HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-18 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1991
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
2. Chuck Anderson Youth Award
3. Consent Agenda
A. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1991, second reading, an
ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.04.130,
the definition of floor area, gross residential (GRFA),
and setting forth the details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail.
B. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991, second reading, an
ordinance repealing and reenacting section 18.14.090,
Density Control-Residential Cluster District; Section
18.16.090, Density Control-Low Density Multi-Family
District; Section 18.18.090, Density Control-Medium
Density Multi-Family District and setting forth the
details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail.
C. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1991, second reading, an
ordinance repealing section 18.04.363, Site Coverage -
Hillside Residential, Single Family, Two-Family and
Primary/Secondary Zone Districts; an ordinance
repealing and reenacting section 18.04.360, Definition
of Site Coverage; Section 18.14.110, Site Coverage-
Residential Cluster; Section 18.16.110, Site Coverage-
Low Density Multi-Family District; Section 18.18.110,
Site Coverage-Medium Density Multi-Family District;
Section 18.20.110, Site Coverage-High Density Multi-
Family District; Section 18.22.110, Site Coverage-
Public Accommodation District; Section 18.24.150, Site
Coverage-Commercial Core I District; Section 18.26.120,
Site Coverage-Commercial Core II District; Section
18.27.090, Site Coverage-Commercial Core III District;
Section 18.28.120, Site Coverage-Commercial Service
Center District; Section 18.29.090, Site Coverage-
Arterial Business District; Section 18.32.110, Site
Coverage-Heavy Service District; Section 18.21.110,
Site Coverage-Agricultural and Open Space District;
District and setting forth the details in regard
thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail.
D. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, second reading, an
ordinance establishing Special Development District No.
25 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail
Municipal Code, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. Applicant: Peter Jacobs, Days Inn.
4. Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990, relating to fireplaces and
air quality control measures, first reading of the
changes/amendments to the ordinance.
5. Resolution No. 14, Series of 1991, a resolution authorizing
the appointment of a new indexing agent and Amendment No. 1
to the remarketing agreement for the Town of Vail
$17,000,000 Sports Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series of 1984.
6. Presentation of the 1990 Audited Financial Statement.
7. Appeal of a denial of an exterior landscape lighting plan
for property located at Lot 1, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd
Filing. The Design Review Board reviewd the plan on May 1,
1991, and voted 4-0 to disapprove it. Appellant: Renato
Ibarra, represented by Art Abplanalp.
8. 4th of July Fireworks Display.
9. Adjournment
C:\TCAGENDA
~ VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1991
7:30 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 p.m. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
7:35 p.m. 2. Chuck Anderson Youth Award
Kent Rose
7:45 p.m. 3. Consent Agenda
Kristan Pritz A. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1991, second
reading, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting Section 18.04.130, the
definition of floor area, gross
residential (GRFA), and setting forth
the details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail.
Action Reauested of Council:
Approve/deny Ordinance No. 15, Series of
1991, on second reading.
Background Rationale: On May 13, 1991,
the Planning and Environmental
Commission reviewed the amendment to
GRFA for multi-family developments. A
motion to approve the amendment was made
by Ludwig Kurz and seconded by Jim
Shearer. The motion passed 4-0. The
PEC allowed for a credit for stairways
inside individual dwelling units. The
Town Council approved on first reading,
June 4, 1991.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance
No. 15, Series of 1991, on second
reading.
Kristan Pritz B. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991, second
reading, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting Section 18.14.090, Density
Control-Residential Cluster District;
Section 18.16.090, Density Control-Low
Density Multi-Family District; Section
18.18.090, Density Control-Medium
Density Multi-Family District and
setting forth the details in regard
thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail.
Action Reauested of Council:
Approve/deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of
1991, on second reading.
Background Rationale: On May 13, 1991,
the PEC reviewed this amendment and
voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the
request. This change compensates single
dwelling units and two family dwelling
units with 225 sq. ft. when this type of
unit is constricted in RC, LDMF, or MDMF
zone districts. The Town Council
approved on first reading, June 4, 1991.
i
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance r
No. 16, Series of 1991, on second
reading.
Kristan Pritz C. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1991, first
reading, an ordinance repealing section
18.04.363, Site Coverage - Hillside
Residential, Single Family, Two-Family
and Primary/Secondary Zone Districts; an
ordinance repealing and reenacting
section 18:04.360, Definition of Site
Coverage; Section 18.14.110, Site
Coverage-Residential Cluster; Section
18.16.110, Site Coverage-Low Density
Multi-Family District; Section
18.18.110, Site Coverage-Medium Density
Multi-Family District; Section
18.20.110, Site Coverage-High Density
Multi-Family District; Section
18.22.110, Site Coverage-Public
Accommodation District; Section
18.24.150, Site Coverage-Commercial Core
I District; Section 18.26.120, Site
Coverage-Commercial Core II District;
Section 18.27.090, Site Coverage-
Commercial Core III District; Section
.18.28.120, Site Coverage-Commercial
Service Center District; Section
18.29.090, Site Coverage-Arterial
Business District; Section 18.32.110,
Site Coverage-Heavy Service District;
Section 18.21.110, Site Coverage-
Agricultural and Open Space District;
District and setting forth the details
in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of
Vail.
Action Requested of Council:
Approve/deny Ordinance No. 17, Series of
1991, on second reading.
Backaround Rationale: This ordinance
will allow for a consistent definition
of site coverage in all zone districts.
The request was recommended for approval
by the PEC unanimously (4-0) on May 13,
1991. The Town Council approved on
first reading, June 4, 1991.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance
No. 17, Series of 1991, on second
reading.
Kristan Pritz D. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, second
reading, an ordinance establishing
Special Development District No. 25 in
accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the
Vail Municipal Code, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. Applicant:
Peter Jacobs, Days Inn.
Action Requested of Council: Approve
Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, on
second reading.
Backaround Rationale: Approval of this
SDD will allow the construction of a new
three-story, 18,897 sq. ft., 37 unit,
freestanding employee housing building
along Chamonix Road at the northwest
corner of the Days Inn property. On
Tuesday, May 28, 1991, the Planning and
~ Environmental Commission, by a vote of
6-0, recommended approval of the
Chamonix Special Development District
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Prior to issuance of a building
permit, the applicant must:
(a) Sign and execute the required
documentation in order to
permanently restrict these housing
units as rental units for full time
employees of the Upper Eagle Valley
for a period of not less than 30
consecutive days and to insure
occupancy restrictions are met.
(b) Submit a Development Agreement for
review and approval by the Town
Attorney. The Development
Agreement will set forth the terms
for a $50,000 contribution for the
construction of a left turn lane
adjacent to the project site.
(c) Obtain a geologic hazard study. In
order to obtain a building permit,
the applicant must institute any
mitigation measures required under
the study.
(d) Test the soil adjacent to the fuel
tank to insure no leakage has
occurred. If the soil is
contaminated, applicant must clean
up the soil as required by the
Colorado Department of Health -
Underground Storage Tank Division
and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
(2) Landscaping be increased per staff
recommendations to include:
(a) Five additional Aspen in island at
northern end of the parking area
located east of the Days Inn
building.
(b) Additional landscaping in area east
of pedestrian link between the Days
Inn parking lot and Chamonix Lane.
(c) Addition of one 8-foot, two 10-
foot, and two 12-foot Spruce in
planting area north of North
Frontage Rd.
(d) Eight additional Aspen in planting
area east of the Days Inn parking
lot and between the pedestrian
links to McDonald's and the West
Vail Mall.
(e) Additional landscaping in planting
area south of employee building and
north of the internal road way.
(f) Additional landscaping in the
planting area south of the internal
road way and north of the pool.
(3) East-West reorientation of existing
trash enclosure north of the
Shoppette building.
(4) Elimination of three parallel
parking spaces on north side of
internal roadway, south of the
employee building.
(5) Elimination of pedestrian link i
adjacent to employee housing
building between Chamonix Road and
the parking area.
(6) Modifying landscaping of area west
of the employee building from wild
flowers to manicured lawn.
Staff Recommendation: Approval of
Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991,
establishing SDD No. 25, the Chamonix
Special Development District, on second
reading.
8:00 p.m. 4. Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990, relating to
Susan Scanlan fireplaces and air quality control measures,
first reading of the changes/amendments to
the ordinance.
Action Requested of Council: Approval of
Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990, on first
reading of changes/amendments.
Backaround Rationale: Staff has incorporated
changes discussed and agreed upon by Council
and the Planning Commission at a joint
meeting held May 21, 1991. The ordinance has
been revised to allow the installation of EPA
Phase II certified units and to further limit
the number of gas fireplaces as well as
placing restrictions on changes allowed
during remodels. The PEC reviewed this
request at a Work Session on June 10, 1991 ,
and agreed with the proposed changes.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No.
42, Series of 1990, on first reading of
changes/amendments.
8:15 p.m. 5. Resolution No. 14, Series of 1991, a
Larry Eskwith resolution authorizing the appointment of a
new indexing agent and Amendment No. 1 to the
remarketing agreement for the Town of Vail
$17,000,000 Sports Facilities Revenue Bonds,
Series of 1984.
Action Request of Council: Approve/deny
Resolution No. 14, Series of 1991, to approve
the appointment of the LaSalle National Bank
a new remarketing agent for the Town of Vail
$17,000,000 Sports Facilities Revenue Bonds,
Series of 1984, on first reading.
Backaround Rationale: The old remarketing -
agent did not wish to continue as such and it
is therefore necessary that a new remarketing
agent be appointed.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No.
14, Series of 1991, on first reading.
8:20 p.m. 6. Presentation of the 1990 Audited Financial
Steve Thompson Statement.
Action Requested of Council: Accept 1990
Audited Financial Statement.
8:35 p.m. 7. Appeal of a denial of an exterior landscape
Andy Knudtsen lighting plan for property located at Lot 1,
Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. The Design
Review Board reviewed the plan on May 1,
1991, and voted 4-0 to disapprove it.
Appellant: Renato Ibarra, represented by Art
Abplanalp.
Action Reauested of Council:
Uphold/overturn/modify the DRB's decision.
Backaround Rationale: Please see attached
staff memo.
Staff Recommendation:, Uphold the DRB
decision.
9:05 p.m. 8. 4th of July Fireworks Display
Steve Barwick
Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny
plans for the firworks display.
Backaround Rationale: There is currently no
fireworks display planned for the 4th of July
weekend. Town staff has devised a plan for a
firworks display on Friday, July 5, 1991.
The estimated cost of the display ($15,000)
would be paid from Council's contingency
account.
9:20 p.m. 9. Adjournment
C:\TXEXDRFT
_ ORDINANCE N0. 15
Series of 1991
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 18.04.130,
THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR AREA, GROSS RESIDENTIAL {GRFA),
AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Gross Residential Floor area is an important tool
for controlling the level of development in the Town; and
WHEREAS, modifications to the Gross Residential Floor Area
system are necessary to ensure its effectiveness; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning
and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
amendments, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as
required by Chapter 18.66 of the Vail Municipal Code.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
Section 18.04.130, the definition of floor area, gross residential,
is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
18.04.130 Floor area, cross residential (GRFA)
Gross residential floor area (GRFA) means the total square
footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside
face of the exterior walls (i.e. not including furring,
sheetrock, plaster and other similar wall finishes). GRFA
shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and
stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, mechanical
chases, vents, and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and
roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or patios shall
also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the' provisions of
paragraphs A or B below.
A. Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units,
the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as
GRFA:
1. Enclosed garages of up to three hundred (300)
square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a
maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling
unit permitted by the zoning code.
2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or
less, as measured from the top side of the
structural members of the floor to the underside of
the structural members of the roof directly above.
Attic area created by construction of a roof with
1
• truss-type members will be excluded from
calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced
no greater than thirty inches apart.
3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not
greater than twelve square feet in area, with five
feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from
the surface of the earth to the underside of
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling
assembly above.
4. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios
or similar features or spaces with no more than
three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not
less than 25o of the lineal perimeter of the area
of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar
feature or space provided the opening is contiguous
and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an
allowance for a railing of up to three feet in
height.
GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square
footage of a building as set forth in Section 18.04.130
above. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraph A shall
then be deducted from total square footage.
B. Within buildings containing more than two allowable
dwellings or accommodation units, the following
additional areas shall be excluded from calculation as
GRFA:
1) Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking
requirements.
2) All or part of the following spaces, provided such
spaces are common spaces and that the total square
footage of all the following spaces shall not
exceed thirty-five percent of the allowable GRFA
permitted on the lot.
a. Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts
and airlocks
b. Common lobby areas
c. Common enclosed recreation facilities
d. Common heating, cooling or ventilation
systems, solar rock storage areas, or other
mechanical systems. Square footage excluded
from calculation as GRFA shall be the minimum
square footage required to allow for the
maintenance and operation of such mechanical
systems.
e. Common closet and storage areas, providing
access to such areas is from common hallways
only.
2
. f. Meeting and convention facilities
g. Office space, provided such space is used
exclusively for the management and operation
of on-site facilities.
Any square footage which exceeds the thirty-five
percent maximum will be included in the calculation
of GRFA.
3) All or part of an airlock within an accommodation
or dwelling unit not exceeding a maximum of twenty-
five square feet, providing such unit has direct
access to the outdoors.
4) Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit
or dwelling unit shall only be counted at the
lowest level.
5) Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or
less, as measured from the top side of the
structural members of the floor to the underside of
the structural members of the roof directly above.
Attic area created by construction of a roof with
truss-type members will be excluded from
calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced
no greater than thirty inches apart.
6) Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not
greater than twelve square feet in area, with five
feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from
the surface of the earth to the underside of
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling
assembly above.
7) Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios
or similar features or spaces with no more than
three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not
less than 250 of the lineal perimeter of the area
of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar
feature or space provide the opening is contiguous
and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an
allowance for a railing of up to three feet in
height.
GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage
of a building as set forth in Section 18.04.130 above.
Excluded areas as set forth in paragraph B shall then be
deducted from the total square footage.
Section 2
The provisions of this ordinance shall not be effective for any
application for development which has been submitted to the
Department of Community Development, and accepted by the same, on
3
or before July 1, 1991, unless agreed to by the applicant
submitting the application before July 1, 1991.
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 be 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 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 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 FIRST READING THIS day of
1991, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the day of , 1991 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado.
4
Ordered published in full this day of , 1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED this day of , 1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk ~
c:\ord\ord 15.91
5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Devefoprnent Department
DATE: May 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Proposed amendments to GRFA regulations for multi-family and lodge
development
Applicant: Town of Vail
..................:::::::::::~:::i'!$h::::::::........................:.................... .i::n.:.~~
/ f/
r
fitT:i
r'%:..
:~:4fti~i~ii~Y2~iiiiiiiii:'++:ii:^iiii~~i+i
~ i......v•+:•.; v
Amendments to GRFA and site coverage approved last December addressed single family and
duplex residential development only, although the new GRFA definition applies to higher density
residential development. The last step to amending GRFA and site coverage regulations is to
address multi-family and commercial development. This memo outlines the issues and
recommendations for amending GRFA.
The recommendations outlined in this memo have been discussed and agreed upon by the staff
and Zoning Code Task Force. The PEC's action on this proposal is advisory. The Town Council
has the final authority to approve, deny or modify these proposed amendments.
I. GOAL OF THIS AMENDMENT PROCESS.
Amendments approved in December resolved many long-standing problems with the definition
of GRFA. However, these amendments addressed single family and duplex development in the
SF, 2-Fam, P/S and Hillside Residential zone districts only. The focus of this amendment process
is GRFA in multi-family developments. Any building containing more than two units is considered
a multi-family development, including housing types such as lodges, condominiums and
townhomes.
There are two fundamental issues that must be resolved by this amendment process:
1. The new definition of GRFA changes the way residential square footage is
measured. This "loss of square footage was compensated by increasing
allowable GRFA in the SF, 2-Fam, P/S and Hillside districts. To date, no changes
have been made to multi-family zone districts. As a result, the new GRFA
definition penalizes the higher density zone district because there has been no
compensation for the change in how GRFA is calculated.
2. Five credits or allowances are made for different types of space in multi-family
development. These credits typically refer to "common areas" and are generally
poorly defined. Each of these credits should be evaluated and amended as
required.
1
_ The goal of this effort is not unlike our initial GRFA amendment process:
To clean up any inconsistencies or ambiguities in the existing GRFA system.
In doing so, the primary objective should be to treat property as equitably as possible. Changes
to the system should not "take away" any significant development potential (square footage) that
a property currently has. A secondary objective is to utilize one definition for GRFA and deal with
any differences between single family/duplex and multi-family development with credits and
allowances.
II. AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES
There are many way to address these issues. The initial approach studied by the Task Force
was to amend multi-family GRFA to be consistent with amendments to single family and duplex
development -delete all or as many credits as possible. However, to do so creates many
problems, particularly when trying to treat properties equitably.
It was fairly easy to determine how much GRFA to add back to single family and duplex lots after
storage credits, overlapping stairways, etc. were eliminated or changed. However, to conduct
the same process for multi-family development is far more complicated (if not impossible),
because of the different characteristics of lodges, condos and townhomes.
For this reason, it is recommended that credits for multi-family development be retained. While
this approach is different than what was done for single family and duplex development, one
should not abandon logic for the sake of consistency -equitable treatment is more important.
The greatest drawback for maintaining a credit system is that it has the potential to create
difficulties for applicants and the staff. However, from the viewpoint of the staff, problems over
the past five years have been exclusively with single family and duplex development. This is in
large part due to the fact that there is not a great deal of multi-family development. In fact, multi-
family dwelling units (condos and townhomes) are 88% built out and lodge units are 85% built
out. In summary, the staff feels confident in its ability to deal with a "simplified" credit system.
The direction of the staff and Task Force recommendation is to essentially maintain existing
GRFA credits for multi-family development, but consolidate as many credits and allowances as
possible into the "common area" credit. This approach represents a significant step toward
establishing a clearly defined cap on the total amount of floor area that can be developed on a
site. With two exceptions, (garages and airlocks) maximum floor area on a site would be
determined by GRFA plus allowable common area.
III. EVALUATING THE COMMON AREA CREDIT
The key question to resolve in evaluating this amendment is to determine an appropriate
percentage for the common area credit. Changes to this percentage will have to consider not
only the spaces calculated in the existing common area credit, but also the new areas to be
incorporated into the common area credit.
2
_ Currently. common area is calculated by taking 20% of allowable GRFA and allocating that
square footage to common areas. The following uses, or spaces are included in the existing
definition of common area:
20% Common Area Credit
Common hallways
Common closets
Lobby areas
Stairways
Common recreation facilities .
There are no conditions on how this square footage may be utilized. The use and design
of a project ultimately dictates how much common area is used and how it is allocated.
With the proposed amendment, the following uses or spaces will be added to the common area
credits listed above. These uses or spaces are presently "credited" through some other means -
i.e., mechanical space is an existing credit and overlapping stairways were credited by the
definition of GRFA. The allowable percentage of common area will have to be revised in order
to account for the square footage needed for these uses.
1) Common stairways and elevator shafts
Stairways are listed as a common area credit in the existing GRFA system. However, this
was considered a mute point because overlapping stairs were discounted in the old
definition of GRFA. The new definition of GRFA counts each level of a stairway, so some
compensation in common area square footage is necessary.
3) Common meeting facilities
Meeting rooms are presently not listed as a common area credit, they will now be
accounted for by the common area credit.
4) Common mechanical areas
At the present time, "mechanical space" is an unquantified credit independent of the
common area credit. It will be added to the common area allowance.
5) Management/support space
This type of space is not specifically addressed in the GRFA system. It will include "back
of the house" space for management and operational services necessary for a lodge or
a condominium that is operated as a lodge.
The objective of modifying the common area credit is to ensure that the common area percentage
provides ample flexibility for the development of common spaces.
IV. DIFFERENT TYPES OF MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
In all likelihood, most multi-family development will not come close to using all of the allowable
common area credit. However, for lodges and properties managed for short-term rental, common
area is critical because it permits the development of important guest services.
3
The greatest difficulty in estimating the square footage necessary to accommodate the uses listed
above is that the design, use and operation of multi-family development varies dramatically. As
a result, the need for square footage to accommodate these uses also varies.
Another factor complicating this effort is that 85-88% of multi-family development is built-out, and
many of these properties exceed development permitted by existing zoning. These non-
conforming developments raise the question of whether the common area percentage should be
determined based on the level of development that has been constructed, or the level of
development permitted by exist zoning regulations. This analysis assumes that allowable
common area should be based on allowable development as per existing zoning.
Consider the following types of multi-family development:
1) Golf Course T.H.
Timber Falls
Vail Racquet Club
All Seasons
Vail Row Homes
770 Potato Patch
Coldstream Condominiums
While the operation of these properties vary, they share similar design characteristics.
Virtually all units have individual access, meaning no common hallways or stairways. By
and large, there are no lobbies, meeting rooms, and very little enclosed recreation space
(with the exception of the Racquet Club). Common area utilized by these properties is
limited to mechanical, storage and garages. As a result, these type of properties have
used a small fraction of allowable common area.
2) Villa Cortina
Edelweiss
Lodge Tower
Riva Ridge North and South
Fall Line
Villa Valhalla
These condominiums are either operated as hotels or are actively short-termed. They all
have interior hallways and stairs, but have little in the way of meeting rooms, lobbies or
indoor recreation facilities. A number of these properties also exceed allowable GRFA
and, as a result, exceed allowable common area.
3) Tivoli
Vail Run
Sitzmark
Days Inn
Holiday Inn ,
Sonnenalp
4
These developments are traditional lodges or hotels, or are operated as hotels. Most of
these properties utilize each of the different types of common area listed above. Of the
three types of multi-family development, these properties are the most intense users of
common space. As such, this type of development represents our "target group", the
revised common area percentage should be designed to accommodate this type of
development.
V. ESTIMATES FOR INCREASING ALLOWABLE COMMON AREA .
The following is an assessment of the existing 20% common area allowance and an estimation
of how this percentage would have to be amended to accommodate the five "new common areas"
listed above. These estimates are based on prototypical developments that include a number of
assumptions regarding the use of common space. Keep in mind that this is not a science! Every
property wilt be different in design and operation -and have different needs for common area.
This analysis is an attempt to quantify these uses in a very general sense.
The question of whether 20% is adequate for common area has been raised in the past. The
accompanying spread sheet was developed with data gathered during the Vail Village Master
Plan. During the development of this plan, square footage calculations were done for all
properties in the study area. It is unknown exactly how common area was measured, so there
is some question of this data's validity. Nonetheless, it provides a relative indication of how 12
properties compare to the existing common area allowance. The data indicates a direct
relationship between properties that exceed allowable common area and properties that exceed
allowable GRFA -they tend to be the same. However, for property developed within allowable
GRFA, 20% common area may be inadequate if full guest services are provided. The following
statistical analysis, for an example of a typical lodge, supports this contention.
LODGE "X" DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE DISTRICT
.5 ACRE SITE - 21,780 SD. FT.
UNITS - 25 a.u.'s GRFA - 17,424 20% COMMON AREA - 3,484
This prototypical hotel consists of a lobby level, two full levels of lodge rooms a partial third level
of lodge rooms - a total of four levels. The building has a footprint of approximately 80' X 60'
(4,800 square feet). Lodge rooms are 400 square feet (16' X 25). The following uses would have
to be accommodated in the 20% common area allowance:
Hallways
4 levels at 5' wide times 100' long.
total: 2.000 sauare feet
Storage/closets/common laundry
Maid closets, storage for linen, quest ski storage, winter storage for lawn chairs, etc.
total: 500 sauare feet
5
_ t_obby areas
Includes common airlock entry, front desk, sitting area, etc.
total: 500 square feet
Recreation facility
While facilities vary widely, examples of recreation facilities may include hot tub, sauna,
rec room, etc.
total: 600 square feet
These estimates total 3,600 square feet, 116 square feet more than the allowable common area
for this site (3,484). While the use of these spaces will vary widely between developments, it
appears that the 20% allowance is too restrictive with respect to common area if all types of
common area are actually provided.
The following is an estimation of space required for the four new areas to be added to the
common area credit.
Stairways
50 square feet per level for an elevator and 240 square feet per level (8' x 15' = 90 sq.
ft. x 2) for the two required emergency stairways.
total: 1.160 square feet
Meeting Rooms \
Based on Uniform Building Code occupancy levels, a 570 square foot meeting room could
accommodate 38 people (25 units X 1.5 people per unit). The calculation takes average
number of people per allowable unit and allows adequate square footage for that type of
meeting space to meet the people demand.
total: 570 square feet
Mechanical
Mechanical rooms vary dramatically depending upon the type of system that is used. The
Vail Building Department indicated that 500 square feet is a reasonable figure that would
accommodate most mechanical systems in a lodge this size.
total: 500 square feet
Office/management
A lodge of this size would not require a great deal of space for management and
operation. Assume office space for a manager, bookkeeper and reservations.
.total: 200 square feet
Maintenance equipment for building
This space could be used for lawn mowers, tools, etc.
total: 100 square feet
What does this information tell us? For this prototypical, development, 2,530 square feet of
building would be calculated as common area. This is not 2,530 square feet of new square
footage. It is square footage that was previously not calculated at all, or discounted because it
was listed as some other type of credit. On this size lot, the common area would have to be
6
.
increased from 20% to 35.2% to account for the floor area listed above (2,530 sq. ft.) and the
- floor area on page 5 {3,600 sq. ft.). At 35.2% the total common area credit on this site would be
6,130 square feet.
Will this same percentage increase provide a reasonable amount of common area work fora 1
acre property? At 35%, a 1 acre P.A. site would allow 12,197 square feet of common area -
exactly twice the amount permitted on the .5 acre site. The question is whether the need for
common area doubles if density doubles. In most cases, the need for common area will increase,
but it probably will not double. An argument could be made for doubling square footage for
hallways, storage, meeting rooms and office support. However, lobby areas, rec facilities and
mechanical spaces will probably not require twice the space to serve twice the people. There
would also be an increase in square footage for stairways.
A common area credit of between 30-35°I° seems reasonable for the "typical development".
However, there are some slight discrepancies with applying one number to all lot sizes. 30%
could potentially burden a .5 acre site by not permitting enough common area. 35% on a 1 acre
site would probably permit more common area than is required. In this case, however, it is
probably better to "error on the high side" for the following reasons:
1) If a development does not need the common area, it is not used - it cannot be
developed as GRFA. There have been no documented cases of multi-family
development "abusing" the common area provision.
2) The 20% common area allowance has historically allowed a disproportionate
amount of floor area to larger lots. There are no reasons to change this
arrangement.
3) Site development standards will regulate building bulk and mass that may result
from common area allowances.
It is emphasized that the methodology used to reach this conclusion is based on many
assumptions. Making different assumptions will result in different numbers -which will ultimately
suggest a different percentage. This analysis is essentially a judgement of whether the
percentage will allow for a reasonable amount of square footage for common areas.
V1. PROPOSED DEFINITION OF GRFA FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT,
The following are the proposed revisions to the definition of GRFA. The actual definition is
identical to what was approved in December. Changes to multi-family buildings begin with the
credits in paragraph B.
18.04.130 Floor Area. aross residential (GRFA)
Gross residential floor area (GRFA) means the total square footage of all levels of a
building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e. not including furring,
sheetrock, plaster and other similar wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited
to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, mechanical chases, vents
and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, covered porches,
7
covered terraces or covered patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the
provisions of paragraphs A and 6 below.
A. paragraph A includes credits or allowances for buildings containing two or fewer
units. These would not change with this amendment.
B. Within buildings containing more than two allowable dwelling units, the following
areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA:
1) Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking requirements.
2) All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces are common
spaces and that the total square footage of all the following spaces shall
not exceed thirty-five percent of the allowable GRFA permitted on the lot.
a. common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts
and airlocks
b. lobby areas
c. common enclosed recreation facilities
d. meeting and convention facilities
e. common closet and storage areas, providing access to such areas
is from common hallways only.
f. Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar rock storage
areas, or other mechanical systems. Square footage excluded from
calculation as GRFA shall be the minimum square footage required
to allow for the maintenance and operation of such systems.
g. Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for the
management and operation of on-site facilities.
Any square footage which exceeds the thirty-five percent maximum will be
included in the calculation of GRFA.
3) All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or dwelling unit not
exceeding a maximum of twenty-five square feet, providing such unit has
direct access to the outdoors.
4) Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured from the
top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the
structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by
construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from
calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty
inches apart.
5) Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve
square feet in area, with five feet or less of ceiling height, as measured
from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members
of the floor/ceiling assembly above.
6) Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar feature/space
with no more than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less
than 25% of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace,
patio, or similar feature/space provide the opening is contiguous and fully
open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet
in height.
8
GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth
in Section 18.04.130 above. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraphs A and B shall then
be excluded from the total square footage.
VII. IMPLICATIONS OF THIS AMENDMENT
The following is a summary of changes that would result from this amendment.
1) The amount of square footage that can be exempted for a parking garage will not
be quantified, but is clarified to ensure that only space necessary to accommodate
the garage is exempt.
2) Common overlapping stairways have been incorporated into the common area
credit. Because of the change in the definition of GRFA, overlapping stairways in
individual units will no longer be exempt from calculation as GRFA. If single family
units are not built on these vacant sites, approximately 26 properties could be
impacted by not compensating for internal stairways. In addition, existing
development may become non-conforming. Please see the attached chart, dated
October 24, 1990. If two or three level multi-family units are built on these
properties, square footage is being taken away under this amendment. However,
the impact is tempered because many multi-family units are only one level and
staff is building GRFA compensation for RC, LDMF and MDMF single units (please
see attached memo). To add square footage per unit in multi-family zone districts
could add significant GRFA to multi-family properties when many of these
properties do not have multi-level units. Staff recognizes this inequity. The Task
Force discussed the possibility of not counting internal stairs within individual units.
However, it was determined that the system became overly complicated with this
approach.
3) Meeting rooms have been added to the list of common area credits.
4) Closets and storage areas have been qualified to require access from common
hallways only.
5) The mechanical area credit has been incorporated into the common area credit.
It has also been qualified to ensure that any area exempt from calculation as
GRFA is legitimate mechanical space.
6) Office space for management of "on-site facilities" has been added to the list of
common area credits.
7) The airlock credit for individual units has been maintained.
8) With each type of credit, provisions are established for how the common space
can be used -this is done to ensure that common area is developed for the
purpose for which it is intended. If a development does not utilize all credits
available, the square footage cannot be developed as GRFA -the square footage
simply is not used.
9
..;A.
1
IX. RECOMMENDATION
The staff and Task Force recommends that the common area credit for multi-family buildings be
amended as proposed in this memorandum. Obviously, the key question in this amendment
process is the allowable percentage of common area. A change to the existing percentage is
proposed not because of a desire to permit the development of more square footage, rather, to
clarify the way common space is account for in multi-family buildings.
The increase to 35% is essentially based on a cursory analysis. One may argue that this analysis
does not provide an adequate basis for making this recommendation. However, more analysis
would simply be an attempt to find astandard -when there really is no standard. All multi-family
development is different, and the requirements for common area are different. We believe the
amendment provides a general compensation for common area, given the variety of development
within the zone district.
c:\pec\tov\g rfa2.513
10
ORDINANCE N0. 16
Series of 1991
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 18.14.090,
DENSITY CONTROL-RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DISTRICT; SECTION
18.16.090, DENSITY CONTROL-LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT;
SECTION 18.18.090, DENSITY CONTROL-MEDIUM DENSITY
MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN
REGARD THERETO
WHEREAS, Gross Residential Floor area is an important tool
for controlling the level of development in the Town; and
WHEREAS, modifications to the Gross Residential Floor Area
in certain zone districts are necessary to ensure its
effectiveness; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning
and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed amendments, and has submitted its recommendation to the
Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as
required by Chapter 18.66 of the Vail Municipal Code.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
Section 18.14.090, Density Control in the Residential Cluster
District is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
18.14.090 Density Control
A. Not more than twenty-five square feet of gross
residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for
each one hundred square feet of buildable site area,
provided however, that single family and two-family
dwelling units constructed in the Residential Cluster
District shall be entitled to an additional two hundred
twenty-five square feet of GRFA per constructed
dwelling unit. Total density shall not exceed six
dwelling units per acre of buildable site area.
B. Exemptions. All projects that have received final
design review board approval as of December 19, 1978,
shall be exempt from the changes in this section as
long as the project commences within one year from the
date of final approval. If the project is to be
developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced
within one year after the completion of the previous
stage. (Ord. 19(1979) Section 5 (part): Ord. 50(1978)
Section 18 (part).)
1
C
- Section 2
Section 18.16.090 Density Control in the Low Density Multi-family
District is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
Section 18.16.090 Densitv Control
A. Not more than thirty square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one .
hundred square feet of buildable site area, provided
however, that single family and two-family dwelling
units constructed in the Low Density Residential
District shall be entitled to an additional two hundred
twenty five square feet of GRFA per constructed
dwelling unit. Total density shall not exceed nine
dwelling units per acre of buildable site area.
B. Exemptions. All projects that have received final
design review board approval as of December 19, 1978
shall be exempt from the changes in this section as
long as the project commences within one year from the
date of final approval. If the project is to be
developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced
within one year after the completion of the previous
stage. (Ord. 19 (1979) Section 5 (part) Ord. 50 (1978)
Section 18 (part).)
Section 3
Sub-section 18.18.090 Density control in the Medium Density
Multi-family District is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as
follows:
18.18.090 Densitv Control
A. Not more than thirty-five square feet of gross
residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for
each one hundred square feet of buildable site area,
provided however, that single family and two-family
dwelling units constructed in the Medium Density
Residential District shall be entitled to an additional
two hundred twenty-five square feet of GRFA per
constructed dwelling unit.
B. Exemptions. All projects that have received final
design review board approval as of December 19, 1978
shall be exempt from the changes in this section as
long as the project commences within one year from the
date of final approval. If the project is to be
developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced
within one year after the completion of the previous
stage. (Ord. 19(1979) Section 5 (part): Ord. 50(1978)
Section 18 (part) . )
2
Section 4
The provisions of this ordinance shall not be effective for any
application for development which has been submitted to the
Community Development Department, and accepted by the same, on or
before July 1, 1991, unless agreed to by the applicant submitting
the application before July 1, 1991.
Section 5
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would
have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that
any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses
or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 6
The 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 7
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 8
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of
such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to
revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part
thereof, heretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of
1991, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the day of , 1991 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado.
3
Ordered published in full this day of 1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED this day of , 1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
c:\ord\ord16.91
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Amendments to GRFA for single family and duplex development in the RC, LDMF
and MDMF zone districts.
Applicant: Town of Vail
~./I/i.t ~~i.:~/~... iii.:;.::r..r .>i
c.:::..... ./,1./,,.:....
1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
An underlying goal of amendments to the definition of GRFA has been to treat all properties
equitably. For example, GRFA was added to the density control section of certain zone districts
to compensate for the elimination of credits, and allowable common area for multi-family buildings
will be increased to make up for changes to how common area is defined.
There is one remaining issue relative to GRFA that warrants consideration by the PEC. Over the
past five years, the development of single family and duplex homes on lots zoned for multi-family
development has become very common. Single family and duplex homes are permitted in the
Residential Cluster, Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential districts. However,
such development "falls through the cracks" with regard to GRFA credits.
{I. CHANGES TO THE GRFA DEFINITION
Prior to amending the GRFA definition, this type of development did not qualify for single family
and duplex credits (garages, storage, mechanical and airlocks) because these credits were
available to properties~{in the Single Family, 2-Family and P/S zone districts only (Hillside
~jeSjclPn~ja~ ras ~P,E?f~ a~~P~ ~o ~~js ,~s~). 4n orct,er ~o c~li~4jfiY (or mt~,~1-(am~'Y cfec~i~s S~}ec~an~ca,,
III. AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES
Clearly, the development of single family and duplex structures on multi-family zoned lots have
been impacted by changes made to the definition of GRFA. The key questions are how much
square footage have these changes "cost" this type of development, how can the situation be
remedied, and should changes be made across the board to the RC, LDMF and MDMF districts?
Impact of GRFA Chances
From a technical standpoint, the only material change (i.e., loss of square footage) to this
type of development is from the change to calculating stairways. Under the old definition,
stairways were counted once at the lowest level. With the new definition, all levels of a
stairway are counted as GRFA. 150 square feet was determined to be the amount of
square footage needed to compensate for this change.
All other changes to the GRFA credits system are not relevant -simply because this type
of development never qualified for these credits in the first place. One may argue,
however, that the storage, mechanical and airlock credits were always intended for single
family and duplex development regardless of what zone district the home is built in -the
old GRFA definition allocated the credits based on zone districts simply because nobody
envisioned single family or duplex development on multi-family lots. If one accepts this
argument, 425 square feet should be built back into the system.
Depending upon ones perspective, anywhere from 150 to 425 additional square feet of
GRFA should be made available to single family and duplex structures in the RC, LDMF
and MDMF districts.
Alternatives for Buildina GRFA Back Into Svstem
Previously approved amendments to GRFA built square footage back into the system by
adding GRFA to the density control section of the Single Family, 2-Family,
Primary/secondary and Hillside Residential districts. In this case, allowable GRFA is 25
square feet for every 100 square feet of site area plus 425 square feet per allowable unit.
The easiest alternative for building square footage back into the system for this type of
f~P.vE?I(1~rpAnt WCI IIf~ I~P 1~ ~m~n~ ~r~ ~Pf1Sj~y Ce(l~rcl SBC~,o(1 Ofi ~he I 'C' ~ i~ 1-11 an~ ~T_ I I~
The Single family, 2-Family and Primary/secondary districts each permit .25 GRFA, while
Hillside Residential is at .2 GRFA. Each of the three multi-family districts allow more units
than would be permitted on a single family or duplex lot, and two of the three multi-family
districts permit more GRFA than is allowed in the SF, 2-Fam, P/S or Hillside districts.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that 225 square feet of GRFA be added to the density control section of the
RC, LDMF and MDMF zone districts. This square footage would compensate for the change in
how stairways are calculated, and wou_Id be available to single family or duplex development only.
It also compensates for the 25 sq. ft. for the airlock and 50 sq. ft. for mechanical.
Counting stairways at each level is the only change to the GRFA system that directly impacts this
type of development. Single family and duplex development in these three zone districts were
never eligible for other credits. However, staff believes some additional compensation is justified
as the properties do not normally use typical common area benefits.
One may argue that this type of development warrants the same 425 square foot of GRFA that
was built back into the system in the SF, 2-Fam, P/S and Hillside zone districts. However, the
level of development permitted in the three multi-family zone districts must be considered. The
LDMF and MDMF zone districts permit far more units and GRFA than the single family or duplex
districts. While one acre of single family or duplex zoned land will permit more GRFA than a one
acre RC site, the same one acre RC site permits six units, a one acre P/S site five units, and a
one acre SF site three units. 225 square feet is an equitable increase to compensate for the new
definition of GRFA.
c:lpec\tovlgrfa.513 ,
f
' ORDINANCE N0. 17
SERIES OF 1991
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 18.04.363, SITE
COVERAGE - HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, TWO-FAMILY
AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY ZONE DISTRICTS; AND
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 18.04.360,
DEFINITION OF SITE COVERAGE; SECTION 18.14.110, SITE COVERAGE-
RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER; SECTION 18.16.110, SITE COVERAGE-LOW
DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT; SECTION 18.18.110, SITE COVERAGE-
MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT; SECTION 18.20.110, SITE
COVERAGE-HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT; SECTION 18.22.110,
SITE COVERAGE-PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION DISTRICT; SECTION
18.24.150, SITE COVERAGE-COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT; SECTION
18.26.120, SITE COVERAGE-COMMERCIAL CORE II DISTRICT; SECTION
18.27.090, SITE COVERAGE-COMMERCIAL CORE III DISTRICT; SECTION
18.28.120, SITE COVERAGE-COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER DISTRICT;
.SECTION 18.29.090, SITE COVERAGE-ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT;
SECTION 18.30.110, SITE COVERAGE-HEAVY SERVICE DISTRICT;
SECTION 18.32.110, SITE COVERAGE-AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT; DISTRICT AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD
THERETO
WHEREAS, site coverage is an important tool for controlling
the level of development in the town; and
WHEREAS, modifications to site coverage as defined in the
Vail Municipal Code are necessary to ensure its effectiveness;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66, the Planning and
Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
amendments and has submitted its recommendation to the Town
Council; and
WHEREAS, The Town Council has held a public hearing as
required by Chapter 18.66 of the Vail Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
18.04.363, Site Coverage - Hillside Residential, Single Family,
Two-Family and Primary/Secondary Zone Districts is hereby
repealed.
Section 2
18.04.360, the definition of Site Coverage is hereby repealed and
reenacted enacted to read as follows:
1
- 18.04.360 Site Coverage
"Site coverage" means the ratio of the total building area
on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a
percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, -
"building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any
building as measured from the exterior face of perimeter
building walls or supporting columns above grade or at
ground level, whichever is the greater area. Building area
shall include all buildings, carports, porte cocheres,
arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In addition to the
above, building area shall also include any portion of a
roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered
porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more
than four feet from the exterior face of the perimeter
building walls or supporting columns.
Section 3
Section 18.14.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
18.14.110 Site Coverage
Site Coverage shall not exceed 25 percent of the total site
area.
Section 4
Section 18.16.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
18.16.110 Site Coverage
Site Coverage shall not exceed 35 percent of the total site
area.
Section 5
Section 18.18.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
2
- 18.18.110 Site Coverage
Site Coverage shall not exceed 45 percent of the total site
area.
Section 6
Section 18.20.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
18.20.110 Site Coverage
Site Coverage shall not exceed 55 percent of the total site
area.
Section 7
Section 18.22.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
18.22.110 Site Coverage
Site Coverage shall not exceed 55 percent of the total site
area.
Section 8
Section 18.24.150, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
18.24.150 Site Coverage
Site Coverage shall not exceed 80 percent of the total site
area, unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village Urban
Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. In Commercial
Core I, ground level patios and decks shall be included in
site coverage calculations.
Section 9
Section 18.26.120, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
18.26.120 Site Coverage
Site Coverage shall not exceed 70 percent of the total site
area, unless otherwise specified in the Vail Lionshead Urban
Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations.
3
Section 10
Section 18.27.090, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
18.27.090 Site Coverage
Site Coverage shall not exceed 40 percent of the total site
area.
Section 11
Section 18.28.120, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
18.28.120 Site Coverage
Site Coverage shall not exceed 75 percent of the total site
area.
Section 12
Section 18.29.090, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
18.29.090 Site Coverage
Site Coverage shall not exceed 60 percent of the total site
area.
Section 13
Section 18.30.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
18.30.110 Site Coverace
Site Coverage shall not exceed 75 percent of the total site
area.
Section 14
Section 18.32.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
18.32.110 Site Coverage
Site Coverage shall not exceed 5 percent of the total site
area.
4
- Section 15
The provisions of this ordinance shall not be effective for any
application for development which has been submitted to the
Department of Community Development, and accepted by the same, on
or before July 1, 1991, unless agreed to by the applicant
submitting the application before July 1, 1991.
Section 16
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 17
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 18
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.
5
Section 19
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to. the extent only of
such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to
revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part
thereof, heretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of
1991, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the day of 1991 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado.
Ordered published in full this day of , 1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED this day of , 1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
c:\ord\ord 17.91
6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Proposed amendments to site coverage regulations for multi-family and •
commercial buildings.
Applicant: Town of Vail
:.w:n •i:!!•i: :.:.:x:!.,....., v::.v.v:•.ii
fi..riyi f!%11!:1.:H1 I ~//~!i //SY.///.!%//1//~%/.%// J%"
.:v.w..,..w.w::
nv.v : .n..!Q1'/ ~ %J.~~r~~%.'•%.'•.'.~ii/,.s<;;J/1/;}'1,+~~
v::::::;n.::................................
is :v ::iii}ii;:ni;!Ji:vi:~i:v:v:'.~i ii:C:viiii: iiiiii.iii:tiii:i~iii: i:::::::'...... J.....:
:v;::::.::. w:.~ v,. F:....:..:!4iiiiiii:. v::::,:: is ~i:'.::::Oi>ii:.,./.....
:^iiiii::vii: iii iii::.~:::.~:. i::.~. ~ .
iS
F4:~'~iiiii:
v .
.n.. y:{r;.
............:..:.::::::.:..:...................:......:::::::......................:.v :v::::::::1,: ::v::::::::. rvi'!:'::
r.nx:::: :w:::: ..i
ii i't
Amendments to GRFA and site coverage approved last December addressed single family and
duplex residential development only. The last step to amending GRFA and site coverage
regulations is to address multi-family and commercial development. This memo outlines the
issues and recommendations for amending site coverage. An accompanying memorandum deals
with GRFA in multi-family development.
The recommendations outlined in this memo have been discussed and agreed upon by the staff
and Zoning Code Task Force. The PEC's action on this proposal is advisory. The Town Council
has the final authority to approve, deny or modify these proposed amendments.
I. PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE COVERAGE AMENDMENTS,
Prior to the PEC's review of amendments to site coverage last fall, the question of how the
proposed amendments would affect multi-family and commercial buildings was raised. While it
was the staff's intention that the new site coverage regulations would apply to all development
in the same way, discussions during the amendment process had focused exclusively on single
family and duplex development. For this reason, amendments to site coverage were modified
so that they applied to single family and duplex development only.
II ~
At the present time, this definition applies to property located in the Single Family, 2-family,
Primary/secondary and Hillside Residential zone districts only.
Delaying action on multi-family and commercial buildings was intended to allow the staff and Task
Force an opportunity to discuss the implications of these amendments on other types of
development and to inform the public that these changes are under consideration.
II. IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEW SITE COVERAGE DEFINITION
The fundamental question is whether the new definition of site coverage is appropriate for multi-
family and commercial development. The staff and Task Force agree that the new definition is
not only appropriate, but also necessary.
The three major changes made by the new definition of site coverage are:
1) Cantilevered portions of buildings are now calculated as site coverage.
2) Any portion of a roof overhang that extends more than four feet from the face of
a building is now included in site coverage calculations.
3) Any portion of a covered deck or similar feature that extends more than four feet
from the face of a building is now included in site coverage calculations.
The justification for these changes is that these design features affect the appearance of a
building. Cantilevered buildings, overhangs and covered decks alt add to building bulk - as such,
it is appropriate for site coverage regulations to establish some limit on the extent of these design
features.
Cantilevers, overhangs and decks contribute to the bulk and mass of a building, regardless of the
uses within the building. For this reason, it is reasonable to use the same site coverage definition
for a commercial or multi-family building as is used for a single family residence. It is important
to remember that this amendment deals with the definition of site coverage only -allowable site
coverage ratios will remain unchanged.
~ o e s e e s o~ ave o s n c ~ ec pn a es p
~ P~ ~~m ~~f r !,I~ r ~ i~,;i>i ,fifi ~ I~ , ~ fi m"1I~-1~m~1Y
s
- III. SITE COVERAGE AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
A specific concern of the Task Force was the impact of this definition on arcades and covered
walkways on commercial buildings -would the new site coverage regulations discourage what
is often considered a desirable design feature? The answer is no, in most cases the new site
coverage regulations will not change how arcades are calculated.
The Westin, Crossroads, Lazier Arcade and the West Vail Mall all have arcades or roofed
walkways that would be included as site coverage under the new definition. However, with the
exception of the West Vail Mall and Crossroads West, each of these elements would have
counted as site coverage under the existing definition because in each case, the arcade or
overhang is supported by columns and has floor area above.
As with decks and overhangs, it is recognized that with this new definition, an arcade or covered
walkway may contribute to a building exceeding allowable site coverage. However, one cannot
simply point to an arcade as the only element of a building that exceeds site coverage. An
architect will have to consider arcades as one element of the overall design of a building when
calculating site coverage. This new definition will not prohibit arcades, but will require that they
be considered during the design process.
IV. SITE COVERAGE AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
Another issue, or question, raised by the Task Force was whether this change would affect low
to medium density residential projects (townhome or condo projects in RC or LDMF zone
districts). As with the other types of development, the answer is that this amendment will
generally have no affect on low to medium residential development.
The relationship between density and site coverage (and for that matter building height) is
important. Development standards must be sufficient to accommodate permitted development.
Allowable site coverage in RC is 25% and in LDMF it is 35% - as compared with 20% in single
family and duplex districts. Site coverage is greater in RC and LDMF in order to accommodate
the increased development permitted in these districts.
Adopting the new definition of site coverage for these zone districts will not alter the relationship
pe wee e s an s ~e cove~~c~e. ~{s , e c n e ~ w~ cods E{ es s e pave a e
l~ ~ ~ ~1 n fly i , ~ ral , ~ , ~ ~ ~~~i l ~ rl,~,~
r
1. First, the definition of site coverage must be clarified. The new definition was initially
approved as "Site coverage - Hillside Residential, Single-family, Two-family and
Primary/Secondary zone districts". This was done because the definition was intended
for these four zone districts only. The definition should be amended to simply read "Site
coverage". With this change, the new definition will apply to development in all zone
districts.
2. Secondly, site coverage regulations in each zone district need to be reworded to:
"Site coverage shall not exceed X % of the total site area".
This amendment would not change the percentage of site coverage permitted in each
zone district. Rather, the change is necessary to avoid confusion over what definitions
to use when calculating site coverage. Presently, the wording in each zone district is "No
more than X % of the total site area shall be covered by buildings". This wording
creates confusion over what terms to use in calculating site coverage. Amendments will
clarify this by specifically referring to site coverage only.
With these changes, amendments to site coverage will be complete.
These amendments are needed for commercial and multi-family buildings for the same reason
they were needed for single family development - to establish some limit on design features that
are presently not regulated, and have the potential to add considerable bulk to buildings.
c:\pec\tov~s itecov.513
n r
ORDINANCE NO. 18
Series of 1991
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO. 25 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40
OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE, AND SETTING FORTH
DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development
Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and
WHEREAS, application has been made for Special Development District (SDD)
approval for certain parcels of property within the Town, legally described in Appendix A,
attached hereto, according to an amended plat recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder's Office to be known as Special Development District No. 25, and commonly
referred to as the Chamonix Special Development District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Special Development District is for the purpose of
providing permanently restricted employee housing; and
WHEREAS, the Speclal Development District is substantially in compliance with
the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study and Town of Vail Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and
Environmental Commission, on May 28, 1991, held a public hearing on the proposed SDD,
and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66
of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development ,
Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied.
Section 2
A. The Town Council finds that the development plan for Special Development
District No. 25 meets each of the standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal
Code of the Town of Vail, or demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable,
or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. In
1
accordance with Section 18.40.040, the development plan for Special Development District
No. 25 is approved, and Special Development District No. 25 is hereby approved for Track K
and a portion of Commercial Tract C, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1, which are more
particularly described in Appendix A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Pierce,
Segerbergh & Spaeh Architects of Vail, Colorado, and consists of the following documents:
1. Architectural Plans designated as Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, dated May 10,
1991.
2. Landscape Plan L-1 drawn by Dennis Anderson Associates, Inc., dated May 10,
1991 and revised June 5, 1991.
Section 3
The zone district underlying SDD No. 25 is Commercial Core III. The uses allowed in
Special Development District No. 25 shall be limited to those Commercial Core III zone district
uses allowed by right, and those conditional uses which are set forth in said zone district.
Any conditional use must be approved by the as approved by the Planning and
Environmental Commission,.in conformance with Section 18.60.
Section 4
The development standards for Special Development District No. 25 are approved by
the Town Council as part of the approved development plan as follows:
A. Density Control
As set forth in the zoning code, and for the purposes of this SDD, 2
accommodation units shall equal 1 dwelling unit. The total number of units permitted in
the Days Inn Hotel shall not exceed 19 Dwelling Units (DUs) plus 83 Accommodation Units
(AUs). The employee housing building shall not exceed 37 DUs. Total density for the SDD
shall not exceed 97.5 dwelling units, and not more than 69,654 sq. ft. of Gross Residential
Floor Area shall be permitted within the SDD as indicated on the plans set forth in Section 2
of this Ordinance.
B. Landscaping
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as generally indicated on the
Landscape Plan set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance.
2
C. Parking
Parking provided in this development shall be as indicated on the site plan set
forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance. A total of 221 parking spaces shall be provided under
this SDD development plan. The 39 spaces closest to the employee housing shall be signed-
restricted for use by employee housing building residents only.
D. Employee Housing Restriction
All dwelling units in the employee housing building shall be permanently
restricted as leased or rental units. These units shall not be leased or rented for any period
less than 30 consecutive days, and 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 C?iff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas. A
full-time employee is a person who works an average of thirty hours per week. The units
within the employee housing building shall not be divided into any form of time-shares, interval
ownership or fractional fee or subdivided. The applicant or his successor in interest shall file
a declaration of covenants and restrictions of record in the office of the Eagle County Clerk
and Recorder in a form approved by the town attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure
that the restrictions herein shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated
without the written approval of the Town of Vail. This declaration shall be submitted to the
Town Attorney for review and approval and subsequently executed and filed with the
Eagle County Clerk and Recorder prior to Town of Vail issuance of any building permit
for the employee housing building.
No more than one person shall be permitted to reside in a studio unit. No more
than two persons shall be permitted to reside in aone-bedroom unit. No more than
three persons shall be permitted to reside in atwo-bedroom unit.
The applicant or his successor in interest shall provide the Director of the
Community Development and the Chairman of the Town of Vail Housing Authority with
a written report on the 1st of July and the 1st of December of each year. Said report
shall set forth the names, ages, income range, type of unit occupied and place of
employment for each tenant. Additionally, the applicant, or his successor in interest,
shall be required to Incorporate proof of tenants employment and information regarding
tenant move in date and term of lease within said report.
3
E. Additional Requirements
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall:
a. Sign and execute the required documentation in order to
permanently restrict these housing units as rental units for full
time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley for a period of not
less than 30 consecutive days and to insure occupancy
restrictions are met.
b. Submit a Development Agreement for review and approval by
the Town Attorney. The Development Agreement shall set forth
the terms fora $50,000 contribution for the construction of North
Frontage Road Improvements which will mitigate the traffic
Impacts of this SDD development. In the future, if fees or
assessments are levied against this property for North
Frontage Road improvements in an amount which exceeds
$50,000, the applicant or his successor in interest will
receive a $50,000 credit toward these fees and/or
assessments and will be required to pay only those fees
and/or assessments which exceed $50,000.
c. Obtain a geologic hazard study pursuant to Section 18.69 of
the Municipal Code. In order to obtain a building permit, the
applicant must institute any mitigation measures required under
the study.
d. Test the soil adjacent to the fuel tank which is generally located
north of the existing pool area and south of the proposed
employee housing building, to insure no leakage has occurred.
Soil testing shall conform to Colorado Department of
Health -Under Ground Tank Division and Environmental
Protection Agency soil testing requirements.
If the soil is contaminated, applicant must clean up the soil as
required by the Colorado Department of Health -Underground
Storage Tank Division and the Environmental Protection Agency.
4
3. Construct a fence to screen existing trash enclosure which is located
north of the Chamonix Corners Shopping Center (Shoppette Building).
F. Chamonix Corners Shopping Center (Shoppette Building)
The applicant or his successor to interest shall expend not less than
$90,000.00 by September 30, 1996 to upgrade the exterior of the Shoppette Building.
On July 1st and December 1st of each year, applicant or his successor In interest shalt
provide the Director of the Community Development Department with a written
summary describing any work which may have been pertormed during sa(d period, and
evidence such funds have been expended. If, prior to September 30, 1996, the Director
of the Community Development Department has determined the applicant or his
successor in Interest has expended a minimum of $90,000.00 for said exterior
improvements, the Director of the Community Development Department shall provide
the applicant or his successor In Interest with a written statement to this effect and the
applicant or his successor in Interest shall then be released from the obligations as set
forth in this Paragraph F.
Section 5
Amendments to the approved development plan may be granted pursuant to Section
18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code.
Section 6
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 7
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the
inhabitants thereof.
Section 8
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,
5
any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor
any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or
repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or
any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing
shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of the
Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
6
APPENDIX A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 25
CHAMONIX SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
A parcel of land lying within a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone Filing No. 2, and Vail Das
Schone Filing No. 3, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of said parcel, also being a point on the westerly ROW line
of Chamonix Ln and the NW corner of Lot 2A, resubdivision of Lot 2, Vail Das Schone Filing
No. 3; thence S 19 46'40"E 420.66 ft to a point on the north ROW line of I-70 Frontage Rd;
thence along said north ROW line on the following three courses: 1) S 52 02'56" W 62.00 ft;
2) S 69 54'16" W 274.90 ft.; 3) S 46 04'45" W 45.08 ft to the SE corner of the Collins-Wirth
Subdivision, thence along the east line of said subdivision N 39 52'53" W 171.75 ft to a point
on the south ROW line of Chamonix Rd; thence along said ROW on the following two
courses: 1) 245.63 ft along the arc of a 194.4 ft radius curve to the left whose central angle is
72 23'01 "and whose long chord bears N 08 02'31 "E 229.62 ft: N 28 09'00" W 98.5 ft to a
point on the south ROW line of Chamonix Ln: thence south along said ROW line the following
three courses: 1) N 39 43'00" E 89.04 ft: 2) 59.57 ft along the arc of a 75.00 ft radius curve to
the right whose central angle is 45 30'29" and whose long cord bears N 62 28'18" E 58.02 ft:
3) N 85 13'22" E 214.34 ft to the point of beginning, said parcel also being known and
described as Vail Das Schone Subdivision -Tract "K", containing 3.944 acres, or 171,800 sq.
ft., more or less, commonly known as the hotel site.
That part of Commercial Tract "C", a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone, Filing No. 1, Eagle
County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the south corner of said commercial
tract "C", said south corner being on the northwesterly ROW line of I-70; thence N 35 35'37"
W, a distance of 169.16 ft to the southeasterly ROW line of Chamonix Rd, 80 ft wide; thence
N 44 14'09" E, a distance of 122.66 ft; thence leaving said ROW line, S 39 52'53" E, a
distance of 171.75 ft to the northwesterly ROW line of said I-70; thence southwesterly along
said ROW line, a distance of 135.00 ft to the point of beginning, County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, containing 0.5 acres, or 21,780 sq. ft., more or less, commonly known as the
Shoppette site.
7
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 31, 1991
Revised to Reflect PEC Conditions of Approval
SUBJECT: A request for a Special Development District for the Days Inn site, with
underlying Commercial Core III Zone District, Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das
Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing/2211 N.
Frontage Road.
Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn
I. OVERVIEW
The 4.4 acre Days Inn property is located within the Commercial Core III zone district.
There are currently two structures located on this site. Businesses located within the
westernmost shoppette building include the 7-Eleven store and the FirstBank of West Vail.
The easternmost building houses a furniture store, CJ Capers restaurant, Nozawa restaurant,
an optometrist and the Days Inn. Under this redevelopment plan, the applicant proposes to
construct a ne~v, three-story, 37 unit, free-standing employee housing building along
Chamonix Road, at the northwest corner of the site.
On March 25, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved amendments to
the Zoning Code to provide specific development/zoning standards for affordable housing
units. These Zoning Code amendments will be considered by the Town Council in June, and
are not yet officially approved.
The zone district permits a density of 12 dwelling units per buildable acre. Through the
construction of the new employee housing units, the density of the SDD would be 22.2 units
per acre under CCIII zone district development standards and 17 units per acre under the
proposed affordable housing development standards.
Section 18.40.010 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code describes the purpose of special
development districts, and reads as follows:
"The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and
creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate
use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the
1
Totem; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities;
to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further
the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An
approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with
the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for
guiding development and uses of property included in the special development
district."
The Town Code also states any uses permitted in the special development district shall be
limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone
district. The proposal meets these use requirements. Multiple family dwellings for
employees are addressed as a conditional use under Section 18.27.030(B) in the CCIII Zone
District. This Section reads as follows:
"Multiple-family dwellings for employees of the Upper Eagle Valley as defined under
the Primary/Secondary Zone District, subsection 18.13.080(B)(3)(b) and (d). Upon
approval of the conditional uses, the Planning and Environmental Commission or
Town Council may impose conditions necessary to preserve the units for employees.
A Special Development District will be necessary in order to allow the proposed development
to occur because the project, as proposed, does not meet the following underlying
Commercial Core III (CCIII) development standards:
* The project exceeds allowable density by 9.8 units per acre or 42.8 dwelling
units under the CCIII zone district development standards.
* The project exceeds allowable density by 4.6 units per acre or 20 dwelling
units under the affordable housing development standards.
* Under the zone district, 57,354 sq. ft. of GRFA is allowed to be constructed on
the site. There is currently 51,515 sq. ft. of GRFA on the site (7,983 sq. ft. of
which is excess common area). Existing GRFA, including excess common
area, is under the allowable GRFA by 5,838 sq. ft. Through the construction
of employee housing, the site will exceed allowable GRFA by 12,300 sq. ft.
This is due in large part to an overage of common area within the SDD of
12,976 sq. ft. Under the CCIII zone district when the amount of common area
exceeds the allowable common area, the overage is added to the GRFA figure.
The GRFA in dwelling and accommodation units usage only is under the total
allowable GRFA by 676 sq. ft.
2
* Parking occurs in the front setback. This is an existing situation which would
remain. The project has a deficit of 12 parking spaces given the affordable
housing development standards.
* 10% interior landscaping requirement for the parking lot is not met.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
This Special Development District has been proposed in order to allow construction of a 37
unit multi-family/employee housing project. Access to the parcel would be from North
Frontage Road and Chamonix Road through the Days Inn and shoppette properties. The
project calls for the construction of a three-story building which would include one 2-
bedroom, ten 1-bedroom, and 26 studio dwelling units.
The studio units are proposed to be approximately 270 sq. ft. in size, the one-bedroom units
are proposed to be 550 sq. ft. in size, and the two-bedroom unit will be 700 sq. ft. in size. A
mix of one-bedroom/two-bedroom and studio units are proposed for each of the three levels,
with the one- and two-bedroom units being located at the corners of the building, and the
studio units located in the middle. A 12 to 24 sq. ft. storage locker and a separate ski locker
will be provided for each unit in the basement of the building. Laundry facilities will also be
provided in the basement. In addition there will be enclosed storage of approximately 5'-
9"xl'-6"x6'-8", or 57.5 cubic feet, on the exterior deck of each unit, which will be primarily
for the storage of bicycles. The proposed structure includes a 246 sq. ft. lounge on the first
floor.
A Studio units' occupancy will be limited to one person, cone-bedroom units' occupancy will
be limited to two persons, and the two-bedroom units' occupancy will be limited to three
persons. Therefore, the maximum total occupancy for the entire affordable housing project is
49 people. The applicant proposes to rent all of the units for a period of 30 consecutive days
or greater, and the units will be rented only to individuals who are full-time employees in the
Upper Eagle Valley. T'he Upper Eagle Valley includes the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff,
Gilman, Eagle-Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full-time employee is one who
works an average of 30 hours per week. The applicant proposes to set rents based on free
market demand for the units. The units shall be permanently restricted as employee housing
units.
The parking requirement for this development proposal is 258 spaces under CCIII zoning
development standards and 236 spaces under the proposed affordable housing standards.
Given this proposal, 224 spaces would be provided on site. This results in a deficit of 12
parking spaces. The applicant also proposes to landscape the periphery of the entire SDD
area.
3
Since this proposal was last viewed as a worksession item by the PEC on April 6, 1991, the
applicant has made the following changes to the employee housing building:
1. Increased the width of the balcony from 2 1/2 feet to 4 feet.
2. Provided concealed and enclosed storage for bicycles on the balconies.
3. Provided a break in the exterior of the building, so that a portion of the
building is now set back 4 feet from the facade of the other portion of the
building.
4. Provided a 3 foot break in the ridge line of the proposed building.
5. Provided windows on the east and west ends of the structure, so that the corner
units will have windows on two sides.
6. Increased the size of the proposed storage units from 6 sq. ft. to 12 and 24 sq.
ft.
7. Decreased the proposed density by 3 units through the provision of 2 additional
one-bedroom units, and ltwo-bedroom unit.
8. Increased the size of the lobby area and opened up the south and east walls
with windows.
9. Provided solid railings on the balconies.
10. Increased the pitch of the roof.
11. Modified the proposed roofing material to shake from tar and gravel.
12. Provided bicycle racks for exterior storage of bicycles.
13. Provided permanent window coverings for each unit.
14. Use of staggered studs in wall construction to reduce sound transference
between walls of units.
15. Use of light-weight concrete for floors to decrease sound transference between
units.
16. Increased the amount of storage available within each unit.
17. Enclosed trash facilities aze proposed.
18. Reduced the number of beds in each studio unit from 2 twin beds to 1 double
bed.
19. Increased the landscaping for the project.
III. ZOI\'I\TG CONSIDERATIONS
The following zoning considerations will compare the proposed development to both the
underlying CCIII zone district development standazds and affordable housing development
standards which are used throughout this memo as a guideline for review.
A summary of the proposed development is as follows:
A. Zone District: Commercial Core III (CCIII)
4
B. Site Area:
Days Inn Property: 3.944 acres or 171,800 sq. ft.
Shonnette Property: 0.5 acres or 21,780 sa. ft.
Total: 4.444 acres or 193,580 sq. ft.
C. Buildable Area: 4.389 acres or 191,180 sq. ft.
D. Density: (12 DUs per acre of buildable site area/1 DU = 2 AUs; Under the
affordable housing standards, 1 Studio = .333 DU, 1 BR = .5 DU, 2 BR = .5
DU) (Please note DU means Dwelling Unit, AU means Accommodation Unit,
and BR means Bedroom)
Allowed: 52.7 DUs or 105 AUs
Existing: 19 DUs and 83 AUs =60.5 DUs
Existing Over Allowable: 7.8 DUs
Allowed Density: 12 DUs per acre
1. Comparison of Proposed SDD to CCIII Zoning
Proposed SDD: 56 DUs and 83 AUs = 97.5 DUs
Difference between existing
development and proposed SDD: 37 additional DUs
Total amount over
allowed density: 44.8 DUs
Proposed density per acre: 22.2 DUs per acre
2. Comparison of Proposed SDD to Proposed Affordable Housing
Amendments
Proposed SDD: 33.2 DUs and 83 AUs = 74.7 DUs
Difference between existing
development and proposed
SDD: 14.2 additional DUs
Total amount over
allowed density: 22 DUs
Proposed density per acre: 17 DUs per acre
5
E. Common Area: (20% of allowable GRFA)
Allowed: 11,471 sq. ft.
Existing: 19,454 sq. ft. or 33.9% of allowable GRFA
Proposed: 24,447 sq. ft. or 42.6% of allowable GRFA
Amount Over Allowed: 12,976 sq. ft.
('T'his amount over allowable has been added into GRFA)
F. GRFA: (30 sq. ft. of GRFA allowable per 100 sq. ft. of buildable site area.)
Allowed: 57,354 sq. ft.
Existing: 43,532 sq. ft.
Existing Under Allowable: 13,822 sq. ft.
Proposed: 13,146 sq. ft.
Common Area Over: 12,976 sq. ft.
Proposed Under Allowable: - 676 sa. ft.
Total Amt. Over: 12,300 sq. ft
Total Amt. GRFA: 69,654 sq. ft.
G. Commercial Area:
Allowed: No Limit
Existing: 22,178 sq. ft.
Proposed: No Change
H. Setbacks:
Required: 20 ft. on all exterior boundaries of the zone district.
No buildings now, or under this proposal, will encroach
into the required setbacks.
Existing satellite dish encroaches into public right-of-way.
6
I. Site Coverage: (40% of site area)
Allowed: 77,432 sq. ft.
Existing: Shoppette - 5,169 sq. ft.
Davs Inn - 34,303 sa. ft.
Total: 39,472 sq. ft. (20.3%)
Proposed: Employee Housing - 6,460 sq. ft.
Total: 45,932 sq. ft. (23.7%)
Remaining: 31,500 sq. ft.
J. Parking Requirements For Proposed Development
CCIII Proaosed Housing Standards
Affordable
Use # Spaces # Spaces # Spaces
Da~~s Inn Accommodation Units: 54.6 No Change Not Applicable
Days Inn Dwelling Units: 38 No Change Not Applicable
Da~~s Inn Commercial: 72.5 No Change Not Applicable
. Days Inn Meeting Rooms: 10.5
Shoppette Building: 34.2 No Change Not Applicable
Employee Housing DUs: Not Applicable 37 units = 61 14.2 units = 38
Sub-Total: 209.8 270.8 247.8
5% 1\4ulti-Use Credit: -10.5 -13.5 -12.4
Total: 199.3 257.3 235.4
Existing Spaces on Site: 231 Spaces
Proposed Spaces on Site: 221 Spaces
Required Under Standard
Parking Requirements: 258 Spaces
Required Under Affordable
Housing Standards: 236 Spaces
Amount Under Standard
Parking Requirements: 37 Spaces
Amount Under Required Using
Affordable Housing Standards: 15 Spaces '
7
K. AREA BREAKDOWN
1. Shoppette Building - 8,971 sq. ft.
No Changes Proposed Under This Development Proposal
(See Appendix A attached to end of this memo)
2. Days Inn Building - 78,584 sq. ft.
No Changes Proposed Under This Development Proposal
(See Appendix A attached to end of this memo)
3. Employee Housing Building - 18,876 sq. ft. (Comparison under CCIII
zoning and proposed affordable housing (A.H.) standazds.)
CCIII Zoning A.H. Standards
GRFA Area:
1st Floor 13 DUs at 4,474 s.f. 4.8 DUs at 4,474 s.f.
2nd Floor 12 DUs at 4,336 s.f. 4.7 DUs at 4,336 s.f.
3rd Floor 12 DUs at 4,336 s.f. 4;7 DUs at 4,336 s.f.
Total: 37 DUs at 13,146 s.f. 14.2 DUs at 13,146 s.f.
Common Area:
Basement 2,166 sq. ft.
1st Floor 1,127 sq. ft.
2nd Floor 850 sq. ft.
3rd Floor 850 s4. ft.
Total: 4,993 sq. ft.
Mechanical Area: 737 sq. ft.
4. Total Of All Building Area: 106,431 sq. ft.
L. Building Heights Under CCIII Zoning
Allowed: 38 sq. ft.
Proposed: 38 sq. ft.
M. Adjacent Land Uses ,
North: Condominium buildings and Primary/Secondary zoned residences
South: Days Inn building and Shoppette
West: Vacant land zoned Primary/Secondary residential
East: West Vail Mall
8
N. Landscaping (25% of site area)
Required: 48,395 sq. ft.
Proposed: 42,224 sq. ft. of plant material
6.691 sa. ft. of walks, decks, etc.
Total: 48,915 sq. ft. (25.3%)
* 10% interior landscape requirement for the parking lot is not met.
IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD)
development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning
Code. The criteria are as follows:
A. 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.
Staff believes the proposed architectural style, scale and building heights are in
keeping with the character of the immediate area. The applicant will use the colors of
the Days Inn building and apply them to the new employee housing building in order
to better relate the building to the existing Days Inn and Shoppette structures. The
perimeter of the SDD area will be landscaped. This landscaping will buffer the
employee housing building from the adjacent residential properties. The employee
housing building itself will also buffer the residenrial properties to the north from the
Days Inn and Shoppette buildings. The siting of the building is such that, from the
north, the building will appear to be two stories tall. This is in keeping with the lower
density development to the north, which is primarily 2 stories in height. The location
of the structure at the northwest corner of the Days Inn property provides a good
transition between the Primary/Secondary zoned properties to the north and the
commercial uses to the south.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Staff has worked with the applicant on the density of this development. We believe
the location of the property provides a good site for employee housing. The tenants
will be in close proximity to major shopping needs and Town of Vail bus stops on
Chamonix Road and North Frontage Road. The circulation to and from the site will
be from the North Frontage Road, which is a major arterial road. Further, because the
9
primary access points are from North Frontage Road, the auto trips generated by this
development will not negatively impact the residential, Chamonix Lane and Chamonix
Road secondary roads.
The allowable density under CCIII zoning is 12 dwelling units per acre or 52.7
dwelling units. The existing development is 7.8 dwelling units (DUs) over allowable
density under CCIII zone district development standards. The proposed density under
CCIII zoning is 97.5 dwelling units, which is 44.8 DUs over allowable density. The
proposed density under the affordable housing standards is 74.7 DUs, which is 22 DUs
over allowable density. The existing project area is already 7.8 DUs over the
allowable CCIII zone district development standards, the net increase in density under
this proposal is 37 DUs (under CCIII development standards) and 14.2 DUs (under the
affordable housing standards).
Staff believes allowing an increase in density for this project area is acceptable for the
following reasons:
* Taking into account the amount of GRFA in dwelling unit and accommodation
unit uses only, the project would be under allowable GRFA by 676 sq. ft. The
project GRFA overage is the result of 12,976 sq. ft. of excess common area.
Excess common area is added to GRFA. In this instance, when the excess
common area is added to proposed GRFA in DU and AU uses, the project
exceeds allowable GRFA by 12,976 sq. ft.
* The project location is ideal for employee housing development. The project
area is immediately adjacent to Safeway, the West Vail Mall and Town bus
stops on Chamonix Road and North Frontage Road. Project access directly
onto North Frontage Road and Chamonix Road near the West Vail I-70
interchange means the development will have minimal traffic impacts on the
adjacent lower density neighborhoods. Further, because of the grade change
between Chamonix Road and the project site, two stories of the structure will
be above the grade of Chamonix Lane, which is in keeping with the heights of
the adjacent lower density neighborhood.
* The project meets CCIII zone district development standards for site coverage,
height, landscaping and setbacks.
* Under the affordable housing standards, 38 parking spaces are required to
support the employee housing. The applicant has agreed to sign/restrict the 39
parking spaces closest to the employee housing for use by the residents.
Additionally, the Town is in the process of re-evaluating the number of parking
spaces required to support lodge uses. The Days Inn Hotel is a lodge use and
would therefore be impacted by any required parking reductions.
10
* With the GRFA definition change in Januazy, 1991, stairs and elevators on all
levels count toward GRFA. GRFA credits were given in the lower density
zone districts to compensate for this fact. However, the higher density zone
districts did not receive GRFA credits. Staff is in the process of revising the
zoning code to add GRFA credits in the higher density zone districts. Because
these GRFA credits are not yet available to this project, stairs and elevators on
all levels are included in GRFA calculations. When the credit is made
available, the GRFA of this project would be calculated differently and the
total GRFA number would decrease because of the square footage
compensation for common area. This would result in the project's common
area being reduced as well as GRFA.
* Under the affordable housing standards, the project contributed an additional
14.2 dwelling units to the site. Discounting the 7.8 units the existing
development exceeds allowable density by, the proposed 14.2 units would
represent a 26.9% increase in density. The Town of Vail Affordable Housing
Study proposes that an applicant "constructing a 100% permanent affordable
housing SDD may be eligible to receive an increase in GRFA or number of
dwelling units or combination GRFA and density of up to 25% beyond that
which is permitted within the underlying zone district using a standard dwelling
unit definition." A 25% increase in the allowable density of 52.7 DUs would
be 13.2 units for a total of 65.9 units. Using a standazd dwelling unit
definition, the project would exceed the allowable 25% density number by 31.6
units. As a result of working on this project and evaluating the locational and
design aspects of the development proposal, staff believes some flexibility
should be built into this 25% bonus number. Staff believes there are sites in
Town which could wazrant additional density above 25% without major
impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. Staff believes the proposed project site is
such a site. The applicant could meet the required unit count through the
combination of accommodation units within the Days Inn Hotel. However, this
would be contrary to the Town's goal of encouraging lodge rooms for guests.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
18.52.
A total of 221 parking spaces will be provided under this development plan. Under
the CCIII zone district development standards, 258 parking spaces are required. Under
the proposed affordable housing development standazds, a total of 236 parking spaces
would be required. Staff is in the process of reevaluating parking requirements for
lodge uses and will be proposing the pazking standards for lodge uses be slightly
reduced. Although the Days Inn property is located within the CCIII zone district, it •
is primarily a lodge use. Staff believes the parking, as proposed, is sufficient, given
the close proximity to the bus lines, and the fact the applicant will sign/restrict the 39
11
parking spaces closest to the employee housing building for use by residents of the
employee housing building only.
Loading/delivery and trash areas will be screened from view. We believe the loading
is adequate to accommodate the project.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
1. Land Use Plan
The Town of Vail Land Use Plan should be utilized as a guideline in any
request for a SDD. This property has been identified in the Land Use Plan as
"Community Commercial" land use. This designation states that:
"This azea is designed to meet consumer demands from community
residents. Primary uses would include supermarkets, dry cleaning
establishments, hazdwaze stores, service stations, financial institutions
and medical offices. The design of these facilities would be oriented
toward vehicular access and parking."
No dwelling unit per acre standard is given in this Land Use Plan designation.
Under the CCIII zone district, the allowable density is 12 dwelling units per
acre. Based on the proposed affordable housing standazds, the density of the
project would be 17 units per acre. This number of units per acre proposed is
closest to the High Density Residential designation in the Land Use Plan of 15
DUs per buildable acre.
The following goals, from the Land Use Plan, relate to this proposal:
Goal Statement 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.
Goal Statement 5.3: Affordable employee housing should be made
available to private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by
the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions.
Goal Statement 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.
Goal Statement 5.4: The residential growth should keep place with the
market demands for a full range of housing types.
12
The proposal is in compliance with the Land Use Plan.
2. Town of Vail Affordable Housine Studv
Below is an outline of how the project compares to the Town of Vail
Affordable Housing Study. Statements from the Study are in bold, with staff
comments following. .
a. Each request for a Type II Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) shall be
evaluated to ensure the T.,, r?..'s current parking standards are met
on-site. If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be
eliminated by the provision of all additional parking spaces required
under the T.~ ~~..'s current parking standards.
The applicant will sign/reserve 39 spaces for residents of the employee
housing building only.
b. All the development and zoning standards set forth in each specific
zone district shall be met, including density control/GRFA, parking
and landscaping.
Under this SDD request, the underlying CCIII zoning standards, with
regard to density controls/GRFA and parking are not met. However,
staff believes the location of the project, adjacent to a major arterial and
the West Vail Interstate-70 interchange, and two West Vail bus stops
support this proposed employee housing development with minima]
impacts on adjacent properties and transportation facilities. Underlying
zone district landscaping, height, setback and site coverage requirements
are met under this proposal. The reasons outlined in Section IV(B) also
relate to this issue.
c. Under the Affordable Housing Unit, Type III (studio), a central
kitchen facility and a lounge shall be required for every 5 Type III
affordable housing units.
Because each unit has its own full kitchen, staff is reevaluating the logic
behind this recommendation. Staff still maintains a reasonable
gathering space must be provided in conjunction with affordable
housing development, and believes the applicant has accomplished this
through the provision of a lounge area on the first floor. .
d. Under the proposed affordable housing guidelines, a maximum of
15 studio units per building is recommended. However, with proper
justification, this number can be exceeded.
13
Staff believes the location, and design of this particular affordable
housing proposal warrants allowing this maximum of 15 studio units per
building to be exceeded. The project exceeds the 15 studio unit
maximum by 11 units, or 62.5%.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on which the special development district is proposed.
The northeast corner of the site is in a moderate debris flow hazard area and the
northwest corner of the site is in a medium severity rockfall area. As a condition of
approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a geologic hazard study must be
completed for this site. If the study shows mitigative measures are required, the
developer must commit to install the mitigation as a part of the building permit.
A fuel storage tank is buried on the site in the area behind the pool. As a condition of
approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit, soil testing must occur to insure
the tank has not leaked and the soil is not contaminated. If leakage has occurred, the
applicant must clean up the soil as required by the Colorado Department of Health -
Underground Storage Tank Division and the Environmental Protection Agency.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed
to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
The applicant proposes to install a substantial amount of landscaping around the entire
periphery of the SDD area. Areas in which landscaping will be concentrated are north
of the proposed affordable housing development, and on the south side of the existing
Days Inn building, between the Days Inn parking area and North Frontage Road.
Staff believes the residential building is well located to provide a buffer between the
lower density residential development to the north and the commercial activity to the
south. As previously stated, the building will appear to be two stories in height from
Chamonix Lane, which is in keeping with the height of the residential structures which
are located on the north side of Chamonix Road.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traffic circulation.
Internal circulation is adequate, and it appears the proposed access from North
Frontage Road and Chamonix is adequate. Access to the site from the North Frontage
Road and Chamonix Lane will allow this development to occur with minimal traffic
impacts on Chamonix Road. The Town is in the process of finalizing the Master
Transportation Plan. This plan calls for the provision of left turn lanes along the
Nonh Frontage Road. On Tuesday, May 24th, the Colorado Department of Highways
14
4
(CDOH) approved the Days Inn access permit without requiring the provision of a left
turn lane. Since this determination, members of the Public Works staff have contacted
CDOH to determine their basis for not requiring the left turn lane. The provision of
this lane is an issue because the Town had understood CDOH desired these lanes and,
subsequently, this is the reason the Master Transportation Plan calls for the installation
of turn lanes along North Frontage Road. The developer has committed to escrow
$50,000 for the construction of a left ttrrn lane adjacent to the project site.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
The parking area will not meet the 10% interior landscaping requirement for off-street
parking areas containing 15 or more cars. However, staff believes in this particular
instance, concentrating the landscaping along the periphery of the lot will have a
greater overall positive impact on the neighborhood than would the installation of
planted material within the lot.
Staff believes the proposed landscaping plan will have a positive impact on the
appearance of this property. The additional landscaping along the south side of
Chamonix Lane will serve to better screen the existing Days Inn parking area from the
residential properties to the north. The applicant will provide a pedestrian link from
the employee housing structure up to Chamonix Road in order to provide better access
to the Chamonix Road bus stop for the residents.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special
development district.
The proposed employee housing structure and landscaping will occur in one phase.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested Special Development District as it meets the
above SDD criteria. We are supportive of the overall concept of employee housing on this
site. We believe the applicant's request for additional units and GRFA, a reduction in the
number of required parking spaces, deficit of interior landscaping for the parking lot and
existing parking in the front setback will not negatively impact adjacent properties. The
applicant has responded to these areas of concern by providing compatible design so that the
building fits into the site, by designating adequate parking for the employee units, and by
planting significant landscaping around the periphery of the property. The proposal has been -
designed in a manner that is responsive to the surrounding neighborhood, future project ,
residents, and the community's need for quality employee housing. Staff recommends
approval of this Special Development District request subject to the following conditions:
15
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must:
a. Sign and execute the required documentation to permanently restrict these
housing units for rent as rental units for full time employees of the Upper
Eagle Valley for a period of not less than 30 consecutive days and to insure
occupancy restrictions are met.
b. Submit a Development Agreement for review and approval by the Town
Attorney. The Development Agreement will set forth the terms fora $50,000
contribution for the construction of a left turn lane adjacent to the project site.
If the lane is not built within 5 years, the money will be returned to applicant.
c. Obtain a geologic hazard study. In order to obtain a building permit, the
applicant must institute any mitigation measures required under the study.
d. Test the soil adjacent to the fuel tank to insure no leakage has occurred. If the
soil is contaminated, applicant must clean up the soil as required by the
Colorado Department of Health -Underground Storage Tank Division and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
16
. S
APPENDIX A
AREA BREAKDOWN
1. Shoppette Building
Commercial Area
1st Floor: 4,413 sq. ft.
2nd Floor: 4,058 sa. ft.
Total: 8,471 sq. ft.
Common Area
1st Floor: 367 sq. ft.
2nd Floor: 133 sa. ft.
Total: S00 sq. ft.
2. Days Inn Building
Commercial Area
lst Floor: 9,027 sq. ft.
2nd Floor 4,453 sa. ft.
Total: 13,480 sq. ft.
Common Area:
1st Floor: 10,276 sq. ft.
2nd Floor: 3,092 sq. ft.
3rd Floor: 2,788 sq. ft. .
4th Floor: 2.798 sa. ft.
Total: 18,954 sq. ft.
Airlock Area:
1st Floor: 362 sq. ft.
Mechanical Area: (LJnIimited) 2,256 sq, ft.
GRFA Area:
2nd Floor 38 AUs at 11,107 s.f.
3rd Floor 39 AUs at 11,417 s.f.
4th Floor 19 DUs at 20,495 s.f.
2 AUs at 513 s.f.
79 AUs at 23,037 s.f.
- and 19 DUs at 20.495 s.f. ,
Total: 43,532 s.f. ,
c ~ouncil~daysinn.604
17
~ - y
o... -
~ ~
rw ~ ` -pit y.~+~,__=~~~~\ \ C`•
I \ _
~
M. I Iy~,~ I N
~ `
st-~ ? • ~ ` it
f~
/i i
i
~ ~
_ i i ~ ~ ` \ sir G~rf'~
~ `t nit' 1 . - ^r ~ ` \ .
•IN i
\ \
1 ` tt
t, ~ / ~ / \ ` ~
5t10r?~~ J I _ ~ ~'M' ~
1~V' ~ ~ www~r w t..~y~~
1
1 ~
~ ~ ,
~ f
~ ~ _
t.----- ? r ~ ~ SITE PLAN
tN w ~ M~
• North Frontan Rem
- n »tt ~
Plant Schedule ` V ~ \ r`"''
E E•
rn or. .o.•.rx wme r•rr •u•
~ tiC N •eb
rr • trr~ oEr,w..w~tor •or•. rr•ra.rr ~ -
n EE rE•.r Orr•w~ rr..?t.ror VE Orw•Ir. t R M ~ ,r n ~~uw
A w E~.~rw.+E•r Or•b t•+4.• M. rt. w a. wit ~ ~ - T
p • i5.~r rr w~r~..E O.r~ uwM roenwr~Ers• ' ~ ~ ~ - ~
d r ow...r++ Er ~.tuw•wE •ar. roc ~+wr E.in M ~
M t rr»rr rw•A,' O~E.r•E-•w• •0•Ew rOC r~rr.ew• E N ~T
r y•••r. W' OiY JriY •Or• r00r~rww ~
ti E IErinw pr~IwNS Ir• M r00 nr•r!••u7 1.O K r -
w r w.+w~.~++++ +r+nw.~ •or. roc......s..~
M r wr.lrw •Mr qm• •OraA rOC I~Y?-wo7 T K ~r•'~
t . r+s , w •rYn EMS •Orw IOC 1~->•.vr L
• N Mir+-ryr•rr Fa.r EMS •O~Ew rOC liyrwe~E
~ • r...E...e ~ r E ors r o c u•.•r rr.e•N
.~~~Err•wrur..••w+r wr roe.Err•rn+n i S
® N ~ tY
rtls tE~rt ry?M•r ~ (g
Ir I
M
1
O tr •E• r~rEtr ta. Y 1./
T R
Plentfng Notsa T
- ~ ~ ° C~
i w....+•E:... Ea.r..Er....:~
t EY.~bYr ~Y.ai-Ir0•wF•r~EEE.Er•ErE~ / -
• h.•I•••i~•M•bYrllrE-•w/•..Err•NNNrrt. Ir••1.,rrr ) ~ V
Earr..~r.••r r+r~.+.Nr...w. ••E 1'~ rr ~ - -xML
• •~+rsr...rw~wE e....rs+.r w. .rr rrryE,E,rr aE..aw tr+n
Nwrww.l.O•M?NO~ ~ -
• w~r~r•r..rn rr~rr •irrwt•11~r••uE~ ? R
~ • rr.r~rr.rE•wE.r.rw.r~rru+rE•.Era ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ I r/~ b
r o..s rr wrrr-r•.rr¦ ~ /~w•r~ ~-i ~ ~ V ~ 3
i • r •r.~rrw.w.+ew•.wrr. j/ ,tea„
i •oW
• rs. •w4 MM A.•r~u?EEr wrrw• .t v O ! ~ r
r aE w• Err.•.~ r nn R
w MwEE~Er-••Er.MEr.t'r I11E
ar r•• r^'
q * • - Y
~f•. J ~ T ~ Ennew
\ :.o
.7n+i S,Mi
r.n prvu• '
•SwM ~ . MJ1.LM
i
M rM
1 , •
PI ~
{ ; w rwn••
~s
~ •
R 11
Il
~n e
.f I
E I ~ - •.rl~r• Mr w
•wr.ie 4.Na
z- y : E o.. ~iwm
.f. - = i~ ~
. .
Preliminary "
tM~E. I t.~.r,.:: . LANDSCAPE PLAN
. L-1
?wEm fEOmnp. ao.a
Nl1ig1111 uNC ~ ~ - -
- I f ~ I
(cwnovec Nou~NC. J NorcL acroNO
Z I~
i~RSi i~00R MRRRVG
CONEERF.NCE Rl.ll?11~~1NT
RASEMEN7 L _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . M11RMp
a.._~~ M.iIIONTKd AD.
SITE SECTION LOOKING EAST
1' = 20'-0"
SKpEC6 _ ; _ J
CHIMNEY ~ - _ ~ _ - - f _ _ .
_ ~ _ ,r
_ _ ~
r . r rJt
_ ~ Tt~N
EI?-EVA
. VU SST
t35~~~'
EE H~
p1?-'Q~
Eli 11
11 VII = l1 ~Q
~ - - _
STUCCO / 1
- ~
i ~ '
LINE OF HOTEL BEYOND I ~
y . - .~e.. 1
_
1 i ~ _ ` I
1 ~ EMPLOYEE HOUSING - NORTH ELEVATION
i \ -
• _ y ,
••.j1 ~ /STUCCO
~
a
~ ~
I _
i
I ~ _ • ~ LINE OF I
-~~t: j SHAKE ROO i- ' L ~
~ - - r~~ .
_
wig ;.r ~f, \ ~ ~ _ _ - ~ _
..-IYA` ~ ~ .
1 ~--y 7
~ ~ ~
` -
MAILBOXES /
EMPLOYEE HOUSING. -SOUTH ELEVATION
/ SNAK! ROOF
-_=_~j" - - - `i-~-- ~
soup aro, ewa~NC = - - - _ - - _ _ - _ ~ - _ -
- - - - - ,ip` a ,•-A D ` F,. f ~ : ~"~j - ~ ~CgRS OF CHAMONIx LMtE
srucco ' __~---tl ~ _ia:: ~ ; 1 ~s.l~l ~ilUxt1~1~:~.111. _ .1.~~
- _ - ~
EMPLOYEE HOUSING • EAST ELEVATION
/ ~ ~ r. ~
i II - - - ,IF__
IJL._iL.J~_~~LiIC.,~ I~.I
LAUNDRY
ILL . ! II
* MECHANICAL MAI
F ELECTRICAL
Utz / UPS I
'-1
• ~'i~(y~1~~ l ~ ~ UP
r
U I I i l l l I__ 1~-
-Skl locken (40)
- Tl _ _ -
3' X Q' PLYWOOD STORAGE AREAS 140) '
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
BASEMENT PLAN
CONCRETE PATIOS TIMBER WALL
_
,l
~ ~ i ~ AREAWAY_
o i ~ o _ -
t -
~_I ~ ` AREAWAY
e I _ ,
• i
i ~
i
~ - TWO BEDROOM ~ STUDIO A STUDIO A
I.BOXES
STUDIO B STUDIO A ONE BEDROOM
~i
•
i ~ i -
~ UP UJI
o ~ b Pj f
~ 48'-0' -
,n in I I i i t_ -
TSB.-B.
r.. ` ~
o
LOUNGE ONE BEDROOM ~ STUDIO A STUDIO B UP
1 STUDIO A STUDIO A STUDIO A STUDIO A T
~ _ - - X52_-B.
I ~
~so•-o- I a ~ l a
L.•
~ •
CONCRETE PATIOSIMBER WALL
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
~l~s~~=i~-o"
~ T ~
ONE BEDROOM STUDIO A STUDIO A STUDIO 8 STUDIO A ONE BEDROOM
i_v
n
uP D uP 'I t
I f ~ .
DN uP
r---~~ ~ ~
, p
• ~ - ~ -
~ ~ ~ NI - t~=. ~ 1'-3"D. Cabi t (TYP•)
r U /
I i ~ i--' r-- ~ f~1 ;,~,J STUDIO A ONE BEDROOM '
I ~ i , -2'-0'D. Cabla t(TYP•)
-1.. ~
L----~ C - r--
~ ,J ~-~1,,,_~' -b j ~ - Wiedow Co foss(TYP•1 ~
TYPICAL TYPICAL TYPICAL _ ~ 1 ~ I
ONE BEDROOM STUDIO A STUDIO B
TYPICAL
STUDIO A
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR PLAN
iis~~=i~-o"
ORDINANCE N0. 42
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING
CHAPTER 8.28 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO EXPAND,
STRENGTHEN, AND CLARIFY CODE PROVISIONS
RELATING TO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL.
WHEREAS, the setting of the Town of Vail in a valley between
two mountains restricts air movement through the valley;
WHEREAS, the movement of air through the Gore Valley is
further restricted in cold times of the year thereby causing the
increased buildup of pollutants in the air caused by solid fuel
burning devices;
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the pollution caused by
solid fuel burning devices is exacerbated by the altitude,
topography, climate and meteorology of the Town of Vail;
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that these sources of air
pollution may be minimized by existing, practical and economical
technologies;
WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that is necessary
to~encourage environmentally beneficial technologies to prevent
further degradation of the air quality of the Vail Valley;
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers visually clean air to be
an irreplaceable asset enjoyed by guests and residents of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT;
Section 1. The Vail Municipal Code Chapter 8.28 "Air
Pollution Control" be repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
8.28.010 Purpose and Applicability
These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the
health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors
in the Town of Vail. These regulations are intended to achieve
the following more specific purposes:
1
1) To protect the air quality in the Town of Vail;
2) To reverse the continuing trend toward
increased air degradation in the Town of Vail;
3) To provide heat sources that are efficient and
have a reduced polluting effect;
4) And to generally protect the air for the
purpose of the public's overall health, safety and welfare.
The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all
areas of the Town of Vail.
8.28.020 Definitions
1) Solid Fuel Burning Device: shall mean any
fireplace, stove, firebox or device intended and/or used for the
purpose of burning wood, pulp, paper or other non-liquid or non-
gaseous fuel.
2) Certified Solid Fuel Burning Device: shall mean
a solid fuel burning device which is certified by the
Environmental Protection Agency and by the Air Pollution Control
Division of the Colorado Department of Health to produce 7.5
grams of particulates per hour or less. This shall include both
catalytic and non-catalytic Phase II stoves as well as pellet
burners and any other technology which can be shown to meet these
emission criteria.
3) Wood Burning Fireplace: shall mean an open
hearth or fire chamber or similar prepared place in which a fire
may be made and which is built in conjunction with a chimney.
4) Gas Appliance: shall mean a fully self-
contained, U.L. listed and A.G.A. "fireplace" unit which does not
require venting through a chimney and which does not permit the
use of solid fuel.
5) Gas Loa Fireplace: shall mean a fireplace as
previously defined equipped with an A.G.A. and U.L. listed
artificial log unit which is approved for the burning of natural
gas.
2
6) Dwellina unit: means any room or group of rooms
in a two-family or multiple-family building with kitchen
facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent
housekeeping unit.
7) Accommodation unit: means any room or group of
rooms without kitchen facilities designed for or adapted to
occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors, walks,
or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit
or dwelling unit.
8) Refuse: means all solid wastes, garbage and
rubbish, whether combustible or noncombustible, including rubble.
9) Restricted Dwellina Unit: means any unit in a
primary/secondary duplex or single family zone district which
cannot be subdivided or sold separately.
8.28.030 Certified Solid Fuel Burning Devices/Gas Loa
Fireplaces
(A) One new certified solid fuel burning device
per dwelling shall be permitted to be installed within a building
within the Town of Vail, or in the alternative, a gas log
fireplace or fireplaces may be installed which comply with the
following restrictions.
(B) Gas log fireplaces which comply with the
following restrictions may be permitted to be installed in
buildings within the Town of Vail.
1) Each dwelling unit with the exception of
restricted units shall be entitled to two (2) or fewer gas log
fireplaces.
2)` Restricted units may contain no more than one
gas log fireplace.
3) Each accommodation unit may contain one gas
log fireplace.
a) All gas log fireplaces in accommodation units
within the Town of Vail shall be subject to periodic inspection
by the Town of Vail Environmental Health Officer. Prior to
making any such inspection, the Environmental Health Officer
3
shall give reasonable notice of such inspection to the owner of
the property being inspected.
The owner of any commercial property containing
any gas log fireplace shall pay to the Town of Vail the amount of
thirty dollars ($30.00) per year on the first day of the year
following the year in which said equipment was installed for each
such fireplace, and the first day of each year thereafter during
the time the gas fireplace remains within the property. The
owner of the property shall allow the Town of Vail Environmental
Health Officer sufficient access to the property for the purposes
of doing such an inspection.
b) All gas log fireplaces in accommodation units
within the Town of Vail shall be constructed in such a manner
that access to the firebox is prohibited except for the purposes
of repair and maintenance. A sign shall be placed on the gas log
fireplace reading: "Caution - Gas Fireplace Only".
c) All gas log fireplaces in accommodation units
within the Town of Vail constructed after the effective date of
this ordinance shall be equipped with a timing device to produce
an automatic shut-off of the fire for safety and conservation
purposes.
8.28.040 Gas Appliances
In addition to gas log fireplaces permitted by
Section 8.28.030 of this ordinance, gas appliances which comply
with the following restrictions may be permitted to be installed:
1) Each dwelling unit may contain no more than two
(2) gas appliances.
2) Restricted dwelling units may contain no more
than one (1) gas appliance .
3) Accommodation units may contain no more than
one gas appliance per unit.
a) All gas appliances in accommodation units shall
be provided with a sign reading: "Caution - Gas Fireplace Only."
b) All gas appliances in accommodation units
4
b) All gas appliances in accommodation units
within the Town of Vail constructed after the effective date of
this ordinance shall be equipped with a timing device to produce
an automatic shut-off of the gas appliance for safety and
conservation purposes.
8.28.050 Modification, Alteration or Remodel
A) If one or more separate dwelling units are
combined to form one larger dwelling unit, regardless of the
number of solid fuel burning devices previously contained in each
separate dwelling unit, the newly formed unit shall:
1) Contain no more than one wood burning fireplace
or certified solid fuel burning device; and
2) Cause any additional solid fuel burning devices
to be removed or rendered permanently inoperable; or
3) All wood burning fireplaces shall be converted
to gas by the installation of gas logs or gas appliances in
compliance with the terms, conditions, provisions and
restrictions of this ordinance.
B) If, during the remodel of a unit, an existing
fireplace is to be moved or altered in any manner, the unit must
then comply with the conditions, terms and provisions of this
ordinance to become a certified unit.
8.28.060 Reconstruction _
Whenever any building is substantially destroyed,
whether by a natural disaster or intentional razing, if the
building i.s reconstructed it shall meet all the requirements of
this Chapter 8.28.
8.28.070 Coal Usaae Prohibited
The burning of coal within the Town of Vail is
prohibited.
8.28.080 Refuse Burning Prohibited
The burning of refuse in any solid fuel burning
device is prohibited within the Town of Vail.
5
8.28.090 Permit Requirements
1) A building permit shall be required for the
installation of any gas log fireplace or gas appliance. To
encourage the conversion of wood burning and solid fuel devices
to gas log fireplaces and gas appliances, all applicable building
permit fees for such conversion shall be waived by the Town of
Vail.
2) The provisions of this ordinance shall not
apply to wood burning fireplaces for which a completed Design
Review Board application which meets all the requirements of the
ordinances and regulations of the Town of Vail has been submitted
to the Community Development Department not later than February
15, 1991.
8.28.100 Penalties
It is unlawful for any person to violate any
provision of this Chapter or to fail to comply with any of the
requirements of this Chapter. Any person performing any act
prohibited or declared to be unlawful by this Chapter or failing
to perform an act required by or otherwise made mandatory by this
Chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than four hundred
ninety-nine dollars ($499). Any such person shall be guilty of a
separate offense for each and every day during any portion of
which a violation of any provision of this Chapter is committed,
continued, or permitted by such person and shall be punished
accordingly. In addition to penalties provided in this Section,
any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any
provision of this Chapter shall be deemed a public nuisance, and
may be by this Town similarly abated as such, and each day that
such condition continues shall be regarded as a new and separate
offense.
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 affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares
6
, 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.
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 4.
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.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of
1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the day of , 1990 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado.
Ordered published in full this day of , 1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED this day of , 1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
7
RESOLUTION N0. 14
SERIES 1991
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW INDEXING AGENT
AND AMENDMENT N0. 1 TO THE REMARKETING AGREEMENT
FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL $17,000,000 SPORTS FACILITIES
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF 1984
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail issued $17,000,000 principal amount
of its Sports Facilities Revenue Bonds (Vail Associates, Inc.
Project) Series 1984 (the "Bonds") purusuant to a Trust Indenture
(the "Indenture"), as dated of November 1, 1984, by and between the
Issue and the Trustee;
WHEREAS, at the time of the issuance, Continental Bank N.A.
was appointed the indexing agent for the Bonds pursuant to the
Indenture;
WHEREAS, at the time of issuance, Continental was also
appointed remarketing agent for the Bonds pursuant to a Placement
Agreement, dated November 20, 1984, by and between the Company and
Continental Bank N.A. (the "Remarketing Agreement");
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedures provided in the
Indenture and the Remarketing Agreement, Continental Bank N.A. has
given notice of its resignation as indexing agent and remarketing
agent for the Bonds;
WHEREAS, the LaSalle National Bank, a commercial banking
institution with knowledge and experience in the area of municipal
finance and, specifically, in the remarketing of securities like
the Bonds, meets the crieteria for indexing agent and remarketing
agent; and
WHEREAS, Vail Associates, Inc. desires that LaSalle National
Bank be appointed indexing agent and remarketing agent for the
Bonds under the same terms and conditions as Continental Bank N.A.
and LaSalle National Bank desires to accept such appointments;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the
Town of Vail, Colorado:
1. The appointment of the LaSalle National Bank be
appointed as the new indexing agent and remarketing agent for
the $17,000,000 Sports Facilities Revenue Bonds (Vail
Associates, Inc. Project) Series 1984.
2. That the Mayor of the Town of Vail is hereby authorized
to execute the appointment of indexing agent and Amendment No.
1 to the Remarketing Agreement attached to this Resolution and
incorporated herein by reference.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
c:\resolu?9
EXHIBIT "A"
APPOINTMENT OF INDEXING AGENT AND
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE REMARKETING AGREEMENT
THIS APPOINTMENT OF INDEXING AGENT AND AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
THE REMARKETING AGREEMENT (the "Amendment"), dated as of May 28,
1991, among the Town of Vail, Colorado (the "Issuer"), The
Colorado National Bank of Denver (the "Trustee"), Vail
Associates, Inc. (the "Company"), Continental Bank N.A.
("Continental") and LaSalle National Bank ("LaSalle"),
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Issuer issued $17,000,000 principal amount of
its Sports Facilities Revenue Bonds (Vail Associates, Inc.
Project) Series 1984 (the "Bonds") pursuant to a Trust Indenture
(the "Indenture"), dated as of November 1, 1984, by and between
the Issuer and the Trustee;
WHEREAS, at the time of issuance, Continental was appointed
indexing agent for the Bonds pursuant to the Indenture;
WHEREAS, at the time of issuance, Continental also was
appointed remarketing agent for the Bonds pursuant to a Placement
Agreement, dated November 20, 1984, by and between the Company
and Continental (the "Remarketing Agreement");
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedures provided in the
Indenture and the Remarketing Agreement, Continental has given
notice of its resignation as indexing agent and remarketing agent
for the Bonds;
WHEREAS, LaSalle, a commercial banking institution with
knowledge and experience in the area of municipal finance and,
specifically, in the remarketing of securities like the Bonds,
meets the criteria for indexing agent and remarketing agent; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires that LaSalle be appointed
indexing agent and remarketing agent for the Bonds under the same
terms and conditions as Continental and LaSalle desires to accept
such appointments;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the
mutual representations and agreements set forth herein, the
parties hereto agree as follows:
Section~l. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are made
a part hereof.
/32E/GJS/LNB-12
Section 2. Representations and Warranties,. Each of the
parties hereto, represents and warrants that it is authorized to
enter into and execute this Amendment. All representations and
warranties made in the Remarketing Agreement are restated by the
respective parties on the date hereof; provided that LaSalle
makes the representations and warranties of the remarketing agent
for the Bonds.
Section 3. Appointment of LaSalle; Release of Continental.
The Trustee hereby appoints LaSalle as indexing agent for the
Bonds, and the Issuer and the Company hereby consent to such
appointment. The Issuer, at the direction of the Company, hereby
appoints LaSalle as remarketing agent for the Bonds. LaSalle
hereby accepts such appointments. Continental is hereby released
from the duties of indexing agent and remarketing agent for the
Bonds and from any liabilities arising henceforth from acts or
omissions of LaSalle or any other successor indexing agent or
remarketing agent for the Bonds. All of the actions provided for
in this section shall take effect simultaneously on the date
hereof.
Section 4. Terms and Conditions. The Company and LaSalle
agree that LaSalle is hereby deemed to be a party to the
Remarketing Agreement and shall serve as indexing agent and
remarketing agent for the Bonds under the same terms and
conditions as heretofore have been applicable to Continental in
its role as indexing agent and remarketing agent for the Bonds.
Section 5. Amendment of tre Remarketing Agreement. The
Remarketing Agreement is hereby amended as necessary to carry out
fully the intent of this Amendment.
Section 6. Notices to Indexing Agent or Remarketing,
Agent. Any notice to the indexing agent or remarketing agent
pursuant to the Indenture or the Remarketing Agreement shall be
in writing and addressed as follows:
LaSalle National Bank
National Public Finance Division
200 West Madison Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Attention: Jonathan Gartner
Telephone: (312) 781-7100
Facsimile: (312) 750-6102
Section 7. Remarketing Agreement. Except as modified by
this Amendment, the Remarketing Agreement shall remain ,in full
force and effect.
/32E/GJS/LNB-12
Section 8. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in
several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all
of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Appointment of Indexing Agent and Amendment No. 1 to the
Remarketing Agreement to be duly executed in their respective
names, all as of the date first above written.
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO
By : ~~~'~'~'r v J
Its : rn .~`/D~
THE COLORADO NATIONAL BANK
OF DENVER, as trustee
By:
Its:
VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Its:
LASALLE NATIONAL BANK
By:
Its:
CONTINENTAL BANK N.A.
By:
Its:
/32E/GJS/ LNB-12
ti. ~ .
TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Phillips
Council Members
FROM: Steve Thompson
DATE: June 14, 1991
RE: Investment Report
Enclosed is the investment report with balances as of May 31, 1991.
In May, we purchased a $500,000 agency obligation with an average
yield of 5.95%.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
cc: Steve Barwick
town of 9nil, Colorado
laveetweet Neoort
5auarv of Accooetw and leveehente
Por the Month Bndin¢ Mat 31, 1991
Panda Por Beeerve Belapcew Perceata¢e Perceatn¢e
Operatia¢ Panda 05/31191 of Total Allowed
Aoeey Mnrtet Accoaetw lase pace 11
Coawerciel Bentw 1!11,1691 (341,323 !210,054 2.OII 501
Aoeev Nartet Paede (4,319 (1,821,633 !1,831.951 13,611 1001
Colorado levewtaeat Poole ft,006,Ot6 !2,006,016 14.991 1001
Total !1,933,016 !1,114,956 !4,108,032 30.653
Couercial Savie¢e f
Banks Loans
Certiticatew of Oepoeit (wee page 21
Bale Coaaty Inetitotione O.OOI
Otter Colorado Inetitutione !495,000 (495.000 !495,000 3,691
National Inetitatioee !291,000 (1.386,000 (1,386.000 !197,000 (1,683,000 11,561
total (291,000 51,881,000 (1,881,000 (299,000 ft, 198,000 16,251 100X
Perceatn¢e of Porttolio in Savia¢e 1 Loanw 14,031 251
O,S. Govereaeet Secaritiee (wee page 31
Beonrchaee A¢reeaente (1,099,389 (1,099,389 B,20I 1SI
Treaeary Notee 1 Billw !1,209,401 (400,000 (1,607,401 11,99X 1001
CANA'e !155,222 !155,211 1,161 1001
O.S. 5nvieae Boade !21,317 (21,371 0,161 100I
Federal A¢eacy Diecoaat Notew 1 Bondw (1,233,478 (4,233,418 31.S9I 1002
Total !5,619,478 (1,499,389 (1,116,861 53,101
total Porttolio f9,431,SS4 !3,911,345 !13,402,899 100.001
Aetaria¢ Nithin 12 Nonthe !9,024,955 !2,112,956 (11,191,911 88.032
Aatarin¢ tittiw 24 Nonthe f0 !99.000 (99,000 0.141
Aataria¢ After 24 Noethe !406,599 (1.099.389 !1,505,988 11.231
!9,431,554 !3,911,345 (13,402,899 100,001
Breatdowe of Beeerve Paade
6.0, 8oad Beeerve !3,531,013
Booth Creek Aiti¢ntioa Proceeds !103,124 • .
Ctect Aedereon Neaorial (10,991
8enlth laearaece Paede !226,209
!3,911,745
6/14/91a1p
iavea05
Nonev Nerket Accounts
ee o[ Nav 31. 1991
--Por the Nonth o[ Nnv--
Inetitation Belaoces
Tvoe o[ Accounts Aiah Low Averaae OS/31191
CONNBRCIAL BAAA ACCOURTS
Pirat Bnnt o[ Vail - Ooeratiea
letereet 4,8901 4.T]OX 4.BOOX '
Bnlnece (801.064 f1S7,S37 (440,470 ((183,9191
Pirat Beet o[ Vai] - leearanee
letereet 4.890X 4.710X 4.BOOX 1226,204
Balance
Central Bnnt of Deever Beeerre Acconntn
letereet S.000X
Balance (110.125
Central Bnet o[ Deever
lntereet 4,918X
General Operntiea Accoaet
Balance (111,641
total Coaaercial Beet Accounts 5290.OS4
LOCA6 COVBRRNBRT IRVBSTNBRT POOL
Colorado Traet Ilaveetaeat Pooll
lntereet 5.480X
Belaoce (2.006.026
NORBV NARBBT MOTOAL PORDS
Federated Secnritiee Coro. 0. S. Treaear~ Tract Reeene Account
lntereet 5.980X
Belnnce (604.325
Pidelity Inveetneet Covernaent Noeev Market Accounts
letereet 5.630X
Bood teens Qeeerve Account
Bnlnece 11.020,184
Booth Crest lap Pnede
Bnlnece 1203,124
Partieg Structure Corset Faad Accoaet
Belnnce 14,319
Totel Noee~ Nartet Natael Pnnd f1,831.9St
totel all eccoanta 14,108.032 ,
~=Accoaet Subject to Arbitrage Qebate
6114l91iIp
ianeOS Page 1
' Certificates of Deposit
- ns of Nav 31, 1941
Bast Rage. Location Dn9e to
Rates Parchase Antarity MntaritT Antaritr
Iss Cocoon Tield Date Dnte nt Parchnae Yalae
Firet 5nvinas aed Loan. Beverly Hills, CA
SAIP 10,37SX 10.12SX 10-Aar-89 03-Jan-91 iBl (99.000
Sterlin¢ Savinas end Loan, Irvine, CA
SAIP 10,S00X 10,2SOX 10-Anr-89 02-Dec-91 966 (99,000
Bnv Lona A laveetaent Bnnk, 6as1 Oreenrish, RI. Reserved Panda
PD1C 9,3001 9.OSOX 11-Ja1-B9 02-Dec-91 874 (99.000
Aonestead Savinas Asencintion, Middletorn, PA. Reserved Panda
SAIP 9,1001 8,9001 21-Ja1-89 Ot-Dec-9! 864 (99,000
Past Bnnk. Rer York, R7
PDIC 9,0001 8,9001 11-Jet-89 I1-Ja1-91 130 (99,000
testern Financial Savin¢e Baak, Irvine, CA
SA[P 7,62SX 7,37SX iS-Jan-91 02-Dec-91 321 599,000
Cardiac! Federal Savinas Bank. Cleveland, Ofl
SAIP 7.4SOX 1,32SX 1S-Jan-91 02-Dec-91 321 (99,000
iestern Federal Snrin¢a asd Loan, Narina Del Rar. CA
SAIF 7.62SX 7,31SX 1S-Jan-91 O2-Dec-91 3t1 599,000
Paaraoo Savinas nod Loan, Hoboken, RJ
SAIF 7,SOOX 7.37SX IS-Jan-91 02-Dec-91 32l (99,000
Glendale Pederal Savinas aed Loan, Pt. Laaderdnle. PL
SAIF 7.62SX T.37SX 1S-Jnn-91 02-Dec-91 321 !99.000
Colorado Federal Savinas Bank, Sterlin¢. CO
SAIP 7.S90X 7.6711 17-Jan-91 02-Dec-91 3l9 (99,000
Colaabia Savinas, Denver, CO
SAIP 1,1SOX 9,1SOX t8-Jan-91 02-Dec-91 308 (99,000
Pirat Federn] Snrin¢e Pant,. Denver, CO
SAIP 1.2SOX 7.2SOX t8-Jan-91 02-Dec-91 308 199,000
Thatcher Bant Pederal Savinas Baek, Salida. CO
SAIF 7.2SOX T.2SOX 31-Jnn-91 02-Dec-91 30S (99,000 '
Colorado Savinas Bent, Denver, CO
SAIF T.4SOS T.4SOX 31-Jan-91 Ot-Dec-91 30S (99.000
Soothers Piaeacial Pederal Snvia¢e Baek, iarreetoa, PA
SAIF 1.1001 7.0001 09-Feb-91 Ot-Dec-91 t98 (99,000
Pirst Secariti Savinas Baat, Nl '
SAIP 7.t00X 1.0001 I1-Peb-91 02-Dec-91 294 (99.000
Pirat Rei¢kts Baat, Boaeton. Tl
SAIP T.OSOX T.OSOX 11-Peb-91 Ot-Dec-91 t94 (99,000
CORTIRURD
Certiticnten of Deooeit
as of Aav 31, 1991
Bent Anne. Location Dnve to
8ntee Porchaee Natarity Natoritr Aatarity
lne Couoon 9ield Dnt.e Date nt Purchase 9nlne
Blnehosset Snvinas Baek, Dallas, TI
SHIP 1,251 1.tS1 11-Feb-91 02-Der-91 291 399,000
La ]olln Snvinae Bank, lndiaa cells, Cti
9~IF 9.0001 6.850I t0-Peb-91 02-Dec-91 285 (99.000
Santa Ann Savings and Loan
S11F 1,1501 1.ISOI 20-Feb-9] 02-Dec-91 285 399,000
Lvndonville Snvinae Bnek 1 Traet, Lvedonville, 9T, Reserved Paads
PD]C 9.2501 9.0501 26-Jet-89 Ol-]an-92 1011 399.009
!va Yield 1.8261 32,178,000
Dave to Ilntoritr 1S1
6/14/91i1P
iavcd05 Pnae 2
Gorernaent Secnritiee
u ne of Aar J1, 1991
tttlreasarr Notea 1 Billettt
Dare
to Dars
laterest Rate Parchnee Aataritl Nataritr to Boot Pnr
lone Pand Cocoon /field Date Date et Parchnee Nataritr !clue !clue
Bond Pooled Caeh 8.8751 1,4101 11-Mar-86 lS-Feb-96 36t8 1121 1230,000 {130,000
Bond Pooled Cash 6.5001 6,6011 Ol-Peb-91 1S-Aov-91 289 168 1500,000 1500.000
Roed Pooled Caeh 6.4801 O1-Feb-91 24-Oct-91 16S 146 (411.101 !411,401
Bond Debt Service 8.2501 8.1591 31-Aa¢-89 31-AaR-91 130 92 (400,000 (400.000
Arern¢e Years To Metnritr 1.46 (1.601.401 (1,601,401
Arera¢e field (.101
tttReparchnee Agreeaeatettt
Parchnee Antaritr Book
lestitation field Date Date Inlae
Aor¢nn Stnalev t P.8501 O1-]an-90 O1-Dec-9S (1,099,389
t Siatin¢ Pand lereetaent to Retire G.O. Boade
sttCNNA'Sttt
tears to Betiaated
laterest Bate Parchase Nataritr Nataritr fears to Principal
Pool Cocoon Tield Date Dnte at Parchase Nataritr Oatetendia¢
SB03 8.0001 8.4801 l4-Nov-86 15-Oct-OS 19.10 16.00 139.440
13003 8,0001 9.5001 24-Oct-86 15-Oct-06 20.20 11.00 152,103
14659 8,0001 9.2001 tt-Oct-86 1S-]an-07 11,20 18.00 163,019
Ar¢ Yield 9.1191 S15S,t22
tttO.S. 5avie¢e Bondetti
leers to
Issue Nataritr Antaritr genre to Boot Antaritr
Series field Dnte Date at Parchase Antaritr Ialae Inlae
BB 7.1701 O1-Oct-86 01-Oct-96 10.00 5.34 121,371• 130,000
tttPedernl A¢eacr Diecoaat Notes l Boadettt
Dera to
laterest Bate Parchase Nataritr Aatsritr Dale to Boot Nataritr
A¢encr Paad Coapoa field Date Dete et Parchase Antaritf lalee !clue
FBLB Pooled 7.ISOI 1.1501 26-Dec-90 2S-]ae-91 181.00 25.00 1500,000 1500,000
PALB Pooled 8.8001 1.t29X 11-Dec-90 tS-Seo-91 281,00 111.00 1150.000 • 1250,000
FBLB Pooled 1,1921 14-Dec-90 02-Dec-91 353.00 185,00 1233,478 1250.000
PNMA Pooled S.94T1 09-Nnr-91 OS-Nor-91 180.00 IS8.00 1500,000 fS00,000 '
PPC Pooled 6.2001 6.1001 O1-Aor-91' O!-]e1-91 91.00 31.00 1250,000 1250,000
FBLB Pooled 8.1001 6.0001 t9-Apr-91 2S-Oct-91 ]19.00 141.00 (500,000 1500.000
PFC Pooled 8.OS01 6.3581 14-Nar-91 O1-Oct-91 20!.00 113.00 11,000,000 11,000,000
FBLB Pooled 7.450X 6.1251 t7-Nar-91 2S-Nor-91 E43.00 118.00 11,000,000 11,000,000
f4.t33,418 14.tS0.000
Arera¢e field 5.391 ' .
Arern¢e Dnle to Nataritl Itl total 11,116,861
6114191.1 lp
iertr05 Pn¢e 3
' SLIFER, SMITH & FRAMPTON, INC.
REAL ESTATE E3ROKERS AND CONSULTANTS
1 230 BRIDGE STREET
VAI L, COLORADO 81657
TELEPHONE
TELEFAX
(_303) -17626.iP
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: George Lamb ~ L
Design Review Bo d
RE: Exterior Residential Liahtina
DATE: June 14, 1991
I have attached a summary of the DRB's opinion regarding exterior
lighting, specifically applied to the Iberra Residence.
Included are:
1) reasons for DRB denial
2) reasons for exterior lighting
3) suggestions as to re-drafting lighting guidelines
We also feel that the Iberra installation, presently under your
review, and the Kravis design, which may come before you shortly,
both were installed without formal DRB application or approval.
Unfortunately, the current code is too vague and abstract to les-
islate this issue without some controversy. Consequently, it is
clear that the guidelines need to be expanded.
These DRB applications are just that applications submitted for
approval. The fact that these designs have already been installed
should have no bearing on our decision. The fact that neighbors
have complained due to the lighting's negative impact on them is
a reason to consider.
Our decision was consistent with the code. It is now apparent that
the code needs some clarification.
OFFICES IN VAIL AND BEAVEi2 CREED
l
7 SLIFER, SMITH & FRAMPTON, INC.
REAL ESTATE BROKERS AND CONSULTANTS
230 BRIDGE STREET
VAIL, COLORADO 57657
TO: Vail Town COUriC~l TELEPHONE ,
(303)76-2421
FROM: George Lamb ~ ~ TELEFAX
Design Review ~a~d (303)476.26ss
RE: Exterior Residential Licrhtinct
DATE: June 14, 1991
I understand that the Council will be reviewing the recent Design
Review Board's denial of the exterior lighting plan presently in-
stalled at the Iberra Residence on Beaver Dam Road.
I am aware of at least one other lighting installation which the
DRB is presently reviewing and which falls within the same con-
cerned parameters as the Iberra design. As technology improves and
preference dictates, other proposals will be forthcoming.
The issue is a difficult one, for there does not appear to be a
specific section within our code which addresses this subject in
depth. Consequently, any ruling on individual applications becomes
somewhat subjective and open to debate, and legislation is ques-
tionable.
The DRB was unanimous in its denial of the Iberia application, and
we were in similar agreement to recommend that the Kravis applica-
tion be tabled.
I felt it would be helpful if I briefly stated my opinions on this
subject which I believe is shared in varying degrees by the other
members of the DRB.
There are two areas of the code on which we are basing our current
position. One section deals specifically with exterior lighting
and states that installations should minimize the impact on living
areas within the subject property and adjacent properties. The
other section is centered around compatibility. Relative to ex-
terior lighting, these two areas go hand in hand; if one is sensi-
tive to the impact on neighbors and/or develops a plan which is
compatible to the area, the application will most likely be appro-
priate.
As a Board, we feel tl^.at the installation of lighting 20, 30, and
even 40 feet up in a tree is unnatural and unsuited in a residen-
tial environment. I suggest that we draft a more definitive light-
ing guideline whicYi describes the intent and details the applica-
tion.
OFFICES IN VAIL AND BEAVF_R CREEK
i' Page 2
Vail Town Council
There are several good reasons for exterior lighting. The obvious
ones relate to pure landscape elements and security. Another
reason is the result of the new, high tech window fenestration and,
particularly, sophisticated glazing systems. These new appli-
cations are very effective in removing ultraviolet rays; they do,
however, have one drawback. During the day, one can see outside
due to the natural sun light, but without this illumination at
night the glass becomes reflective and dark, resulting in a very
cold edge to a room where the wall and glass become solid elements.
It becomes necessary to introduce some exterior lighting to open
the room, so to speak, soften the effect, and extend the space to
the outside. This lighting can be subtle.
In all of these cases; exterior lighting can be low level, hori-
zontal, and limited to a specific candle Hower.
With this premise in mind, we suggest that the new guidelines be
positive and stress the following areas:
- Horizontal lighting shall be permitted with a high restric-
tion of not more than 8 feet.
- Such lighting shall be used to accent features such as drive-
ways, walks and landscape features, and trees.
- The light source or "hot spot" must be screened from view
wherever possible within the property and must not be seen
from adjacent property owners.
- Uplighting shall be discouraged.
- Vertical lighting, such as on buildings and trees, shall not
be permitted except by special approval from the DRB.
- Specific candle power/light intensity and light color should
be addressed, i.e. 1 to 2 candle power and soft white light.
- All installation shall consider the impact in both summer and
winter when leaves and snow may cause different and, perhaps,
undesirable effects.
In summary, we feel that exterior lighting can be a very attractive
feature and, when installed correctly, it can fit in compatibly
within a neighborhood and adjacent to spaces. Under no circum-
stances should lighting be offensive or installed in a "look at
me", self serving manner.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 18, 1991
SUBJECT: Appeal of a denial of an exterior landscape lighting plan for property located at
Lot 1, Block 3, Vail Village First Filing.
Appellant: Renato Ibarra, represented by Art Abplanalp
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
I. BACKGROUND
On April 5, 1991, Mr. Ibarra submitted a Design Review Board application to the Town of Vail.
The application was for landscape tree lighting. The lighting had been previously installed, but
had not been approved by the DRB.
II. CODE STANDARDS RELATING TO THIS PROPOSAL,
The Design Review chapter of the Zoning Code states that:
"No person shall commence removal of vegetation, site preparation, building
construction or demolition, dumping of material upon a site, sign erection, exterior
alteration or enlargement of an existing structure, paving, fencing or other
improvements of open space within the corporate limits of the Town of Vail unless
design approval has been granted as prescribed in this chapter." Section
18.54.030(A).
Staff believes that the lighting is an improvement of open space, which does require Design
Review Board approval. The Design Review Guildelines state that exterior lighting must meet
the following criteria:
"Exterior lighting shall be designed and located in a manner to minimize impact of
lighting upon living areas within a proposed project and upon adjacent structures and
properties." Section 18.54.050(C)(11).
III. REVIEW PROCESS
On April 30, 1991, the Design Review Board met the landscape architect on the site at night
to evaluate the lighting. The following day, May 1, 1991, the Design Review Board reviewed
the proposal, and voted to deny it, 4-0. They concluded that the lighting which had been
installed did not meet the code guideline listed above, and was not compatible with the
neighborhood. The applicant then appealed the Design Review Board decision, and as a
result, the request is before the Council for additional review.
~ , ~ Nonpiofit Org.
BULK RATE
- - U.S. POSTAGE
VAILVALLEY - ~ - ~ ~ ~ . - ~ PA I D
. v8u,.co
FOUNDATION ~ ~ ~ Pa~m~t ago'
P.O. Boz"309 ~ ~ -
Vail, Colorado 81658 ~ = - - ~ ~ _
. -
APROJECT OF THE VAIL VALLEY'FOLINDATION ~ -
. .E
LIAL ~Er"jtU'ORLD FORUM
THE ~QTH ANN . , .
r.
please loin us f
or t~ .
• 1991 public Foam
Wednesday,lu~ 19 .
12:00.1:00 p:m•
' ~n hitheater ' ~ ~ .
_ Gerald R. Ford A p ~ .
Vail, Colorado
, An educa~aruil discussion on 'TER THE WAR .
E WORLD AF
D QgDER 1'~ ~ .
. .THE NEW wORL tinnal dignitaries .
anel of interna
featuring a p . ~.~ipatian
' . ~ and audience. pa .
ba educat~"~l lunch.. ~ " .
Concessions available. .
. THE PUBLIE - ,
• . ' FREE ANp'pFEN TO
' ~ •
SCHEDIILE
FRIDAY, ~ur~ 14, 1991 - SA-runDAY, uuiv~ 22, 1991 .
Friday, June 14
07:00 pm-12:00 am Ben Krueger's party (Evergreen Lodge)
Saturday, June 15
Sunday, June 16
Monday, June 17
02:00 pm VVC&PC (VNB)
07:00 pm Steve Jeffers - dinner (Vail Racquet Club)
Tuesday, June 18
07:30 am-12:30 pm CML Golf Tourney
07:30 pm Council Meeting
Wednesday, June 19
08:30 am EVCF
09:30 am-12:00 pm CML - Vail Opening Session, (Grand A-F)
Pres. Ford
12:00 pm AEI World Forum (Ford Amphitheatre)
5:30 pm-06:15 pm T....., Council and Dept. Heads meet with
Gov. Romer at Sonnenalp
Thursday, June 20
12:00 pm-02:00 pm CML - Vail (Grand A-F)
General luncheon, Theobold presiding
02:00 pm-04:00 Pm CML - Vail (Colo 2-4)
CML Annual Business Meeting, Ron attending
04:00 pm CAST Meeting
07:30 pm PSC Dinner (Cordillera Terrace Room)
Friday, June 21
05:30 pm-08:00 Pm CML - Vail (Amphitheatre)
BBQ
Saturday, June 22
C:\WEEKAHED
`5
w~,1Ep CO,~,M . ~ v~
Denver Water Department ~
.x ^
O i N
~m `-'1`~ 1600 West 12th Avenue • Denver. CO 80254 ~ ~ V~
~~f•' v
j Phone (303) 628-6000 • Telecopier No. (303) 628-6199 ~ C~\
~~,NJ~Y \
i
May 31, 1991
Ron Phillips
Town Of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. w.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Phillips:
As you may know, the Denver Water Department is offering a
tour of its Williams Fork Collection System and facilities. on
Thursday, June 20, 1991. I am writing to encourage you to
join us.
As the new Manager of the Denver Water Department, I hope
this tour will allow me a chance to hear your concerns about
Denver's operations. Invitations have been limited to
persons living on the West Slope so we can focus on issues of
concern to you.
Some of the principal issues we will be discussing are basin-
of-origin, water quality concerns, minimum flows, and any
other water-related problems. On the tour we will visit
Williams Fork Reservoir and Power Plant, the Vasquez
Creek/St. Louis Creek conveyance system, and the Fraser River
Diversion System. We'll also visit the Grand County Water
and Sanitation District's operations on Vasquez Creek, and
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's Windy Gap
project. The Northern staff and Grand County representatives
will help explain how their operations tie into the overall
water system.
Once we know who is able to join us, we will decide on bus
pickup locations and let you know where and when to meet us.
The tour is free-of-charge. Lunch will be provided.
Again, I hope you can come along on all or a portion of the
tour. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me
at 628-6500 or call Leslie Parker to sign up for the tour at
628-6553.
Sincerely,
Haml t J. Barry
Manager
CONSERVE WAi ~R!
Fi~6 .,ain difference bet- ing, and stores in a much smaller space than an equal amount
P .on and steel is that ~ is (BTU wise) of wood.
y can be poured into :0 2' Stoves and inserts can be divided into three categories-wood
) any pattern or configura- 8. ° ~ : " burners, coal burners, and combination appliances that ran burn
Cast-iron stoves and ! g 5 either fuel (usually by adding an adapu~r cif s~~mL• sort). if you !it'c ~
_places tend to exhibit the fine in an area where coal is available and ~~ood wane or expensive, ~
retail and graceful curves usual- it makes sense to purchase a dedicated coal burner. If on the other
ly associated with fine furniture. hand coal is unavailable in your area or you have ready access
As an added plus, cast iron can to a plentiful supply of wood, then a wood burner should be all
be enamelled in a variety of you need. Many potential buyers may at this time Lie unsure which
decorator colors that can comple- r fuel is best for them, or they may prefer to burn wood in spring
ment virtually any decor. The lr~ o o~ and fall, reserving coal for the coldest part of the year when their
orcelain enamel is baked on at d C7
p Qf~ o oCJ p heating needs are greatest. In these situations an appliance chat
time of manufacture for a perma- DDoOO ~O~Q can burn either fuel is probably the best choice.
nent fincsh that won t fade or dull i ~
with heat like painted stoves. I ~ Sizing
Steel wood-burning appliances ~ U I ~ ~ What size appliance is appropri;tc for ~~ou ~lep~nds in l~,r~_r• part
can be very functional and are _ J upon what you want it to accomplish. if ~•ou're prin;aril.•, interes:e~ '
often attractively priced. But if in fire viewing, most likely you're considering a decorative fireplace
you're in the market for a quali- of some sort. With fireplaces the best size model for you will be
ry appliance that will last as long the one that best fits into the surrounding decor-the only rule
as you own your home, you of thumb is that the physical size of the appliance usually ~t•ill deter-
should consider cast iron. mine the overall size of the fire viewing area.
Fuel Choice But if heat is one of the main reasons you want awood-burning
appliance, then some further considerations need to be given to
Regardless of whether you're primarily interested in a fireplace the best size for your needs. If your intention is to heat }•our err-
or in a stove, some consideration has to be given to the fuel you tire house, you obviously want an appliance large enough to do
will be burning. if you're looking at fireplaces, you have to decide the job. Conversely, if your only intention is ro heat a small area
between wood and gas; if you're looking at stoves or inserts, the of the house; :t doesn't make _,e:;s.• t.~ rh;:v. I
choice is between wood and coal. Let's look at the advantages of The area any appliance can n•;a~~n,:bi} i-~c ex~~e.ted I~~car is i
the three fuels. expressed in terms of a range of square foortt?e. These estimates
are usually provided by the manufacturer and are included in the i
Gas specification chart for the appliance.
The most significant advantages of gas are in terms of its The estimated area an appliance can heat will vary considerably ~
cleanliness and convenience._With agar fireplace starting a fire depending on such factors as climate and the home's degree of t
is as easy as turning the control knob to the "on" position. Since insulation. For example, a small stove can be expected co heat bet-
there's no wood to bring in or ashes to remove, a gas fire is ex- ween 400 and 800 square feet. If the home is in a moderately cold `
cremely clean and easy to tend. And gas is clean burning so there s climate like Ne~v Jersey's and is fairly well insulated, the appliance
no possibility for the exhaust to condense in the chimney as should easily heat the upper end of its range. With a clra{tier (arm- i
creosote. As a result chimney cleaning expenses are minimal. house in Maine, it might only hear 100 square f;:~et.
Unlike wood, gas doesn't have to be dried and stored to burn Before the advent of clean bur n t~. i~r.~l, : -i-i~urnin
properly. Gas fireplaces usually are designed to burn either natural appliance was at the high end of its rapar:ty anti tFu~ other near
or LP gas, so a fuel supply is usually readily available regardless its low end, it was usually recommended the you choosy the smaller
of whether you live in the city or country. of the two. This was because an oversized appliance could not burn r
cleanly if it was constantly underfired tip prevent overheating the r
Wood house. With a modern EPA certified wood heater proper sizing c
Wood is the traditional fuel used in both fireplaces and stoves. is a less critical decision because these appliances are designed r
Nothing can.
gui.tesluplicate_the.sighc, sound,-and smell of a crackl- specifically to burn cleanly at reduced heat outputs. Now the buyer ,
ing wood fire. A wood fire is easily started with a few pieces of can make his decision based on factors other than size alone. In t
kindling and quickly releases its heat into the room. (Ga~.fir aces that same example of one stove being at the high end of its range
as. a rule._produce_less-usable heat than a-wood fire.and their flame and the other ar the low end, if the larger unit has significantl}•
pattern is not as_attractive.) more attractive features such as su^c•rior ash hand!in~ er an ex~
Unlike gas or coal, which muse bQ~ur_Chased from a fuel dealer, ceptionally large fire vie;ring are:., t!~; .ar. ch~~;~~c i; ;vi,hou;
many people choose to a,ather at least some of the wood they need being concerned about over heau~} ti:e house
tfiemseives. Besides providing_energy_independence_and, healthy r
exercise, harvest;ng wood~benefits our forests by culling dead or
disease~3c .trees. Unlike most home heating fuels wood is a renewable
resource and an environmentally responsible
one as well. Com-
bine these
advantages wwith~~he_ecuuotriic ~onES-derived from bur- - is
ning_a local]_y_availabl_e fuel and it's easy_to account for wood's _ ~t
sustained popularity. _ ~ is
Coal , _ _ -n fl,
T?~1 t,
Coal is a more concentrated form of energy than wood. Conse- . ' ' ~ h
quently a coal fire will last appreciably longer with less tending ~ ~ I~ I , l I ~l ~ d.
than a wood fire. Coal will also tend to burn at a more uniform ;4+~ ~ . ,i ~ J, ; ~
rem erasure throu hour the course of the burn. If ou live in a ~ ~ ~ •i,~ ct
home with consistently high heating needs, coal is the ideal fuel 't• ^ _ . ~ ~ i~r''• . • tc
choice. In addition coal requires no splitting, stacking or season- ' , y . " '
4-Score Buyer's Guide
i
F~
P .onaandtsft el isethat (BTUnwise) of woodmuch smaller space than an equal amount ~
can be poured into ip 2 Stoves and inserts can be divided mro three categones-~~•ood ; .
any pattern or configura- : 9 ° 3 burners, coal burners, and combtnauon a ~ ~,iances that , an burn
Cast-iron stoves and ~ 7 6 54. either fuel (usually by adding an adapror of some sort). if you live j~~
_places tend to exhibit the fine ~ in an area where coal is available and +vood scarce or espensi~•e,
retail and graceful curves usual- it makes sense to purchase a dedicated coal burner. if on the other
ly associated with fine furniture. hand coal is unavailable in your area or you ha~•e ready access
As an added plus, cast iron can to a plentiful supply of wood, then a wood burner should be all
be enamelled in a variety of you need. Many potential buyers may at this time be unsure which
decorator colors that can comple- r fuel is best for them, or they may prefer to burn wood in spring
ment virtually any decor. The o o~ and fall, reserving coal for the coldest part of the year when their
porcelain enamel is baked on at ~/~o dd~ heating needs are greatest. In these situations an appliance that
time of manufacture for a perma- ~D~O OO~Q can burn either fuel is probably the best choice.
Went finish that won't fade or dull I l-.~
with heat like painted stoves. ii I ~ Sizing
Steel wood-burning appliances ~1 II Whac size a Rance is a ro t iate• for you de u~ds in large ~n
can be very functional and are ~ lU l_ ~ pp pp p p p`
often attractively priced. But if upon ++hat you want it to accomplish. If you're primarily inrerested
you're in the market for a quali- - in fire viewing, most likely you're considering a decorati+•e fire;~lace
ty appliance that will last as long of some sort. Vi ith fireplaces the best size model for you +vill be
as you own your home, you the one that best fits into the surrounding decor-the only rule
should consider cast iron. of thumb is that the physical size of the appliance usually will deter-
mine the overall size of the fire viewing area.
Fuel Choice But if heat is one of the main reasons you want a +vood-burning
appliance, then some further considerations need to be gi+~er~ to
Regardless of whether you're primarily interested in a fireplace the best size for your needs. If your intention is to heat pour en-
or in a stove, some consideration has to be given to the fuel you rite house, you obviously want an ah,~!ian~r large enough to dig
will be burning. If you're looking at fireplaces, you have to decide the job. Conversely, if your only ;nt~~n:ien i~ tc; ire:u a snrr!I area
between wood and gas; if you're looking at stoves or inserts, the of the house, it doesn't make sensr to o+•erbuv. ~
choice is between wood and coal. Let's look at the advantages of The area any appliance can reasonably be expected to heat is
the three fuels. expressed in terms of a range of square footage. These estimates
are usually provided by the manufacturer and are included in the
Gas specification chart for the appliance.
The most significant advantages of gas are in terms of its The estimated area an appliance can heat will vary considerably
cleanliness and_.convenience. With a gas fireplace starting a fire depending on such factors as climate and the home's degree of
is as easy as turning the control knob to the "on" position. Since insulation. For example, a small stove can be expected to hear bet-
there's no wood to bring in or ashes to remove, a gas fire is ex- weep 400 and 800 square feet. If the home is in a moderately cold
tremely clean and easy to tend. And gas is clean burning so there's climate like New Jersey's and is fairl~• well insulated, the appliance
no possibility for the exhaust to condense in the chimney as should easily heat the upper end i?f its ran~~c. \1'iri~~ drains r f.unr
creosote. As a result chimney cleaning expenses are minimal. house in Maine, it might only heat -;tip ~yuarc leer.
Unlike wood, gas doesn't have to be dried and stored to burn Before the ad~•ent of clean burn tecluualogy, if one wood-burninl;
properly. Gas fireplaces usually are designed to burn either natural appliance was at the high end of its capacity and the other near i ~
or LP gas, so a fuel supply is usually readily available regardless its low end, it was usually recommended the you choose the smaller
of whether you live in the city or country. of the two. This was because an oversized appliance could not burn i
cleanly if it was constantly underfired to prevent overheating the t
Wood house. With a modern EPA certified wood heater proper sizing r
Wood is the traditional fuel used in both fireplaces and stoves. is a less critical decision because these appliances are designed
Nothing can quite duplicate the sight,sound, and smell of a crackl- specifically to burn cleanly at reduced heat outputs. Noun the buyer
ing wood fire. A wood fire is easily started with a few pieces of can make his decision based on factor; other than size alo:ze. In ~ t
kindling and quickly releases its heat into the room. (Gas fireplaces that same example of air sto+•c being ar the hill; end ui its r~,n_~e
as a rule produce less usable heat than a wood fire and their flame and the ocher at the low end, if rl,<• L~r~.,r unit ha sgn:f:tantl~. ! ,
pattern is not as attractive.) more attracts-e features such as supcru~r ash hana!in,~ or a:. ex- j
Unlike gas or coal, which must be purchased from a fuel dealer, ceptionally largr fire vie++•ing area, the buyer can choosy ~r n irhout ,
being concerned about over heating the house. ; •
many people choose to gather at (east some of~he-wuudZiiey need '
themselves. Besides_pr.QViding energy
independence_and_healthy 1
exercise, hazvesting woos] benefits our forests ~ culling dead or
diseased trees._Unlike most_hnm~ heating fuels wood is a renewable ~
resource and an environmentally responsible one as well. Com-
bine.these..advantages=w.irhs economic Qnes ~erv_ed_from bur-___ _ i
Wing .a locally available fuel and it's easy to account for wood's ~ ~ _ t
sustair~d-popularity. ~ ~ ,
Coal ~;i: ~Ip l „ . - ~
Coal is a more concentrated form of energy than wood. Conse- ii,' ' - t
quently a coal fire will last appreciably longer with less tending r ! I: I,~; ' ~ i~ ~ I
i..~. -
than a wood fire. Coal will also tend to burn at a more uniform ~ `
temperature throughout the course of the burn. If you live in a ' ~ _
home with consistently high heating needs, coal is the ideal fuel iN~ !!jj~ ~l ~~~~•i~; ~
choice. In addition coal requires no splitting, stacking or season-
4-Stove Buyer's Guide I
j.
i
i
r ~
I
J 4 .f '
LL
` \
I
:a j
I
^y .
~ _i
-i
i '
be;?
"'4 ~Y i
i ~ji
T I _ - I'~ _i I
.S 1,
T~~rrc ~St 1 r}s,~ ~ y^~
7~.P'i~L~T^~tc'~~J,v,,,.+~`v.,y~ 'h ~VYSt. }7, ,...'P~~a,
,t 4~`°m..'°~' ~'.o;'n'
I
It is said that wood warms you twice: Once when you split As an enrr~y ;ourcc, ++uod has ~ for i;, ic:• ir~.~~-, bc~,l~
and stack it; once ++'hen you burn it in your stove. socially and economically. '`luck of its benefit lie; in what
\ it is nor: '\t%o>nd is not controlled .hy ~rcrnarirn.al energy
/tong. Wood warms you an infinite number of times, cartels. ~1/ood is not limited in supply. Prices (or wood do
/because for every tree that is cut to warm your home, not tiuctuate drastically. Rather, the wood fuel business is
j another can be planted in its place. Unlike oil and natural locally
controlled:-Chances are your firewooa-dealer is a"
gas, which are limited in supply and take a millenia to be neighbor, and there's something to be said for keepir}g
produced, a tree renews itself in 25-SO years. Along with your energy dollars close to home. If you choose to cur
the sun and wind, wood is the world's most abundant, your oti•n fire.+'ood (and surveys sho++• that more than ~i,
natural, renewable energy resource. percent of wood stove o++•ners cut their own fuell, yrni art '
making a sn~on~ statement e,f eru•-~,', r}drxndencr. :1nd.
The renewable nature of wood energy took the +vorld h+ it costs Ic~~, t,~.~ I3Tl rl~:rn o~i, ;~,-~ru~;~; ~:~s i~r rle~t~,c!r•.
storm during the energy crises of the 19%Os. When we +yere
forced to scurry for alternative sources of energy, one was One more thing to consider: Can your family gather
found -literally -right in our backyard. I~tow, as we em- around the baseboard heaters or furnace after a filling hnli-
bark onto the 1990s, we are again faced with a crisis of en- day dinner? Nope. That warming pleasure is reserved solely
vironmental mismanagement. And so, it is time to take a for wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.
fresh look at the role wood can play in our energy picture.
?-The Fireside Advisor-Wood: The Responsible Fuel
r.
Tips From Team Fireside ,
' T h i n 1; i n g G l ob a 11 y "People in my area are very concerned
about energy and the environment.
En:-~~~ it ~:;n~nt ~~crl~laide attention, as are the en- Wood-burning offers an attractive L,
vtntnmental impacts of producing that energy. For in- ~ energy alternative for chem. They
! stance, in the U.S., oil imports are climbing, while appreciate chat today's stoves burn much
i cleaner than older models and that
,=~merica's energy appetite grows. Gives one a case of deja
' s'u. To stop America from falling into another energy energy independence is as important
crisis, Food energy provides as clear an answer as it did as ever.'
almost ~0 years ago. _ Bob Bishop
Tierra Wood Stoves
13ut today, there are different, more complex environmental Taos, NM
issues facing us, such as acid rain, the greenhouse effect
and global warmine. i~~ u'c learn more about these emerg-
~n~ t~n>blc•ms, ;nu~lt cif the harr~t can he traced to
- -
auEuit~,~i~~lrs and c°ncrg~_pr~~iluction. So, how does snood the carbon dioxide released from wood burning. These
enrgy} srtrk up.'_Is ~±~o•~d heatine Dart of the pr__o__blem o_r `trees, strategically-plaute~, ~t~n pan r d rte air conditioning
part cif the~lution? -costs create effective noise and wind barriers, as well as~
provide a_liStle_shade.
The solution. A plannine d;v;~~on within._the U.S. En-
vrronmental Protecti_on_A~ncv has advocated increased And, let's not forget the health benefits. A study publish-
use of wood en_ ergy__as_.a w~_~_to reduce rh hr ~r o~.global ed several years ago in USA Today compared the exercise
svarriin~. The so-called greenhouse effect_is largely_.che_._. benefits of several outdoor chores. Chopping firewood ~s,_on
result o~ too much
carton rn
the atmosph~re~much of it hands down. It burns off 450 calories per hour. Compare
from_the burning of fossil fuels. This carh~n;_when_mixed that to gardening, which came in second at 390 calories
csith os~ec~n, forms carbon dioxide, and create<.._an._ac- per hour; and mowing the lawn, which was down there at
~,e~~;~•r,ern: rlan~cr anuin~t the planet. EP.~ says it fas•ors a 270 calories per hour.
r~~:v. c _t~~;iit~rnatire fuels, such as snood.
And finally, there are the benefits that cannot be
Of ;ourse, snood also releases carbon when it is l~urued, measured. The enjoyment of managing your own land, and
tiuc rnat same svou ave gone into the at-_ knowing that your actions, even on a small scale, are mak-
mosphere _anyw%ay_ ~ ~}ie
_wood ~simp-7~eca~ed on the_fores_t ing a difference. And let's not forget to mention the in-
-floors. This makes wood burning environmentally neutral. comparable warmth you and Your famriy~ain trorp sttTrrtg
\'or onls~
t}~tat, but the tree tTiet ~is planted to replace the before a toasty stove at the end of a long, tun day.
one
ifiat'~
cut snot soak
uo mole ~arbon_dioxide than it
rc1e5<e~ s.• -ei~ h`urn~ - making,_w~~od burning an en-
sir~iiim~r511~-o<~ui~c and beneficial thing to deg.
An Aside on Coal
.=\i. ~~.r,iiuLOn an~u~~er environmental issue that impacts
vvcxxj hearing. In =nme areas of the country, wood smoke Coal-fired power plants have been pegged as major en-
cnntributes ro aserious air pollution problem. In response vironmental problems; as a fossil fuel, coal is said to Con-
te this, Vermont Castings. and other stove manufacturers tribute to much of the acid rain and carbon dioxide emis-
hare resamped the wood store to burn much cleaner (see sions. Yet we make and sell coal stoves. How do we justify
'A Nesv Generation of Stoves" page 4) using coal.
The difference lies in the coal. Two types of coal are used
Acting Locally in industry and home heating: anthracite and bituminous.
i he ens ironmental benefits of snood burning can he Bituminous, or soft coal, is cheap and plentiful -and
mea~.n~~,' in sev•i:ral says ~>n~. tn_.thc•..energ}__that dc~e..n't_ dirty. h is the coal burned in power plants to produce
electricity.
h:w ::r~,a;:;e,i <•I<<••,~h~•re. ~Ihi~ inn he sc•cn in re-
,lu~_e~i ,i!i, u•~;~:~r:~, •.c ti~i~~. ~nii lead tc~ tearer ocspill~; less Anthracite, or hard coal, is found exclusively in the north-
need fc~r electricity, sshcch can lead to fewer nuclear power east region of Pennsylvania, is more expensive than
plant:; lesss_eeaTor focsil"~fuels, which ca_n lead__t_o reduced bituminous coal, and burns much cleaner. The difference
threat of acid rain and gIQb21 ~3arming. between bituminous and anthracite is like the dif-
Terence between moonshine and the finest Kentucky
Another_u•ay--t-he-benefits-can-be-seen-- bourbon.
is in the wise management of the re-
sourc`~- Tnis can be done locally. $y - For our stoves and fireplace inserts, we recom-
hars_'estin tjre~~'ood prudently. you i ~ mend you use only anthracite coal.
can maintain more healthy hard-
s~c)~~u stands. ,at1d-hs rr,r,lgnting ~ -
_ /f:
.t.r~ _ .
;r~._. ckii nr~st>:~t_ltrt;.u~ ~•r- ~ J.
: a n : I . , . i' ~ r m u c' h nl_. • ter.. ;.a._1= r ~ ' p!.
i
The Frreside Adi:isor-Wood: The Responsible Fuel-3
AGENDA ~ Present Absent
LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY Bishop Simonett
REGULAR MEETING Cassidy
JUNE 12, 1991 Thomas
10:00 A.M. Wilson
1. Consideration of the Authority of a registered manager for
Vail Food Services, Inc., dba, Frasier's at Lionshead/Trail's
End:
Gary John Sloss replacing Bruce Kelly
APPROVED: 4-0
2. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Authority of an
application for a Special Events Permit, Malt/Vinous/
Spirituous Beverages, by the Vail Eagle Valley Rotary Club on
Thursday, July 4, 1991, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., at the
location of the Vista Bahn Area, Tract B, Vail Village 7th
Filing, Vail, Colorado. Officers for this event are as
follows:
President - Geoff Wright
Events Manager - Jan Strauch
APPROVED: 4-0
3. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Authority of a
Suspension or Revocation of the Hotel and Restaurant liquor
license held by Bad Attitude Development Company, dba, Bad
Attitude Cafe.
The grounds for suspension or revocation are as follows:
a. On April 14, 1991, employees of the licensee, the Bad
Attitude Development Company, dba, Bad Attitude Cafe,
while on the licensed premises, exposed their buttocks
to the public in violation of C.R.S. 12-47-105.1, Conduct
of Establishment, as amended.
AUTHORITY'S FINDINGS AND STIPULATIONS:
1. GUILTY - CONDUCT OF ESTABLISHMENT
2. LICENSE SUSPENDED FOR 3 DAYS, TO BE HELD IN
ABEYANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:
A) FROM THE DATE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT'S
REOPENING, THERE WILL BE NO LIQUOR CODE
VIOLATIONS FOR SIX MONTHS
3. FURTHER REQUESTS FROM THE AUTHORITY:
A) NOTIFICATION TO THE TOWN OF ANY REOPENING
OF THE ESTABLISHMENT
B) COMPLETE PROPER REPORTING OF CORPORATE
STRUCTURE CHANGES
C) UPON REOPENING, APPEAR BEFORE THE
AUTHORITY WITH A FULL REPORT OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUSINESS PLAN
4. Notification to the Authority of recent renewals:
a. Jackalope, Inc., dba, Jackalope Cafe & Cantina
b. Pazzo's, Inc., dba, Pazzo's
c. J.A.M.E. Corporation, dba, Fountain Cafe & Restaurant
APPROVED: 4-0
5. Any other matters the Authority wishes to discuss.
NONE
TOWN OF VAIL
Vail Local Licensing Authority
Martha S. Raecker
Assistant Secretary to the Authority
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP June 14, 1991
Page 1 of 3
TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS
B/8/89 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN LARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements f r Larry has been having difficulty finding
ANNEXATION (request: Lapin) annexation. Steve will call for assessor' anyone to circulate petitions since
#'s re: revenue the TOV is not collecting Marijke Brofos is no longer involved.
from property taxes. Council is mulling over next step.
07/27 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN LARRY/GREG: Work with Holy Cross Electric Undergrounding may occur in fall of
EAST VAIL to establish special improvement district( ) '91 or '92 or spring of '92. Engineer
for underground utilities in East Vail. hired and design underway. Proceeding
with process.
09/20 LIONS RIDGE FILING 4 LARRY: Homeowners Assn. would like Town t Ron contacted Jim Fritze about abatement.
purchase common area for back taxes and The Town tax liability would be about
penalties. $5,500. County attorney says no tax
abatement is possible for a property such
as this. Ron to call Steve Lindstrom.
12/18 MILLRACE CONDO. ASSN. KRISTAN: Respond. Vail Ventures will respond in writing to
LETTER our letter. Shelly has written a second
follow-up request, which was included in
your 4/2 packet.
1/11/91 SNOW DUMP RON/GREG: Work out site acquisition with A. Still negotiating lease with VA.
Complete design.
02/05 CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH RON/ROB: Let's be prepared to award this Final awards to be given at the 6-18-91
RECOGNITION (request: Rose) spring. and 7-16-91 evening meetings.
04/09 PUBLIC UTILITIES STEVE BARWICK: Reassess municipal CML has provided information for Steve. A
ACQUISITION involvement/ownership of public utilities. special session at CML on public utilities
Provide budget in 1992 for feasibility stu y. will be held. Information forthcoming.
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP June 14, 1991 w
Page 2 of 3
TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS
05/07 PARKING-IN-LIEU/CCII KRISTAN/STAFF: Establish time schedule fo Reschedule for 6-25-91 when all members
(request: Gibson) review of fees for this commercial area. will be present.
05/07 VA/2o SALES TAX COLLECTION LARRY/STEVE: Research remedies to change Research is underway. Larry to get any
(request: Gibson/Lapin) this to a mandatory TOV tax collection. legal information needed to Steve.
05/14 IMPROVEMENTS TO MULTI- KRISTAN: What incentives can the TOV Research underway.
FAMILY BUILDINGS provide to condominium/townhouse associa-
(request: Fritzlen/Lapin) tions to initiate/expedite this process?
Investigate what California and Hawaii
have on their books to require the
escrowing of money for the life of a
property (i.e., in regard to replace-
ment of that property). Chuck Taylor,
a homeowner at the Racquet Club, is a
contact.
05/14 VIEW CORRIDORS KRISTAN: Research additional corridors Long-term project to be brought to Council
to be legislated. within next 6 months.
05/10 GORE CREEK PROMENADE GARY/KRISTAN/GREG/PETE/LARRY: Was money Pete, Gary, Kristan, Todd, and Greg are
PAVERS AND DRAINAGE PROBLE collected from property owners to resolve working with owners to resolve problem.
(request: Staff) this health and safety issue. Specificall , Drainage responsibility under discussion.
the Lancelot, Blu's, and John Galt. Long Met with Chuck Rosenquist to discuss
term, what is the mechanism for correcting solutions.
this situation and other similar ones?
05/10 FOURTH OF JULY FIREWORKS STEVE BARWICK: Contact VA to move the On Council agenda to approve fireworks
DISPLAY IN TOWN launching site. Contact Forest Service. contract.
(request: Staff)
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP June 14, 1991
Page 3 of 3
TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS ,
06/04 EAST VAIL BIKE PATH GREG: What was the final resolution of th Greg Hall is working on this.
(request: Steinberg) bike path at the far east end of Bighorn?
North or south side access?
06/11 PUBLIC MEETINGS EVERYONE: June 17 - Master Transportation Mike Mollica to speak with Kristan.
Plan, 6:30 p.m., Council Chambers.
EVERYONE: June 25 - Municipal Complex/ Ken to speak with Ron.
Performing Arts Center, 7:30 p.m., Council
Chambers.
06/11 INFORMAL GET-TOGETHER Council/PEC/Staff: Informal get-together t
Peg Osterfoss' home on Thursday, June 27,
5:00 p.m.
06/11 06-18-91 WORK SESSION EVERYONE: Work Session cancelled due to C L
Conference. Evening meeting still on!
Yt~ .
~k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `ice/
F/C ~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council Members
FR: Caroline
DATE: June 14, 1991
RE: TUNE 19TH MEETING WITH GOVERNOR ROMER
What: Meeting with Vail Town Council Members
Where: St. Moritz Room -Swiss Chalet
Date: June 19, 1991
Time: 5:30 - 6:15 PM (We have the room reserved from 5:00 - 6:30 PM)
Other: Coffee, sodas and mineral water, as well as cheese and fruit, will be served
Attached: Proposed issues for discussion, as brought up last week.
Governor Romer's staff requested that this be FAXed in advance.
Attached: Governor Romer's schedule for his visit to the Vail Valley.
1\~` Y
\ ~
~l
TOWN OF vAIL ~
7S Soutb Frontage Road Office of Community Relations
Yail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2115/FAX 303-479-2157
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jack Kirtland
FROM: Caroline Fisher
Public Relations Officer
DATE: June 12, 1991
RE: Governor Romer's Meeting With Vail Town Council
Jack, following is a list of issues which the Vail Town Council may be interested
in discussing with Governor Romer during his visit on June 19. We are all set for
that meeting to take place at the Sonnenalp Hotel's Swiss Chalet - St. Moritz _
Room. We have arranged to have the room from 5:00-6:30 p.m., with the meeting
taking place from 5:30-6:15 p.m. Please contact me if we need to discuss this
further at 479-2115.
' 1. Environmental Issues. Road sanding/salt, planting grass seed/seedlings
on scarred areas of the interstate, mowing, weed control, chemicals, etc.
2. Tax Incentives -Airport Situation
3. Ta,Y Reform `
4. Mass Transit From Stapleton Airport To Summit and Eagle Counties.
What is Colorado Department of Transportation's part?
. 5. Dowd Junction Bicycle Crossing. Putting construction of a bicycle
crossing at Dowd Junction on Colorado Department of Highways priority
list.
CJF/ds
:i JUN-04-'91 TUE 13:36 ID: DEPT LOCAL AFFAIRS TEL N0: 303 866 2251 #180 P01
ansmittal Memo 7~ ; "'~°~~°'0 _
-Fax
. From „„..,,.~,,,.,..„~,P..w.,.,~
, . ' DAt0lurye
y lOrlglml ~p~py ~Reium ?C~lorpltln~ S
w ,......r
Y. WAw•W.w•n...'.P'\.w .
w.r.w \ ~ .4....r....w w...0... f ..r.\i i.~... ~
w. w w .NY.~nn..\r.r. ?.~lN\•rw r..r .r./1/M.JMr°
rYWYM r.rl•NM M~'... .
- v..• v.v.J\w\MVNw.tl...~r•lM.w•wvww.wwJwr.wM...W?Y.
.....•~JIiN ? . rr • .
• • t r. Syr. .
'I+er?tAtive ~a ~ F..e~tle C7out~ty t'~
jp
wed?~9t~v . ~e 19 , l~l
7:30 a.m. Ieave far Vail - L~adel. by bus (wle'll meet. on t~
west Steps of the Capitol}.
9:45 a.m. Arrive in Vail.
10~-11:30 a.ltt. Colorado Municipal Ie:~.gue Anrntal Canf~~:.~ce - Gc~rnor
participates in panel dis~sion witih Rep.
Berry azid sen. Tad Strickl.ard
tiara: Marriott Mark Resort, Grand Ball~,.,.~.
?Z5 w. Iaiors~zead Circle. 476-4444.
- x.2:10 p.m. Depart for r'agle - crnmty cx~mnissioriers make the trip
to ~'agle to discu~~ cxnu~ty-~wida issues.
12:40 p.m. Arrive in Eagle
12 :45 p.m. Particyipate -Eagle~Tourist and Information CezYteer
dE~diGatl~l a1'~ ~jLCaa~ v~~:+~•
F .at~rnz' I-70 & Eagle intst~charx~e
1-2 p.m. ~ -will. follow dedication aril will ~T:cltr~
city, and county officials, attiar dignitaries and lvca7.
residar~s.
L.~,;.icm: Zburi,st arx~ Ihfvaoation Outer
2:10 p.m. Parat~t for Avow
~:30 p.m. Arrive in Av~m -City I~a].~.
~~..~Lior}: 400 Benoh~?ark Road; 949-4280.
2:403:35 p.m. .bur by bus -railroad grade ~,~.sing project and
affozrlable housing t,~v~~.~ with city officials.
3:45 p.m. L~~?Yt for Minturn
4 p.m. Arrive in Minturn
4:13-5 p.m. Public fo~n
Inc.at;Qp: Ztirntable Restuarant
P- . - r. ww~ •w r.
` : ~4 p.:n. Arrive in Mv~isrn
-
. ~ ' X4:13-5 p.m. Public foz~nn
. - za-.ate: 'Iti.~.~:.able R~t1,~+. c~.r~
160 Railroad Ave. (~3t~y. 24) ; 827-416h.
5:9.5 p.m. Depart fog Vail .
5:25 p.m. Arrive in Vail
5:30-6:15 p.m. M~titxJ - 1b~m offic3ale
City Hall.
75 S. F~w.h'tge Rcaad: 479•-2100.
7 p.m. F~maily Fbn~a
~tiaa~: ?
(Got,~,~CSr will iCJ1~.it1 in V~ ftsr they 7 a.m. faa~,~v 1'~..~.~t. akh,ers
~,..Ll dot Dew on the bus at 7 ate)
u_