' "f' ~ l p
1 ~•i,y~u~,•~ 1 J~" r,
, ; r ~ j ~ i
~ ,fir". ~ ; c z.~ ~ i;, r,: ~ ~4~ , r
i. i
' ~ ..R. i t ~ < <
* ` ,.f* ~ ' ~ 1'1 . y 'art l:~ ' { ~J ,tY
tv 1, y' ) ~ J ~ ~~.4, s t ~ ~ n>wi 1 ~ ~ 1 .t ~
1 at~ Z 4. j ~ y t~~ 4 r'• s1~ t y t ~
,;,yam' a ~,1, ~ x ~ ~ t sy 'n-~ ' } 1
1;':Ot~~"` 'rte 3 4 `+y~: } •1'~ r 4 i ~ ~1 ~'~J~'• y.". ,
p
r A4' v ~ r t ~ S y~~f ~
n
R t~. !e}S r~ ~ t Sry F^,. . tMr ~ ~:r~ t ~ FJhvt j.,
s~,~1.. h ~M~~.~Il rt V r iy • ,`>ra R ~ t.t
1t
+l yp. ~s ~t
tt t ~
3~
! ~t,
t
i
a
s
e
.R
S
4 1L
r o a r
~ ~ +r, ~ t ~ ~ gph f ram wo
~ . w ' ~i~``~~t*`~K' ~ `"1 ' ;F a~ s •ri ~ j Yhotog
i ,
r t18
1
r
1 4 x
L~~ ~ .
I ~ `
h ~'i '\1 `fit. I '~%j. •~ry '~.A ' ..n.i''
,,tt r ~ • ~ ~F ~ ~ rte , 14
i . ~•~a' ~C , + ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~r'(~. ACS
:b } ~ r ~ .
F , w+` ~
Y. Y , _
~ ` ~
.til, 3x7, ~ 4~. '4i•
,iA"~; is ~ a t ~M a. r^,i; ~i•.i;~~ i
;~;:~•sst '~`1.,~ ' ti, y;~ ta^ ~ n''1,}!~~~r'.3a., jar,
' ' ~ y A t 1, ~~.'j~;. 'n ','r'~' ~j~' <3: .tea r ~ ~ . 1
i . A7~T i. or ~1n ::J~.~'.:itit~re, rjc x~ _ 4 R
{ J.. _Iyyi ra , ~ 1K.,~ !dl ~ '~r~ rye 1't ' ~ ` ~-~:Nf.s;~~~. ~t
s ~ ~ ^ Y ~~y M 'i• pansion a1l~WQ
x ex
, > ~ Christiania
y .
w
' r. t.. " • ','.N Y~'~'~^" ~"'1i. ' 'S, _ 1 Ia , ~ ~ 3~ ip++ height ~
.tea' '~`~",~"'rr~ ~ .,:u' ..c: l ^ ~,y ` , • ' ~
W ~t~
,r ~ _
~ .
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN
DESIGN GUIDE PLAN - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
VIE1v SECTION :1 `;D ~'i~:;W c'pI{?;I1)~R 11:1P TO Rri~[:CE
THE N G ;i13i: R V 1•~ ::1:?J Jlt V I ~ .V C~~lclt [ UUIiS A.WD 'f U
ELIhIINATE MINOR VIEW CORRIDORS; AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
WHEREAS, the-revision to the view section of the Urban Design
Guide Plan -Design Considerations and the View Corridor ?4ap has been
under study by staff, Planning and Environmental Commission and Town
Council for a considerable time.perioci; and
~ WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that preservation
of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of
Vail as a mountain resort; and
WHEREAS, the preservation of such views will protect the
municipalities attraction to tourists and visitors and, therefore, •
enhance and protect its economic vitality.
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of Council that the several most
important view corridors be entirely preserved as they exist; and
_ WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recom-
mended adoption of the nine view corridors, one focal point and
amendments to the language in the view section to the Council,
NOjY, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY•THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL:
-t
Section 1
Section G. Views of the Vail Village Design Considerations is
hereby amended to read as follows:
G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS
. Vaills mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its
;:-~3;Y;-• identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features,
, ,
;:,~~K etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by
~~~.r:~::,.repeated visibility, orientation reference points. Certain building
features are also important character features, orientation refer-
• 3 ences and visual focal points .
r~.9~:?""The most significant and obvious view corridors have been designated
S -r;..:
• -~r.l,.on the View Corridor Map (an element of the Vail Village Urban Design
~~t ) p g p y (.photos on file in
~~Framework Plan and hoto ra hicall documented
"r,~~'==~.the Community Development Department) . However, the view corridors.
~'~~~tY,~,~~: depicted on the maps and in the photographs should not be considered
~q,:-,;;,exhaustive. There are obviously many other important views too
~'•.numerous to map. When evaluating a development proposal, first
riorit should be given to an anal sis of the impact of the
yy.~.,-•~~;,.;_.:.~.~-~:project on views from pedestrian areas, whether designated or not.
The views designated to be preserved originate from either major
",.pedestrian areas or public plazas. They are views of the ski
sd.:, _~;~t~"-:' mountain, the Gore Range ~ • " or the Clock Tower.
~~Y~'-'~' ' The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower which were
selected to be preserved were chosen due to their significance,
not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation
- reference points to help the guests determine their location.
L~:{,,.;.,,w,,~,~ ~~~And, of course, looking east' from the Vail Village area one
views the dramatic Gore Range providing some of the most beautiful
Scenic views a~lywhere .
• ~ a~¦..~
r
-2- ,
The official photographs and field surveys of the view corridors
and focal point contain the area to be protected. No encroachment
will be allowed above the top of the black and white line on the
photographs or in the protected area as depicted by the field ~:~~~i:;~,~ .
surveys. The field surveys are on file with the Department of
Conununity Development and will be used to aid staff and applicants~;~,.,•:~
in determining the specific dimensional restrictions produced by •.~s'_'-;~`.~~.
.the view corridors. Minor modifications to the roofs or structures•.•~•
(i.e. a new flue) located above the line ma be
y permitted if appro;-.
priate approvals from the Community Development Department are . ;::`r:~•'
~ obtained. ~ `
~ To demonstrate the impact on other views, all submittals should ~
include a visual impact analysis. This analysis could be in the~•:':~:~.".'
form of sketches, photographic overlays, photographic touch-ups, ~.'~:°:.'r.
models, or other simulation techniques. A means of demonstrating
in the field (on site) the impact on views will also be required
by the zoning administrator. ~
As circumstances affecting views change, such as rezonings, variances
in height or new buildings, the view corridors will be reviewed and,
if necessary, revised. If a conflict exists between the maximum
height allowed and the view corridors, the more restrictive regulation
' The following is a listing and verbal description of the adopted will
view corridors and focal point: apply
NO. DESCRIPTION
1 This view occurs from two flights of steps above the photographic
point on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center. The
view is significant in that it contains the Clock Tower and the
Rucksack Tower as focal points, but also is one's first view of
the ski slopes as one comes out of the Transportation Center.
2 This is a significant view because .it allows one to see the ski
slopes from upper Bridge Street as well as directing one to the
ticket and lift facilities in the Village.
5 This is a view of the Gore Range from Hanson. Ranch Road dust
east of the Mill Creek Bridge and west of the Mill Creek Court B1
6 This is probably the best known and most spectacular view in
the Village area. It is looking east to the Gore Range from
Gore Creek Drive between The Lodge at Vail retail shops and
the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The Clock Tower is a focal
point in this view. ~
• t-- r
\ j
• /
• 1
1 pl
_ ) ~
-3- \
Section 2 .
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision
shall not effect 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 3 ~
..::.r? '
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that •
this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and
welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. ~ ~ '
Section 4 •
'The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision 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 or reenacted. The
repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IN FULL, this drL` G day of ~~~~P/Lc.~ 1983 . A public hearing.
shall be held hereon on the o?/.Q.f day of Q,u,,~c_ 1983, at the
regular meeting of the Town Council of.th~Town of Vail, Colorado, in •
The Municipal Building of the Town.
Rodney E. ~lif~r, M or
ATTEST:: ,
~tclk~A• .r~c.u.~~c-a./
3t Town Clerk
Pamela A. Brandmeye ,
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this c~/•.~.~ day of ~ - 1983
.
~~r
Rodney E. Slifer', Ma~or'
ATTEST : •
r~
Pamela A. Brandmeyer,~Town Clerk
1 ' 1
r +/1 , ~
I . ~ t. ~ k
tit i~ , f ..ii ~ ~ . , 1 ` r
~S"+ J .
,t' ~ -b5 . 't Y , ~ i r a M r ~ 1
r~, ;a
~i
s'! ~ r r~ ~ a ~ - i
1. 1 1 ~ 1. 9'~'
+.a 's.~ ~ ~ ,r i
`J f~_. j?Y. ~ r `~`~~4 r r ~ `~,.M R 1. r t Iry,E~ „1 ~ ~ t. ~I • ~t}~~•",'L' ,
~ ~ ~.~r: ~ ~*~1 T.P. t'j ~ ~ Ly b .
!.I C~f~l- ms's V1 ~'R~1C'.....~1~~'w ~ i
r
1
a
_ ~
- ~ .
~
_
`s-~'!'
,
~
-3:
~
• • - r
st~M +~j?, 'r yy '
• Y~ ..•~:a.A
~J. S -i-~, ~ :r+••+ ~ ice., --•~.r-•
'YF~ t s .Y -!sue "'.~,.f(~`d~2 ` . Jy ,s+~- • .
.~C~y~
~ ° = i" ~ _ i c • .i: ~ ice'
7 ~.w ,mow, - f ~ .~s:
~ el ~
..rte f ,,ft -s~' 3~^. ~fyyy aw`..
_~-Y^ >yti ~,s~ :'r.- ~ a~".s. 3 4 may.
~'1~'~,~ ~ i.F ~1 Kam, x
Vf{; +7i.~ r ~ mar-t±~ :.y y t¢
,~l K., y,'I~';. F:r h.,- ,y.:: J~'~`f+X,r 3Y'h''q~~ ~ br~'~ 4~ +rJ.. ` -S/
k S rY _ . 1 rII
~ t~ ~
~ -a.:~:. r- - z.v7~` ,rs ^gX:'~. ~ ~ Y '~F E~~3!SMIC:~~_, 'H ~ ~ i a t -k~
~ ~y i 44~~
:y
~ '
2
' i
~,,''~f' ~ ` ~ ,a' Wj. t ~ r I tz~ t.. t •r ' ~
t •.,r~+ 1, x~
~~a,• G ~C t~Il' . » t 7 ,~rt + ~?S~~ _ , y r"~• F. ~ iA •6 +t f'1 YjcY,'~ ?
rb ky th . ~!s 1rr 1 t ~ ! . ` r ~ r f ti. ;
• Yrr {t'./~~t~j~ '~''~~a ` s 4 JT~ Y r 1- 7 ~ ' ~ r . ~ 't~.'1 7.?~ !1~
I~,• l.~'"+k:; u'"F!.~' ~~a~.~' ",,~~j .'1r i I .~qr. i t 1 'ta r ~ ~ y
.~e~',• ~t •c y~~ r~T +MN.r~. ~ ;,7~•~1t 'per. ~ I', ir~•~M. .Zla'j g~•.p~ ~ I ~ r; t
'•.~:C r` ••1'+» i"1Q'r+ j ?~F.k~`° '~1 .•y~ 1 3+,p1+•'4y}I~ l ~;f t ~ ~ tr ti'i~ b Gy° ¢ , , QE , +~i~q
` ~ 6 ~ r ar~~ r, t .x~, R~ . i lril +.r ~ Y .:-i - ~ , ~ L~,y,. ~
~ t s ~ 'j~~
,.'n If. t Q'"~'rTl ,r, t 1i~r^` ! !'~h,~ .Ry .r ,tlaiY,r~ L •.~•'.J:.
~ ~~tlsr ' r M L
~jp~, ~ + v ~f F 'tY
y ~
. Y .+t.' j-f y '+;.y 1 ~t' ~..ss~.r•~ ,l i'~i'~ ~Y~~RT~. ^'tt 1 1~..`c:. '*T~'~ r , ,~1 , ~ v
r ?PF t t ! ' • a ~
• T ~ F ~ 7 a ~ ' ,.4• Jam. 'hi"wfi.' a~~ ~
v~: ei b ~Il, ~ ~ 4~~ L d~;,~~+ q . 4 t t zM.. Y,n... + ,113, ~ yL w
~ P w 1~,1 } .k #~,i
~`~iffY.•Y. f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '+'i'~ ` ,F+f'~' H• u~ ACS :.t ~X s ' '
s., T M1' 1 3
a - ~ r ~ ~ ~`-t , „ry. • Yin Y • a I" y ;f
- -'j'v-f•'~ `•~a~t~f~?~jsS" ~%i t~'F'~ .r.. .i. r. ~ a I.i~ '414~i~.~, ~!}:r f l~n
7 r, ' y `A117.*°`a • _r ,1~ Y 9 - t ~ t~, r~ ~ ; •w
1~ ~ ~ y ,4 ri .Ko,~~i.i+ 1~'. / { I~ I~..:. C~~ ~l.ib ~ 1 ~ ~ iT ~ I~.
rw~1N_ ~ a
Y
i
i
A f ,
nl ,'y
' !4
~h
J !Ar w J, i
~ E.:
1 t
. ~ a . ~ ,~a. .
~ +tiy. a. ~'1`'~~ Y
r~ 1• 1 aR~' w ' S i p j
rl 1 1. 1 6PT p V 1 ; •!~c~:~M1, •'~r .'r ~')1~~.~,~A//~~?I~~M
V x'11 ~
N 1 ~ , 'i~.
~ t ~ ~ ! r ~ 'mot. ( ~ i
~i ; ' r~.
e
y, i~ ~ +r ~ SN i :K,-
~ „ ` ~ t ~ , ~ '~~j ,'fi`r~ •~`yF. 'y?)I ,./at - ti,•~~. ~ .R '
CEO' ~ 1 ~t ~ ~ ..~1 l~y~.I L`) .c 4'I~~...id. ~ `r~.ii .V ~ ~ !
f , ~ r" ~
j ti•1 ~I 1~8.~ tiC t a~ i Y~1fa1 a4r~J ~~;9• Al~f• ,~7~ •4.;. ,A ~k~' ~Irl~ 1'~~'
w, • _
r ~ ,