HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-07-16 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1991
7:30 p.m.
AMENDED AGENDA 7/16/91
1. Chuck Anderson Youth Awards
2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
3. Consent Agenda
A. Approval of Minutes of June 4, 13, and 18, 1991 meetings
B. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting Section 16.20.220 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to window
signs
C. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1991 (formerly Ordinance No. 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; request to table until August 6, 1991.
4. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989; to
provide for the amendment of the approved development plan for SDD No. 6; adopting
a revised development plan for a new phase IV-A of SDD No. 6; and setting forth
details in regard thereto
5. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending the investment
policy of the Town of Vail
6. Sonnenalp- Lodge Expansion and Renovation, 20 Vail Road/Part of Lots K and L, Block
5E, Vail Village First Filing
7. Appeal of PEC decision regarding site coverage for the Stanley Residence
8. Adjournment
f'A~n - 7- rC
i9-no ~~r- ch~,~~,~
/~~~Sfai? Jcrvis ~d ~
vR~ /9 s'~~u ~~l ~g
/~s ~ s/ So ~ J~-
.S`ja / ~y~r a„
C:WGENDA.TC f/
c~~~~~tJi'fd~ ~~s. ~
,
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1991
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Chuck Anderson Youth Awards
2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
3. Consent Agenda
A. Approval of Minutes of June 4, 13, and 18, 1991 meetings
B. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting Section 16.20.220 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to window
signs
4. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989; to
provide for the amendment of the approved development plan for SDD No. 6; adopting
a revised development plan for a new phase IV-A of SDD No. 6; and setting forth
details in regard thereto
5. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending the investment
policy of the Town of Vail
6. Sonnenalp Lodge Expansion and Renovation, 20 Vail Road/Part of Lots K and L, Block
5E, Vail Village First Filing
AppeaL~f PFC decision regarding-site-coverage-fo~tFie-Stanley-Res7dence M ° ~ ~
8. Adjournment
C:WGENDA.TC
1
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1991
7:30 p.m.
AMENDED EXPANDED AGENDA 7/16/91
7:30 p.m. 1. Chuck Anderson Youth Awards
Kent Rose
7:40 p.m. 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
7:45 p.m. 3. Consent Agenda
(A) Approval of Minutes of June 4, 13, and 18, 1991
meetings
Betsy Rosolack (B) Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1991, second reading, and
ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 16.20.220 of
the Vail Municipal Code relating to window signs
(C) Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1991 (formerly Ordinance
No. 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; request to table
until August 6, 1991.
7:55 p.m. 4. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance
Mike Mollica repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 and
Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989; to provide for the amendment
of the approved development plan for SDD No. 6; adopting a
revised development plan for a new phase IV-A of SDD No. 6;
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Vail Village Inn,
located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot 0, Block 5-D, Vail Village
First Filing)
Action Reauested of Council: Approve, deny, or modify
Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, on second reading.
Background Rationale: Ordinance was passed on first reading,
June 2, 1991 with changes and directive for Larry Eskwith to
review against Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 19, Series of
1991, on second reading.
8:40 p.m. 5. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance
Steve Thompson amending the investment policy of the Town of Vail
Action Reauested of Council: Approve amendments indicated in
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1991, on first reading.
Backaround Rationale: The Town Council has received and
approved the amendments with Staff at the 7/9/91 Work Session.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 22, Series of
1991, on first reading.
•
8:50 p.m. 6. Sonnenalp Lodge Expansion and Renovation, 20
Andy Knudtsen Vail Road/Part of Lots K and L, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing
Action Reauested of Council: Review Planning and
Environmental Commission's approval of three variances, which
are needed for the expansion proposal.
Backaround Rationale: On July 8, 1991, the PEC voted 7-0 to
approve variances for parking, height and common area. Staff
recommended approval of the request, finding that the variance
criteria, Vail Village Master Plan, and the Vail Streetscape Plan
standards had been met. Staff reviewed the project at the July
9, 1991 Town Council Work Session, when the Council decided
to call up the item. A revised set of conditions which reflect the
PEC discussions, the staff memo to the PEC, and a set of
drawings are included in this packet for Council's review.
Staff Recommendation: Uphold the PEC's decision.
10:20 p.m. 7. Appeal of PEC decision regarding site coverage for the Stanley
Jill Kammerer residence, 1816 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a
resubdivision of part of Sunburst.
Action Reauested of Council: Review appellant's appeal of PEC
decision regarding whether or not the area under a deck counts
toward the site coverage of a lot.
Backaround Rationale: On June 10, 1991, the PEC reviewed
Jack Stanley's appeal of the CDD Staff's interpretation that the
area under a deck is not considered a covered or roofed
walkway, and therefore does not count as site coverage. (See
enclosed June 10, 1991 memorandum to the PEC.) The PEC
upheld the Staff interpretation by a vote of 3-1. Voting to uphold
the Staff interpretation were: Donovan, Shearer, Langenwalter.
Connie Knight voted against the motion to uphold the PEC's
interpretation on the basis the language was confusing.
Staff Recommendation: Uphold the PEC's determination that the
area under the deck in question does not count as site coverage.
10:35 p.m. 8. Adjournment
C:WGENDA.TCE
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1991 j
7:30 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 p.m. 1. Chuck Anderson Youth Awards
Kent Rose
7:40 p.m. 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
7:45 p.m. 3. Consent Agenda
(A) Approval of Minutes of June 4, 13, and 18, 1991
meetings
Betsy Rosolack (B) Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1991, second reading, and
ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 16.20.220 of
the Vail Municipal Code relating to window signs
7:55 p.m. 4. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance
Mike Mollica repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 and
Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989; to provide for the amendment
of the approved development plan for SDD No. 6; adopting a
revised development plan for a new phase IV-A of SDD No. 6;
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Vail Village Inn,
located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot 0, Block 5-D, Vail Village
First Filing)
Action Requested of Council: Approve, deny, or modify
Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, on second reading.
Backaround Rationale: Ordinance was passed on first reading,
June 2, 1991 with changes and directive for Larry Eskwith to
review against Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 19, Series of
1991, on second reading.
8:40 p.m. 5. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance
Steve Thompson amending the investment policy of the Town of Vail
Action Reauested of Council: Approve amendments indicated in
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1991, on first reading.
Backaround Rationale: The Town Council has received and
approved the amendments with Staff at the 7/9/91 Work Session.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 22, Series of
1991, on first reading.
8:50 p.m. 6. Sonnenalp Lodge Expansion and Renovation, 20
Andy Knudtsen Vail Road/Part of Lots K and L, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing
Action Requested of Council: Review Planning and
Environmental Commission's approval of three variances, which
are needed for the expansion proposal.
Background Rationale: On July 8, 1991, the PEC voted 7-0 to
approve variances for parking, height and common area. Staff
recommended approval of the request, finding that the variance
criteria, Vail Village Master Plan, and the Vail Streetscape Plan
standards had been met. Staff reviewed the project at the July
9, 1991 Town Council Work Session, when the Council decided
to call up the item. A revised set of conditions which reflect the
PEC discussions, the staff memo to the PEC, and a set of
drawings are included in this packet for Council's review.
Staff Recommendation: Uphold the PEC's decision.
10:20 p.m. ~e Appeal of PEC decision regarding site coverage for the Stanley
Jill Kammerer residence, 1816 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a
resubdivision of part of Sunburst.
Action Requested of Council: Review appellant's appeal of PEC .
decision regarding whether or not the area under a deck counts
~,b~ b to and the site coverage of a lot.
~ tr 'lz~'f Background Rationale: On June 10, 1991, the PEC reviewed
~ Jack Stanley's appeal of the CDD Staff's interpretation that the
area unde~~a deck is not considered a covered or roofed
walkway, and~herefore does not count as site coverage. (See
enclosed June 1~0, 1991 memorandum to the PEC.) The PEC
upheld the Staff interpretation by a vote of 3-1. Voting to uphold
the Staff interpretation were: Donovan, Shearer, Langenwalter.
Connie Knight voted against the motion to uphold the PEC's
interpretation on the basis the language was confusing.
Staff Recommendation: Uphold the PEC's determination that the
area under the deck in question does not count as site coverage.
10:35 p.m. 8. Adjournment
C:WGENDA.TCE
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday,
June 4, 1991, at 7:30 P.M. , in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
Merv Lapin
Robert Levine
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Gibson
Peggy Osterfoss
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which
there was none.
The second item on the agenda was a Consent Agenda:
A. Approval of Minutes of May 7 and 21, 1991, meetings.
B. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, second reading, an
ordinance rezoning a tract of land generally located
west of the Town of Vail Shops from Agriculture/Open
Space, Section 18.32, to Public Use District, Section
18.36. Applicants: Town of Vail and Vail Associates.
Mayor Rose read the title in full.
Merv Lapin moved to approve both items on the Consent Agenda, with
the second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Item No. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1991,
first 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. Mayor Rose read ,the title in full. Kristan Pritz stated
the next three ordinances, 15, 16 and 17, were all interrelated
issues, with the biggest issue being how the Town deals with common
area when dealing with a variety of different Multi-Family
developments. Kristan stated on May 13, 1991, the PEC had reviewed
the amendment to GRFA to Multi-Family developments. The motion
passed Planning Commission 4-0. Kristan referred the Council to
page 3 of the May 13, 1991, memo from the Community Development
Department to the PEC stating a definition of common area,
indicating as common area is calculated by taking 20% of allowable
GRFA and allocating that square footage to common areas. The
common areas or spaces included in the existing definition of
common area were common hallways, common closets, lobby areas, "
stairways, and common recreational facilities. The intent of the
amendment was to raise this allotment to 35 0, now considering areas
previously not counted. Kristan reiterated they were not adding
square footage; simply, they were now counting areas previously not
considered. She then discussed common stairways and elevator
shafts, common meeting facilities, common mechanical areas, and
management and support space areas. She stated the objective of
modifying the common area credit was to insure that the common area
percentage would provide ample flexibility for the development of
common spaces. A question in regard to the 35% was whether the
need for common area doubles if density doubles. In most cases,
Kristan stated, the need for common area would increase but it
probably would not double. An argument could be made for doubling
square footage for hallways, storage, meeting rooms and office
1
support; however, lobby areas, recreational facilities, and ;
mechanical spaces would probably not require twice the space to
serve twice the number of people. There would also be an increase
in square footage for stairways. Therefore, a common area credit
of between 30 and 35$ seemed reasonable for the typical
development. Lynn Fritzlen moved to approve Ordinance No. 15, with
a second coming from Rob Levine. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 5-0.
Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991,
first 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. Mayor Rose read the title in full.
Kristan Pritz explained the goal of these amendments to the
definition of GRFA had been to treat all properties equitably. As
an 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 would
be increased to make up for the changes to how common area would be
defined. The one remaining issue relative to GRFA that warrants
consideration by the PEC is that over the past five years a
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. Kristan indicated this would not increase or decrease
GRFA, but the attempt was being made to come up with a more
workable definition on how GRFA is calculated. It was recommended
that 225 square feet of GRFA be added to the Density Control
Section of the RC, LDMF, and MDMF zone districts. The square
footage would then compensate for the change in how stairways were
calculated and would be available to single-family or duplex
development only. It would also compensate for the 25 square foot
air lock and 50 square foot mechanical. Lynn Fritzlen moved to
approve Ordinance No. 16, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg.
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Item No. 5 on the agenda was 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 18.30.110, 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. Mayor Rose read the title in full.
Kristan Pritz indicated this ordinance would allow for a consistent
definition of site coverage in all zone districts. The request was
recommended for approval by the PEC unanimously on May 13, 1991.
Kristan further stated that 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 would be to address Multi-Family and
Commercial Development. The fundamental question in regard to this
new site coverage definition is whether the new definition of site
coverage is appropriate for Multi-Family and Commercial
2
Development. The staff and task force agreed the new definition is
not only appropriate but also necessary. Three major changes are
as follows: 1. Cantilevered portions of buildings are now
calculated as site coverage; 2. Any portion of a roof overhang
that extends more than 4 feet from the face of the building is now
included in site coverage calculations; 3. Any portion of a
covered deck or similar feature that extends more than 4 feet from
the face of the building is now included in site coverage
calculations. The justification for these changes is that these
design features affect the appearance of the building. Cantilevered
buildings, overhangs, and covered decks all add to building bulk
and as such it is appropriate for site coverage regulations to
establish some limit on the extent of these design features.
Adopting the new definition would not prohibit cantilevers,
overhangs, or decks, but would merely establish parameters that in
some cases may result in these features being calculated as site
coverage. Merv Lapin requested comparisons be provided before
second reading of this ordinance, with common area allowances for
Garden of the Gods, Manor Vail, Christiania, or some similar
range showing examples of how this will affect future common area.
Tom Steinberg moved to approve this ordinance, with a second coming
from Rob Levine. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 5-0.
Item No. 6 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991,
first 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. Mayor Rose read the title in
full. At this point, Mayor Rose indicated the applicant was not
yet present and indicated to Council they should move forward with
Item No. 7.
Item No. 7 on the agenda was Resolution No. 12, Series of 1991, a
Resolution approving an amendment to the personnel rules by the
Town Manager. Larry Eskwith explained this Resolution would
correct a typographical error that occurred when these rules were
amended. The current section of the personnel rules dealing with
how appeals of employee discipline are handled was unclear. Rob
Levine moved to approve Resolution No. 12, with a second from Tom
Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-
0.
At this time Peter Jacobs had appeared at the meeting so Council
moved back to Item No. 6, consideration of Ordinance No. 18, Series
of 1991, which title had already been read into the record. Jill
Kammerer, Town Planner, indicated approval of this SDD would allow
the construction of a new three-story, 18,897 square foot, 37-unit,
free-standing employee housing building along Chamonix Road at the
northwest corner of the Days Inn property. On Tuesday, May 28,
1991, the PEC, by a vote of 6-0, had recommended approval of the
Chamonix Special Development District, subject to numerous
conditions. These conditions are outlined in a memorandum dated May
31, 1991, from the Community Development Department to the PEC.
Jill presented a brief overview of the project. Approval of the -
SDD was required in order to allow the development to occur because
the proposed development did not meet underlying Commercial Core
III zone district development standards: there was a slight
shortage of parking, i.e. twelve (12) spaces, the development site
exceeded its allowable GRFA, and some landscaping requirements had
not been met. Jill indicated the employee housing units which were
a mix of studios, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units, would house
approximately 49 people and would be permanently restricted to
rental units for full-time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley.
These units could not be rented for a period of less than 30
consecutive days. Jill indicated the Community Development
Department staff felt the project was ideally located and well-
suited to the proposed development plan because of the site's
proximity to services, bus stops, and commercial areas. Jill
stated the proposed development was a good transition between the
3
adjacent higher density and lower density developments and with the
primary access off the North Frontage Road, the development will
generate few automobile trips into the lower density residential
areas to the north. Because of the slope of the site and the
proposed structure, the development would not be detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhood. Enclosure of trash receptacles would
also enhance the project. Jill specified the four goals of the
land use plan were met through this project. A geologic hazard
study and mitigation study had to be done and would need to be done
prior to the Town issuance of a building permit. The developer
will also contribute funds toward this project. Jill indicated all
conditions of approval could be incorporated into the body of this
Ordinance. Peter Jacobs responded to questions from Council by
indicating improvements to the facades of the Days Inn and the
Shoppette, which housed the 7-Eleven, were not to be included
because of the economics of the situation. Merv Lapin moved to
approve Ordinance No. 18 with the following conditions: 1. Section
5, No. 3 - Trash Enclosure should be modified to delete the
dumpster reorientation requirement;2. Section 5.1 (d) describing
the $50,000.00 contribution to the road changes be modified to
reflect Council's desire to have cash contribution available for
Frontage Road improvements and not just for construction of a left
turn lane adjacent to the project; 3. New Item E, requiring a
$10.00 a square foot upgrade of the exterior of the Shoppette, or
$90,000.00, to be accomplished by October 1, 1996, in conformation
with DRB standards at that time; 4. New Item F, requiring a
biannual report be submitted to the Town regarding unit occupancy
and rental rates requirement; 5. Numbers needed to be checked on
page 2, Section 4, in regard to density control; 6. All
conditions of approval be put into the main body of the development
plan Ordinance; 7. The phasing verbiage changed; 8. A new
traffic study, as may be required by the Town Engineer, required.
At this point Rob Levine seconded this motion with conditions. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Item 8 on the agenda was an appeal of a Design Review Board
approval allowing the Vail Recreation District to remove one tree
in Ford Park and transplant a second one. Andy Knudtsen indicated
on May 15, 1991, the DRB voted 5-0 approving the proposal to cut
down a tree that was dying and to transplant another tree. The DRB
conditioned the approval, requiring the VRD to plant additional
trees if that transplanted tree died. The VRD would then submit a
proposal for DRB approval if additional trees were needed. The
tree that was dying had been cut down on May 22, 1991. Andy
indicated that according to the VRD, the current softball field did
not meet regulations for a standard men's playing field and the
request to transplant the second tree would accomplish this. The
Council indicated the request was appropriate and that Pete Burnett
should oversee the transplanting project. Further, they requested
an opinion from Todd Oppenheimer, Landscape Architect for the Town
of Vail. The VRD was requested to bring back the issue at the
following Tuesday work session to be held on June 11, 1991.
There being no further business, Rob Levine moved to adjourn the
meeting at 9:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer,Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Pam Brandmeyer
4
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN CO~PiCIL SPECIAL FETING
JUNE 13, 1991
7:30 P.M. '
A special meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Thursday, June 13,
1991, at 7;30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal
Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
Robert Levine
Peggy Osterfoss
Jim Gibson
Merv Lapin
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Steve Barwick,
Administrative Services Director
The sole purpose of this meeting was to discuss the Herry Creek 5th
Filing. Special notice had been circulated on May 13, 1991, to encourage -
all interested citizens to attend.
Kent opened the meeting with a brief overview regarding the history and
current status of the land, bringing all in attendance up to date on
concerns related to the 105 acre parcel. In particular, this parcel was
considered prime land the Town of Vail wanted to preserve. He advised
that TOV has gone back to some agencies and interested private parties
re: sale of property to them. Kent stated that the cash paid by TOV for
the property has depleted TOV funds, and has created a financial strain
on TOV.
The meeting was then turned over to Steve Barwick. He noted that TOV
paid $1.867 million cash out of general fund, leaving approximately
$200,000 at year end. Steve said the Town would like to have $1.5
million in this fund. He then presented three options examined by the
Town Council as possible ways to deal with the land. The options
presented (all with $147,000 annual debt service) were:
(1) Keep the land in TOV ownership, after obtaining financing for
it; net impact = ($34,000) per year;
(2) Intergovernmental agreement/ownership; net impact = $28,000
per year;
(3) Sell the land; net impact = $160,000 per year.
Overall impact of keeping the land would be approximately $200,000 per
year. According to Steve Barwick, the Town estimates it would be able
to carry this cost, with some cutbacks in capital projects, but it would
be difficult to maintain growth projects.
Kent noted that the restrictions put on the land in the contract by
George Gillett related to the development of employee housing and
recreation. Specifically:
(1) 10 acres of the 105 acres would be required to be set aside
for development of affordable housing;
(2) Certain number of years to do zoning;
(3) Certain number of years to do recreational development;
(4) If timeline not met, back to Gillett. -
Kent then asked for public and Town Council input as to whether the land
should remain public property or not. All those who spoke on the issue
were concerned with (a) the ten acre employee housing parcel restriction
issue; (b} the need for open space and recreational area, (c) real
estate values, (d) balancing vision with fiscal realities, (e)
infrastructure development, and (f) continuing work on other priority
projects and services. Speaking on behalf of participating in so®e sort
of joint ownership/financial assistance/keeping the land were: Howard
Gardner (Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District Board of Directors), Larry
Brooks (Berry Creek Metropolitan District), Ron Bullington (Western Eagle
County Recreation Board), Don Welch (Eagle County Commissioner), Helen
White (Colorado Mountain College), Jim Gibson, Peggy Osterfoss, Merv
Lapin, Kent Rose, Tom Steinberg, Lynn Fritzlen, Rob Levine, Ron Phillips,
and Larry Eskwith. Speaking in favor of aomehoM keeping the land Here:
Bill Williams (long time resident of Edwards Metropolitan District), Joey
Carfano (Eagle-Vail resident), Tim Garton, Hermann Stauffer, James
Johnson (Vail resident), Larry Brooks, Phoebe Peterson (20 year
resident), Werner Kaplan (3 year Vail resident), and Peter Jamar.
I
Kent Rose noted that there is an overwhelming majority of input from
public and Council to find a way to keep the property. Some discussion
ensued regarding trying another election at a lower dollar amount. Many
present felt the high dollar amount at the original election was the
primary reason voters turned it down. The committee approach to the
election and recreational development may have been too grandiose. All
in all, feelings were that groups (intergovernmental participation/
private donations) must come together to carry the fiscal burden of
keeping this land. Don Welch agreed that another County-wide vote is
worth discussing. Kent asked Ron Phillips to speak with Howard Gardner
to pursue all options; work with Four Metropolitan Districts to develop
a proposal or consider special District elections. Ron asked Howard to
mobilize intergovernmental groups to look at all options. Perhaps each
government entity should have the choice of raising new revenue or taking
money out of existing funds. Ron also offered giving Districts the
option as a third option.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minutes compiled from notes taken by
Dorianne S. Deto, Caroline Fisher, and Martha Raecker
C:\MIt~S613.CUT
i~
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 18, 1991
7.30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 18,
1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal
Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
Robert Levine
Peggy Osterfoss
Jim Gibson
Peggy Osterfoss
Merv Lapin
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there
was none.
The second item on the agenda, Chuck Anderson Youth Award presentations,
was postponed and will be rescheduled, as the recipients were unavailable
to attend this meeting to accept their awards.
Third on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of four items:
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.
Merv Lapin moved to approve items A,B, and C on the Consent Agenda, and
requested item D, Ordinance No. 18, be removed from the Consent Agenda;
with a second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Kent Rose asked Kristan Pritz to expand on Ordinance No. 18, Series of
1991. Kristan Pritz noted the changes/corrections since first reading
in Ordinance No. 18 which were as follows: requirement for permanently
restricted employee housing units with semi-annual tenant reports;
requirement that conditional uses are to be approved by the PEC;
requirement for further information on the projected $50,000.00 figure
for road improvements; requirement that the owner be required to expend
not less than $90,000.00 by 9/30/96 to upgrade the exterior of the
Shoppette. After further discussion about the $50, 000.00 and 590, 000.00,
Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, on second
reading; with second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990, relating
to fireplaces and air quality control measures, first reading of the
changes/amendments to the ordinance. At issue: repealing and reenacting
Chapter 18.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to expand,
strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution
control. Presented by Susan Scanlan was the result of the joint Planning
Commission and Town Council Work Session decision held on May 14, 1991,
when discussion took place re: changes to the air quality ordinance to
allow for the installation of certified units. Changes were as follows:
definition of a certified solid fuel burning device now reflects the need
for the device to be an EPA Phase 2 certified unit and to produce 7.5
grams of particulates per hour or less; Section 8.28.030 changed to allow
for the installation of one new certified solid fuel burning device in
new construction, or two gas log fireplaces; Section 8.28.030, No. 3C to
add sections which require the gas log/fireplace installation in an
accommodation to have automatic shut-off timers; Section 8.28.040, No.
1 to again decreased the number of gas log fireplaces that could be
installed in dwelling units to two, and those for restricted units to
one; requirement for timing devices or thermostats for gas appliance
shut-off in accommodation units; Section 8.28.050B to say that during the
remodel of a unit, if the existing fireplace is altered or moved strictly
for aesthetic reasons, that unit shall be forced to comply with the
provisions of the ordinance and be required to install a certified solid
fuel burning device or a gas unit. Jim Gibson pointed out that one of
support elements of this ordinance was a measurement over a period of
time in monitoring to determine whether or not the program is successful.
Susan advised that they will be conducting an inventory to get an
accurate count of what is currently existing within Town limits. The
Council's decision, Susan recalled, was that at the end of a three (3~
year period, we would look for voluntary conversion of 50% of existing
units in Town. This will be monitored by building permits. She added
that they will let lodges know through public education effort materials
about economics of conversion to gas. She noted that these materials
would hopefully be together by end of next month or first part of August.
It was agreed that completed DRB applications will be needed by July 15,
1991. Ken Friedman's wife said that her friend is willing to give her
the rights to his open hearth fireplace, and convert his fireplace to
gas. Larry Eskwith said there is no transfer of rights in this matter.
Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance No. 42, with suggested
changes/language clarification; with a second coming from Merv Lapin.
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 5 on the agenda was 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
$17,000,000.00 Sports Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series of 1984.
Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 14; with a second coming from
Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 6 on the agenda, was the presentation of the 1990 Audited
Financial Statement. Steve Thompson turned the presentation over to
Chris Anderson, partner at McMahon, Armstrong, Novosad and Anderson. She
advised that the audit was completed in accordance with State statutes,
the Federal Single Audit Act, and our home rule charter. In respect to
the federal grants, the auditors must report every finding of
noncompliance, even if it is a penny, because the Federal Government
wants to be the one to decide whether or not there is a problem. It is
now required that a drug free workplace policy with specific policies be
adopted by the Town. Merv Lapin moved to accept the Town of Vail's 1990
Financial Report as prepared by McMahon, Armstrong, Novosad and Anderson;
with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 7 on the agenda was an 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 reviewed the plan on May 1,
1991, and voted 4-0 to disapprove it. Appellant: Renato Ibarra,
represented by Art Abplanalp. Andy Knudtsen distributed a letter from
e
George Lamb, DRB member, providing more detailed considerations by DRB
on this proposal. The lighting at the site created too much of an impact
on adjacent properties. At this Town Council meeting, before Mr.
Abplanalp began his presentation, Kent Rose made it clear this was an
appeal of a DRB decision, so the Town Council was limited to what the DRB
had looked at. It was established the Town Council did have the right
to visit the site during this meeting. Larry Eskwith asked Kristan Pritz
if the lighting complied with DRB guidelines. She said that the lighting
did not comply. Prints reviewed by Lyndon Ellefson, the landscape
architect, were not the same ones presented to DRB in 1989, although Mr.
Ellefson was the one who made the original presentation of the plan to
DRB at that time. The original 1989 prints can not be found. Before
Council recessed to make a site visit to Mr. Ibarra's, Kristan pointed
out that she had called Mr . Abplanalp the previous Friday to be sure that
the lighting Council would see tonight would be what DRB saw during their
site visit. Kent also asked Andy to review the lighting guidelines for
Council. Andy referred him to 6/18/91 memorandum concerning minimizing
lighting impact. Council then recessed at 9:22 p.m. to visit the site.
The party returned from the site visit at 9:56 p.m. Speaking against the
lighting were Nancy Byers and Jay Peterson. After reviewing photographs
brought by Mr. Abplanalp of lighting at other residences in the area,
Merv Lapin made a motion to uphold the 5/1/91 DRB decision to deny the
application of the exterior landscape lighting plan finding that the
exterior lighting as proposed does have an impact. Jim Gibson seconded
the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-l; Lynn Fritzlen
opposed.
Item No. 8 on the agenda was a request for a 4th of July fireworks
display in the Town of Vail due to complaints received by TOV residents
about there not being a display here. Kent Rose expressed some
confusion, noting that his understanding was that VRA was contracted to
do special events. Steve Barwick advised that VRA originally had
budgeted for it, but Forest Service denied use of land for the display
citing liability issues, so VRA reappropriated funds. Ron Phillips was
advised that Forest Service might not allow the display, and asked them
not to make a final decision yet. VA had said we could use Gold Peak
property with three to five days notice. Pending contract negotiations
and insurance coverage can be finalization, Jim Gibson made a motion to
approve expenditure of $15,000.00 out of VRA contingency fund for a TOV
fireworks display on 7/5/91; with a second coming from Rob Levine. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
As there was no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was
made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto
ORDINANCE NO. 20
Series of 1991
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 16.20.220
OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WINDOW SIGNS.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed Section 16.20.220 -
Window Signs, Subsection E -Location, and recommend changes to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, these changes will clarify the location of window signs; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that the following changes would be in the
public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
Section 16.20.220(E) shall be repealed and re-enacted to read as follows:
16.20.220 -Window Signs
E. Location
Window signs may be affixed to the interior of a glass surface or be located a
maximum of 36 inches from the glass surface.
Section 2
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 3
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 4
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under 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.
1
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IN FULL, this 2nd day of July , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon
on the 16th day of July , 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
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 16, 1991
SUBJECT: Vail Village Inn -Second reading of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991
5::.:.........
Y:::i::;.ii
i;:;.i;.i
.:::::::::::::::::.::::::.:$;::::.::::iii::iii::i::i::is~::.i::i::::i:::::::;.r:.r:::::c:::`:t.S::`:::i:;::i::::.::rr::ii::i::;:a:::.r:.r:.::':::::::::;;';'t';:•r::::: ~:.:::.:::}:.:::$:.:::.:.:i:::%::•:::::.::.>:•>::•:::%.:.r<'::::~ii::.::.:::•r::.:•::::.:::•..;:;:.;:.;;.`;.;;:<.::
...........~.,,...,...•i::•.''rr:'2..:.........::.'::.~::::.~.'.:'Yr~::::i:::;.::{.isr;:::;•:::;;;•::-:•::::.r:::-.~:::::::fi:':'::icc:.:::.:::_•:~:::~:`::'::iii:':'ii:::$i::::i:.iii i:iiiii::i5:
Since the Town Council's initial review of the Vail Village Inn redevelopment proposal (July 2,
1991), Josef Staufer has made some modifications to the floor plans of the proposed remodel.
At the Council's request, the applicant has added three permanently restricted employee
dwelling units within the project. Two of the employee units would be located on the fourth
floor of the "east" building where the previous plan included two accommodation units in that
area. The floor area of these two employee units would be 250 sq. ft. and 307 sq. ft.
Additionally, a 389 sq. ft. employee unit would be located within the new third floor of the
Pancake House building. To compensate for the loss of the two accommodation units in the
"east" building, and their conversion into employee units, the applicant is proposing two -
accommodation units on the third floor of the Pancake House building. These two
accommodation units will be larger than the originally-proposed accommodation units, and
would consist of an additional 748 sq. ft. of GRFA.
The total GRFA for the VVI, including the revised Phase IV-A, would be 85,487 sq. ft. Phase
IV-A of the VVI would consist of a total of 13 accommodation units, comprising 6,681 sq. ft. of
GRFA, and 3 employee dwelling units, comprising 946 sq. ft. of GRFA.
The additional 748 sq. ft. of accommodation unit GRFA will also require an additional 0.748
parking spaces. The three restricted employee units will have a parking requirement of 1.5
spaces per unit, for a total of 4.5 parking spaces.
Floor plans indicating the revised layout of the accommodation units and the employee
dwelling units will be available at the evening Council meeting. A revised south elevation for
the Pancake House building is attached to this memorandum.
ORDINANCE NO. 19
Series of 1991
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 14,
SERIES OF 1987 AND ORDINANCE NO. 24, SERIES OF 1989;
~TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6;
ADOPTING A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A NEW PHASE IV-A
OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; 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, an application has been made for the amendment of Special Development
District (SDD) No. 6 for a certain parcel of property within the Town, legally described as Lot 0,
Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing, and commonly referred to as the Vail Village Inn Special
Development District; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission, on June 24, 1991, held a public hearing on the amended 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
Legislative Intent
A. In 1976, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. 7, Series of
1976, establishing Special Development District No. 6 to insure the unified and coordinated
development of a critical site as a whole and in a manner suitable for the area in which it was
situated.
1
_ B. Special Development District No. 6 provided in Section 14 that the Town Council
reserved the right to abrogate or modify Special Development District No. 6 for good cause
through the enactment of an ordinance in conformity with the zoning code of the Town of Vail.
- C. In 1985, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. 1, Series of
1985, providing certain amendments to the development plan for SDD No. 6.
D. In 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989,
providing certain amendments to the development plan for Special Development District
No. 6. Such amendments modified and amended Section 8 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of
1987, which relates to the allowed density of the development plan for SDD No. 6.
E. Application has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend certain
sections of Special Development District No. 6 which relate to Phase IV and which make certain
changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to Phase
IV.
F. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has reviewed the
changes submitted by the applicant and has recommended that SDD No. 6 be so amended.
G. The Vail Town Council considers that the amendments provide a more unified and
aesthetically pleasing development of a critical site within the Town and such amendments are
of benefit to the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail.
Section 3
Purpose
A Special Development District is established to assure comprehensive development and
use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town,
provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town.
Section 4
Development Plan
The proposed development plan shall include:
A. The development plan for Phases I, II and III shall consist of the plans
prepared and submitted by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976.
2
B. The development plan for Phases IV and V shall consist of the plans and
environmental Impact report prepared and submitted by Gordon R. Pierce Architect, dated
February 19, 1987, and revised on April 14, and April 22, 1987.
C. The development plan for Phase IV-A shall consist of the following plans
provided by the Intratect Design Group.
Sheet No. 1, dated June 6; 1991, and revised July 10, 1991
Sheet No. 2, dated June 6, 1991
Sheet No. 3, dated June 6, 1991
Sheet No. 4, dated June 6, 1991 and revised June 18, 1991
Sheet No. 5, dated June 6, 1991 and revised June 18, 1991
Sheet No. 6, dated June 6, 1991
Sheet No. 7, dated June 6, 1991 and revised June 18, 1991
Sheet No. 8, dated July 10, 1991
Section 5
Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in Phases I, II, III, IV, IV-A and V of Special Development District No.
6 shall be as set forth in the development plans referenced In Section 4 of this ordinance.
Section 6
Conditional Uses
Conditional Uses for Phases I, II, III, IV, IV-A and V of Special Development District No.
6 shall be as set forth in Section 18.22.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code with the addition
of the following conditional uses:
A. An outside popcorn vending wagon that conforms in appearance with those existing
in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II.
B. No office uses, except those clearly accessory to a principal use will be allowed on the
Plaza level of Phases IV, IV-A and V.
3
Section 7
Height
A. For Phases I, II and III, the allowable heights shall be as found on the development
plan, specifically the site plan and height plan dated March 12, 1976, provided by Royston,
Hanamoto, Beck and Abey.
B. For Phases IV and V, the maximum building height shall be as set forth in the
approved development plan by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987, revised
April 14 and April 22, 1987).
C. For Phase IV-A, the maximum building height shall be as set forth on the approved
development plan, submitted by the Intratect Design Group, as set forth in Section 4 above.
Section 8
Density
A. The gross residential floor area (GRFA) for the entire Special Development District
No. 6 shall not exceed 124,527 square feet. There shall be a minimum of 148 accommodation
units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA allocated to accommodation units in Phase IV and Phase
V of Special Development District No. 6. 3,927 square feet of GRFA shall be allocated
specifically to Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums.
B. Condominium Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums shall be subject
to the restrictions set forth in Section 17.26.075 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations if
utilized for residential purposes.
C. In addition to the allowable GRFA set forth in Section 8A above, Phase IV-A
shall be allocated 946 sq. ft. of additional GRFA, which shall be specifically allocated to
three employee housing units.
Section 9
Parking and Loading
A. Any application for any amendment to Phase IV of SDD No. 6, subsequent to the
effective date of this ordinance, shall include not less than 12 surface parking spaces, 324
underground parking spaces, and 37 underground valet spaces for Special Development District
No. 6 as indicated on the development plan submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect, dated
February 19, 1987.
4
B. The parking requirements for Phase IV-A shall be as set forth on the drawings
submitted by the Intratect Design Group, dated June 6, 1991, and revised July 10, 1991, sheet
number 1.
Section 10
The applicant and his successor in interest agrees to perform the following:
1. Make available a minimum of 65 parking spaces in the parking structure,
located In the Phase III building, for short-term parking use by the general public.
2. Screen the area immediately south of the Gateway Plaza Building with
sufficient landscaping to provide a buffer between the Vail Gateway Plaza and the Food
and Deli parking lot. Final review of the landscape design shall be reviewed and approved
by the DRB prior to installation.
3. Provide evidence to the Town of Vail Community Development Department
that a Colorado Department Of Highways access permit has been obtained for access from
the South Frontage Road prior to the issuance of any Town of Vail building permits for the
construction of Phase IV-A of SDD No. 6.
4. The applicant and his successor in interest agrees to permanently restrict
three dwelling units for use by employees of the Upper Eagle Valley (employee housing
units) in the following manner:
A. The employee housing 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.
B. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley,
Minturn, Red Cliff, Eagle-Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas.
C. A full-time employee is a person who works an average of thirty hours per
week.
D. The applicant or his successor in interest shall file a declaration of
covenants and restrictions on the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County in a form
approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure that the restrictions set forth
herein shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval
of the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance, no building permit shall
5
issued for Phase IV-A of Special Development District No. 6 until said declaration of covenants
and restrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder.
E: The three employee housing units shall be located as Indicated on the
drawings provided by the Intratect Design Group, Sheet No. 3, dated June 6, 1991 and
Sheet No. 8, dated July 10, 1991.
5. The applicant and/or owners and their successors In Interest of Phases IV, IV-A
and V shall participate in, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, an improvement district
for the construction of Improvements set for In any officially adopted Town of Vall
Streetscape Plan, if and when an improvement district is formed.
6. The applicants and/or owners and their successors In Interest of Phases IV, IV-A
and V shall participate in, and shall not protestor remonstrate against, establishing a pedestrian
linkage from Phases IV, IV-A and V of the Vail Village Inn, to a future commercial expansion at
the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site if, and when it is developed.
7. The applicants and/or owners and their successors in interest of Phases IV and
IV-A agree to transfer by general warranty deed to the Town of Vail, free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances, a condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq. ft. in size and to be located as
indicated on the plans and specifications submitted with the 1987 application. There shall be no
provisions placed on the condominium unit restricting the Town of Vail's use of the unit or the
subsequent subdivision and/or sale of the unit.
8. No grading permit, building permit or demolition permit, relating to any Phase of
Special Development District No. 6, be issued until such time that reasonable evidence is
provided to the Town of Vail that construction financing, for the improvements to be constructed,
has been obtained.
9. Any units in Phases IV, IV-A or V which may be condominiumized, shall be
restricted as set forth in Section 17.26.075 (Condominium Conversion) of the Vail Municipal Code
and any amendments thereto.
10. The applicants and/or owners and their successors in interest of Phases IV,
IV-A and V shall reimburse the Town of Vail for expenses incurred in relocating the ski museum,
in the amount of $75,000. The amount of $27,000 shall be paid prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the construction of Phase IV-A of SDD #6. The balance of $48,000 shall
become due on January 1, 2005, or prior to the Issuance of a building permit for the
construction of Phase IV of SDD #6.
6
11. Any remodel or redevelopment of any of the remaining portions of SDD#6, shall
include an overall parking analysis as set forth in Section 9 of this ordinance.
12. Provide a pedestrian easement, of sufficient width (as determined by the
Town) to accommodate an 8 foot wide sidewalk with Integral landscaping, along the
western boundary of the VVI (the east side of Vall Road). Said easement shall begin at the
northwest corner of the Vail Village Inn property (said corner is also the southwest corner
of the Vail Gateway Plaia property), and extend along the westerly line of the Vall Village
Inn property south to East Meadow Drive.
Section 11
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 12
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 13
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under 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.
7
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
8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 2, 1991
SUBJECT: Vail Village Inn, Special Development District No. 6
kx
:::::::::::.:~:::::.::::::.:::::...x........:::::.:.:.:_:.:.,.:.,::...:.:...............
::t>::
::f:~v
..i
:xx::
:u:::vr
v+:
x::: :.i.~.;;: :
iiiiiiiiF.:~:.:~:{:::<:::::{.iYi?:>::ii?i:~iiiiiiiiiii:?y::.
..r..n.::........v.:.........f...An.r/~~vx::nv:.v: •v.. v.-:
i.•'.; it
ii?ii:=^::Y.; •iiiiiiiiiii}iiii?iiiiiiii?iiiiiiii:~iiiiiiiiii:ii?iii::~iiiii
x ...nv. r.. xnnv~i~il+i!/%i
'~iil. ..rc
.......r:.....:isoR.:ii.~.
$ r.
The Planning and Environmental Commission, at their June 24, 1991 public hearing,
unanimously recommended approval of the requested major amendment to the Vail Village
Inn Special Development District No. 6. The Planning Commission vote was 4-0. The PEC
recommendation to the Town Council for approval carried with it the following conditions:
1. The recommended conditions, numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8, as identified in the staff
memorandum dated June 24, 1991 be included.
2. If and when the entire Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn is proposed for redevelopment,
the parking requirements for the entire project (Phases I, II, III, IV and V) shall be
required to be provided in their entirety. Additionally, any parking allowances which
were approved as a part of the June 24, 1991 PEC review would not affect the final
parking determination for the entire Phase IV.
3. This condition specifically modifies the staff's recommended condition 8, regarding the
provision of one on-site permanently deed restricted employee housing unit. The PEC
modification would allow for the developer of the VVI to provide one permanently deed
restricted employee housing unit on- or off-site, as long as said unit is within the
municipal boundaries of the Town of Vail. The PEC modification is as follows:
"The developer agree to permanently restrict the unit owned in Pitkin Creek
Park for the length of his ownership. If the Pitkin Creek unit or the Vail Village
Inn development is sold, a unit within the Town of Vail, of the developer's
choice, shall be permanently deed restricted as an employee housing unit."
The PEC also felt the staff's recommended conditions 3 and 4 were appropriate requests.
However, the PEC, in the motion for approval, indicated these items should be
recommendations only, and not specific conditions of approval.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 24, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail
Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5-D, Vail Village First
Filing.
Applicant: Josef Staufer
Planner: Mike Mollica
I. INTRODUCTION
Josef Staufer, owner and developer of the Vail Village Inn, has filed a request for an
amendment to Special Development District No. 6, for his property located at 100 East
Meadow Drive. The purpose of this SDD amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of a
portion of the final phase (Phase IV) of the Vail Village Inn SDD. For clarification purposes,
staff will call this redevelopment request Phase IV-A.
The Vail Village Inn has an existing approved development plan for the entirety of Phase IV.
This development plan was approved through Ordinance 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987).
Additionally, Ordinance 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989), modified the density section of
the 1987 ordinance by increasing the allowable GRFA. These two ordinances are still valid
for SDD No. 6, and have been included as Exhibits A and B attached to this memorandum.
The staff recommends that the PEC review these ordinances to fully understand the
background and prior approvals for the Vail Village Inn before proceeding further in this
memorandum. A brief summary of said ordinances is listed below in Section III of this
memorandum.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant's redevelopment proposal includes the upgrade and renovation of the east
building which currently houses the hotel lobby, front desk area, and the Coyote Bar, as well
as the adjacent Pancake House Building to the west. Included in the redevelopment of the
"east" building would be the addition of two residential levels above the existing structure,
which would be used specifically as accommodation units (hotel rooms). There would be a
total of 13 additional accommodation units, comprising 5,933 sq. ft. of GRFA. One
additional gas burning fireplace is proposed in the largest accommodation unit on the top
1
floor. An elevator is proposed to be constructed at the southwest corner of the building, -
which would access all four floors. Additionally, the existing meeting room which is located
on the second floor, would be expanded to the south by infilling an existing deck. This
additional square footage would consist of approximately 243 sq. ft. of floor area.
The proposed improvements to the Pancake House Building include a new roof structure, and
painting and/or staining the building to match the remodeled building to the east.
It is proposed that the new portions of this building be equipped with an automatic sprinkler
system.
Site improvements called for in this redevelopment plan would include the addition of 14
surface parking spaces. Ten of these parking spaces would be considered regular spaces, and
the remaining four spaces would be classified as valet-type spaces. These valet spaces would
be reserved for exclusive use by employees of the Vail Village Inn, and the location of these
spaces would be to the northwest of the Village Inn Pancake House restaurant and
immediately east of the Gateway Plaza Building.
The proposal also calls for limited landscaping improvements. Specifically, the applicant is
proposing one additional new planter, which would be located on the west side of the main
entrance at the South Frontage Road.
III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A. The following are the existing phases of the Vail Village Inn:
Phase I -This consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the
VVI property, and includes one dwelling unit of approximately 4,000 sq. ft. in
size, as well as the following commercial establishments: Alpenrose
Restaurant, Ambrosia Restaurant, Village Inn Travel, Village Inn Sports,
Houston Gallery, Gold of Vail, Village Inn Plaza Liquors, Eve's, and Total
Beauty.
Phase II -This phase consists of three residential dwelling units of
approximately 3,500 sq. ft. in size, as well as the following commercial
establishments: International Gallery, Unique Art, and Tezla.
Phase III -Phase III is located at the northeast corner of the VVI property and
consists of 29 residential dwelling units, with approximately 44,830 sq. ft. of `
GRFA, and the following commercial establishments: Driscol Gallery,
Velveteen Rabbit, Kitchenworks, Vail Antiques, Annie's and Vail Boot and
Shoe.
2
Phase IV -This was the original Phase, and the oldest, at the VVI, and
consists of 62 accommodation units, with approximately 16,585 sq. ft. of
GRFA, and also includes the Food and Deli, VVI Pancake House and the
Coyote Bar. There is also a 1,200 sq. ft. conference/meeting space and
miscellaneous and ancillary offices for the hotel.
Phase V - Phase V is the building located at the corner of Vail Road and East
Meadow Drive, and consists of 11 dwelling units (9 of which have lock-offs),
and 3 accommodation units, with 9,972 sq. ft. of GRFA. Phase V also
includes Blano's Pizza, the Vail Resort Association and approximately 3,500
sq. ft. of retail, commercial use.
B. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, originally established the Vail Village Inn
Special Development District No. 6.
C. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1985 (March 5, 1985) granted 120,600 sq. ft. of
GRFA to SDD No. 6. This ordinance also required a minimum of 175
accommodation units (AUs) and 72,400 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted entirely to
AUs in Phase IV. This ordinance also listed six conditions of approval.
D. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987), amended Phase IV of SDD No.
6. This amendment allowed Phase IV to be broken into two distinct and
separate phases, which were called Phase IV and Phase V. This ordinance also
set the maximum GRFA for the SDD at 120,600 sq. ft. Additionally, the
ordinance required a minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA
devoted to AUs in Phases IV and V. The ordinance also listed eight conditions
of approval.
E. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989) amended the density
section of SDD No. 6. This ordinance modified the SDD by increasing the
allowable GRFA to a total of 124,527 sq. ft. This allowed Unit No. 30
(originally Good's retail) in the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums to be
converted from commercial use to residential use. This space consists of 3,927
sq. ft. of GRFA, and the conversion to residential use has since been
completed. This ordinance also maintained the previous approval for "a
minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted to AUs, in Phases
IV and V of SDD No. 6."
IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following table outlines the applicant's redevelopment proposal with reference to the
underlying Public Accommodation zoning, the existing project, the previously approved Phase
IV, and the current proposal. To maintain simplicity, only those development standards
which are specifically applicable to this project are listed.
3
Underlying Zoning Existing Previously Proposed -
Public Accommodation Proiect Aooroved SDD SDD
Site Area 3.455 acres or Same Same Same
150,500 sq. ft.
Setbacks 20 ft. on all sides N =Frontage Rd: 41 ft. 20 ft. to face of No change from existing
to porte cochere; 72 ft. building; 1 ft. to
to face of building pone cochere
Building Height 45 ft. -Flat Roof 31 ft. Varies - with a 58 ft. to top of ridge
48 ft. -Sloping Roof 73 ft. maximum 61 ft. w ridge over
elevator
GRFA 120,400 sq. ft. 78,806 sq. ft. 124,527 sq. ft. 84,739 Phase IV-A
124,527 Entire Phase IV
Units 25 dwelling units per acre 76.5 DUs 120.5 DUs 83 DUs
or 86 DUs for the site (see below)
Site Coverage 82,775 sq. ft. N/A Per the approved 245 sq. ft. of additional
development site coverage
plan
Parking Per the current Same Same Same
development standards
(See Appendix A)
Existing DUs Existing AUs
Phase I 1 0
Phase II 3 0
Phase III 29 0
Phase IV 0 62
Phase V 11* 3
Totals 44 + 65** = 76.5 DUs
Phase IV-A is proposed to have 0 DUs and 13 AUs = 6.5 DUs `
* (9 of the 11 DUs have attached lock-offs)
2 AUs = 1 DU
4
= V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate the Vail Village Inn redevelopment, Phase IV-A, 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.
Architecturally, the key issue is to maintain compatibility and work with the chazacter
of the existing structures in the vicinity. Staff acknowledges that this is a very
difficult task to perform, given the varied architectural styles of adjacent buildings.
Staff supports the design direction the applicant has proposed for the project. We
believe that the additional two floors and the new roof structure would be compatible
with the character of the adjacent structures. Additionally, the applicant has proposed
to install all new siding materials on the existing lower levels of the structure, which
would match the new upper levels. The applicant has also proposed to install a stucco
finish on the north and west elevations of the pone cochere (around the arched
openings).
Given the close proximity of the, VVI Pancake House building immediately to the
west, the applicant has also proposed improvements to this structure so that it blends
architecturally with the adjoining "east" building. The proposed improvements to this
structure include upgrading the entire roof area of the building, to architecturally tie it
in with the proposed remodel of the structure to the east. No GRFA would be added
to the enlazged roof area, however, the applicant would propose to install a new boiler
in this attic azea to service the Food and Deli Building. Additionally, the applicant
has proposed to paint and/or stain the Pancake House Building to match the "east"
building and to further ensure architectural compatibility among the structures. We
believe it is positive that the applicant is making an effort to upgrade the materials and
the style of the Pancake House Building, as well as the east building.
The staff would recommend that the applicant reevaluate the proposed roof form over
the elevator tower, as well as the roof form over the central chimney caps. We
believe that these elements should be of an architectural style which would be more in
line with the caps on the adjacent structures.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The staff is very supportive of the applicant's redevelopment plan with regard to uses,
5
activity and density, given the fact that the proposal includes the addition of 13
accommodation (hotel) rooms and an expanded conference space.
The existing commercial square footage (gross area), which includes retail commercial
and restaurant "service area" space, at the VVI is approximately 33,557 square feet.
No additional commercial square footage is requested as a part of this proposal.
C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in
Chapter 18.52.
The Vail Village Inn parking analysis, as indicated in Appendix A, shows a total
parking requirement for the Vail Village Inn project, which includes Phases I, II, III,
IV and the proposed IV-A, as being 243 parking spaces. The existing parking
structure, located at the lower levels of the Phase III building, currently provides 109
parking spaces. Additionally, there are currently 45 regular surface-parking spaces (9
of which are privately reserved and are not available to the general public), and 16
valet parking spaces on-site, for a total of 61 parking spaces. The applicant is
proposing to add 14 surface-parking spaces as a part of this proposal. The total
parking which would be provided would be 184 spaces, which equals 75.7% of
the required parking.
The staff believes that the required parking for Phase V, as well as for the new
proposal (Phase IV-A) must be addressed. It should be noted that when the Phase V
building was approved, the parking requirement was deferred until the final phase of
the VVI was constructed (the redevelopment of Phase IV). Ordinance No. 14, Series
of 1987, under Section 11, lists 8 conditions of approval for the development plan for
Phases IV and V. Condition No. 8 reads as follows:
"Any remodel or redevelopment of the remaining portion of SDD 6, commonly
referred to as Phase V, shall include parking as required by Ordinance 1, Series
of 1985."
It is the staff's opinion that this current redevelopment proposal triggers condition
number 8, and that the required parking for Phase V must now be addressed.
According to the staff's calculations of the Phase V building, the parking requirement
for Phase V shall be as follows: (See Appendix B for the specific breakdown)
1. Retail = 11.77 spaces
2. Restaurant = 4.25 spaces -
3. Residential = 23:44 spaces
4. Total Requirement = 39.46 spaces
6
- The parking requirement for the proposed Phase IV-A is 11.13 spaces. The
combined parking requirement for Phase IV-A and Phase V is 48 parking spaces
(39.46 spaces + 11.13 spaces . SOS9 - 5% multi-use credit - 48).
The parking issue is two-fold. First, the staff is of the opinion that condition number
8, listed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (as stated above) is applicable to this
redevelopment proposal. The Planning Commission, at their June 10th public
worksession, concurred with this opinion. Based upon this PEC decision, the applicant
must now provide, or address the issue of parking for Phase V. The second issue is
the applicant's proposal to provide an additional 14 surface parking spaces, when a
requirement of 48 spaces is stipulated by the code. The applicant has presented a
parking utilization study that analyzed parking during peak times of occupancy. This
study is included as Appendix C.
It should be understood that the 109 space parking structure, located in the Phase III
building, is currently not open and available for use by the general public. In addition,
9 surface parking spaces, which are adjacent to the Food and Deli Building, are
currently reserved and are also not available for use by the general public. Of the
total 109 parking spaces in the structure, 44 of those spaces are currently deeded to
condominium owners of the Vail Village Inn (15 of those 44 deeded spaces are
deeded to condominium owners within Phase V).
Since the June 10th worksession, the applicant has agreed to remove the pazking
restrictions on 8 of the 9 parking spaces in front of the Food and Deli Building.
These eight spaces would be available for short-term parking by the general public, in
addition to the 14 new spaces on the north side of the project. The staff believes that
this is a positive step towards meeting the Town's parking requirements. However,
the staff maintains that the applicant should be required to open up the structured
pazking (in the Phase III Building) and to allow the general public the use of the 65
undeeded spaces in the structure. If the structured parking spaces were available to
the general public, the staff would be able to support the overall parking plan at the
VVI.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
This redevelopment plan was analyzed according to the recently adopted Vail Village
Master Plan. The specific goals, objectives and subarea plans of the Vail Village
Master Plan which pertain to the Vail Village Inn project are listed below:
1.2 Obiective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial
facilities.
7
1.2.1 Policv:
Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and
as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide.
Plan.
1.3 Obiective:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements
done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town.
1.3.1 Policv:
Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private
sector working with the Town.
2.3 Obiective:
Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight
accommodations.
2.3.1 Policv:
The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged.
Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required
to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short
term overnight rental.
2.5 Obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing
lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
3.1 Obiective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other
improvements.
3.1.1 Policv:
Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such
as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent
pedestrian ways.
3.1.3 Policv:
Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged
throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. .
3.4 Obiectives:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green
space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
8
3.4.2 Policv:
Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks
along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master
Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan.
5.1.1 Policv:
For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core I Zone
District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking
fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code.
5.1.5 Policy:
Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground
or visually concealed parking.
5.4.2 Policv:
Medians and right-of--ways shall be landscaped.
The Vail Village Master Plan has identified the Vail Village Inn as subarea concept
number 1-1, which is copied in its entirety below:
~ s ~ #1-1 Vail Village Znn
•F...~ _ ~ ~ Final phase of Vail Village Inn
1_~ ~ ~ project to be completed as
1
~ _ established by development plan
~ 1~ - for SDD #6. Commercial
~ ` . w development at ground level to
1-~~ ~ frame interior plaza with
~ i ~ i i _ ' ' i greenspace . Mass of buildings
_ ~'y shall "step up" from existing
~ ~ T ~i~~ : pedestrian scale along Meadow
_ Drive to 4-5 stories along the
> a - ~ 4ti.~ Frontage Road. Design must be
~ sensitive to maintaining view
• : corridor from 4-way stop to Vail
Mountain. Special emphasis on'
~ t~.t~~ . 1.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1,
~.l'1 ~ 6.1.
~1~~~
9
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect -
the property on which the special development district is proposed.
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards which would affect this property and/or
redevelopment proposal.
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.
There is essentially no change to the existing building footprint with this proposed
redevelopment. As indicated in Section IV of this memorandum, the setbacks for the
underlying PA zone district are 20 feet from all property lines. This proposal will
certainly meet the 20 foot requirement, as the minimum distance from the pone
cochere to the nearest property line would be 41 feet.
There will be no significant changes made to the Vail Village Inn open space
provisions, as only 245 sq. ft. of additional area will be covered by buildings.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traffic circulation.
Vehicular Circulation: After review of the proposed surface-parking layout, the staff
believes that the general vehicular circulation system appeazs adequate. The Town of
Vail Fire Department has reviewed this proposal, and does not take issue with the
project. The Public Works Department also has no problems with the general
vehicular circulation plan. However, they are concerned about some existing drainage
problems in the surface-parking area just north of the Pancake House, which would
need to be corrected and addressed through the building permit process.
Due to the change in use on the site, a Colorado Department of Highways access
permit will need to be secured, prior to the Town issuing a building permit for the
project.
Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrian circulation is a key issue the staff would like to
address. It is well known that along-standing goal for Vail is to improve upon the
pedestrian experience through the development of a continuous network of paths and
walkways. Specific to the Vail Village Inn project, the Vail Village Master Plan, as
well as the Town of Vail Recreation Trails Master Plan and the Master Transportation
Plan, specifically call for bicycle/pedestrian ways along both sides of the South
Frontage Road. Through the redevelopment process at the adjacent Gateway Plaza
site, the developer was required to provide a pedestrian sidewalk along the entire
length of the Gateway property along Vail Road and South Frontage Road. At this
10
time, staff believes it appropriate to request that the developer of the Vail Village Inn
extend the sidewalk where the Gateway ended it, and continue the walk for the full
length of the VVI property east to the Crossroads site. Staff acknowledges that there
are some grade difficulties through this area, and also that cooperarion from the
Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) will be necessary. The Town staff is
willing to assist the applicant in securing the necessary CDOH permits to install the
pedestrian connection.
The current Vail Village Inn SDD Amendment.proposal, does not include any
improvements to the pedestrian circulation system as described above.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
The proposal has provided limited additional landscaping, specifically in the form of .
one new planter, which would be located on the west side of the access drive off of
South Frontage Road. The proposed landscaping includes 2 Aspen and 1 Blue Spruce.
Again, with cooperation from the CDOH, staff believes that additional landscaping
added along the entire northern property line of the Vail Village Inn would be
beneficial. We believe additional landscaping and screening in this area would not
only benefit the general public, by assisting in the buffering of the structures from the
Frontage Road and I-70, but will also benefit the property owner and guests of the
VVI in the same manner.
The staff would also recommend that the applicant remove the existing asphalt area
south of the Gateway Building. This area has been used as surface parking, however,
we believe that it would be a benefit to both projects (VVI and Gateway) to add
landscaping in this area.
The proposal will not encroach into any of the Town's adopted view corridors.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special
development district.
The applicant has proposed that the redevelopment plan (Phase N-A) be completed at
one time. No phasing plan is proposed.
It is the staff's position that the redevelopment plans for the entire Phase N, which
are addressed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, are still valid. Should the
developer with to proceed with this previously approved plan at some future date,
which would necessitate the demolition of Phase IV-A, final DRB approval will be
11
required. If there are changes or modifications to the plans, then a major SDD
amendment will be required.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for the proposed major amendment to Special Development
District No. 6, the Vail Village Inn, is for approval with conditions. The staff believes
that the proposed upgrade and remodel would be a very positive change at the VVI.
We support the project, with the following conditions of approval:
1) That the applicant be required to open up the structured parking, in the Phase
III building, for short-term narking, use by the general public. With this
provision of an additional 65 parking spaces, the staff would be able to support
the project's overall parking plan.
2) That the applicant remove the existing asphalt parking area immediately south
of the Gateway Plaza Building, and provide landscaping in this area. Final
review of the landscape design shall be reviewed and approved by the DRB
prior to installation.
3) That the applicant provide a pedestrian sidewalk, adjacent to South Frontage
Road, beginning on the west end of the VVI property (where the Gateway
sidewalk now ends), and continue the sidewalk east to the western boundary of
the Crossroads property.
4) That the applicant provide additional landscaping along the entire northern
property line of the VVI.
5) That the applicant reconsider the proposed design solution for the elevator and
chimney caps. This issue shall be further reviewed and considered by the
Design Review Board.
6) That a CDOH access permit be secured prior to the issuance of any Town of
Vail building permits for the proposal.
7) That the eight conditions of approval listed in Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14,
Series of 1987, be included in the ordinance required for this project. Said
conditions are as follows, (with the staff's recommended changes indicated by
the bold type):
A. That the developers and/or owners of Phases N and V participate in,
and do not remonstrate against, an improvement district for streetscape
improvements to Vail Road and East and West Meadow Drive, if and
when an improvement district is formed.
12
- B. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in,
and do not remonstrate against, establishing a pedestrian linkage from
Phases N and V of the Vail Village Inn, to a future commercial
expansion at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site if, and when it is
developed.
C. That the developer receive approval from the Colorado State Highway
Department, for any change in use on the property, prior to the
issuance of a T.,, r,.. of Vail building permit.
D. That the developers and/or owners of Phase IV agree to transfer by
general warranty deed to the Town of Vail, free and clear of all liens
and encumbrances, such condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq.
ft. in size and to be located as indicated on the plans and specifications
submitted with the application. There shall be no provisions placed on
the condominium unit restricting the Town of Vail's use of the unit or
the subsequent subdivision and/or sale of the unit.
E. That no grading permit, building permit or demolition permit, relating
to any Phase of Special Development District No. 6, be issued until
such time that reasonable evidence is provided to the Town of Vail that
construction financing, for the improvements to be constructed, has been
obtained.
F. Restrictions on any units in Phases IV or V which would be
condominiumized, shall be as outlined in Section 17.26.075
(Condominium Conversion) of the Vail Municipal Code and any
amendments thereto.
G. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any
phase of SDD#6, the developer and/or owner of said phase shall
reimburse the Town of Vail for expenses incurred in facilitating the
relocation of the ski museum (into Phase V) of an amount not to exceed
$75,000.
H. Any remodel or redevelopment of any of the remaining portions of
SDD#6, shall include the parking as required by Ordinance 14, Series
of 1987.
13
APPENDIX A
Vail Village Inn Parking Analysis*
1. Phase I Parking Spaces Required
A. Retail 19.12
B. Restaurants 16.50
C. Residential 2.50
Subtotal 38.12 = 38.12
2. Phase II
A. Retail 12.99
B. Residential 4.99
Subtotal 17.98 = 17.98
3. Phase III
A. Retail 25.12
B. Residential 59.33
Subtotal 84.45 = 84.45
4. Phase IV
A. Food & Deli 6.00
B. Restaurant and Bar 11.60
C. Residential 41.30
D. Conference/Meeting Area 5.07
Subtotal 63.97 = 63.97
5. Phase V
A. Retail 11.77
B. Restaurant 4.25
C. Residential 23.44
Subtotal 39.46 = 39.46
6. Phase IV-A
A. Residential 11.13 = 11.13
f
Total: 255.11
-5% Multiple
Use Credit: -12.75
Grand Total: 242.36 - 243
* Parking requirements were determined by using the Town standards in effect at the
time of construction.
14
APPENDIX B
VVI - Phase V Parking Analysis
Parking Spaces Required
A. Basement Level (Vail Resort Association) 0
B. Ground Level
1. Retail: 2,865 + 668 = 3533/300 11.77
2. Restaurant: 510/15/8 4.25
C. Second Level
1. Unit #1 = 402 + 398 = 800 2
2. Unit #2 = 343 + 461 = 804 2
3. AU = 229 0.63
4. Unit #3 = 232 + 376 = 608 2
5. Unit #4 = 475 + 317 = 792 2
6. Unit #5 = 445 + 279 = 724 2
7. AU = 224 0.63
D. Third Level
1. Unit #6 = 396 + 224 = 620 2
2. Unit#7=397+318=715 2
3. Units #8 & #9 aze combined into one unit
=454+314+35+712=1515 2
4. Unit #10 = 445 + 277 = 722 2
E. Fourth Level
1. AU = 279 0.67
2. Unit #11 = 388 1.5
3. Unit #12 (with loft)
=598+244+36+273+410=1552 2
39.46
15
i _ _ ,
_ APPENDIR C _ ~ ~ i ~ ~ _ -
i
May 9, 1991 SUBMITTED BY~~ts1LL rinn~~ - :
_ . _ _ _ Parking Analysis for the Vail Village Inn Addition ~ -
_ As can be seen by the accompanying document, -the -re- - i ~ -
- - quired number of parking spaces for the entire WI com- - _
- _ plex with the proposed addition included _is 238 _spaces.
The amount that can be provided without -much -
recirculation and creation of compact spaces and/or cre=-
ation of valet parking is 177 spaces. That would repre- _
_ sent a figure of 74$ of the required number of spaces -
- Due to the nature of hotel/mixed use development, even--
_ uring t e peak times of the year when all the rooms are_______...__ .
occupied, the parking lots in the parking structure are
used to about 65$ of capacity. This is due in large
part to t _e typical Vail visitor arriving in a transpor- . _
_ _ _ tation shuttle vehicle rather than in an individual ve-
-hicle. The proximity of the WI to the ski mountain,-_
-
t e village shops and restaurants, make it convenient to _ _
be a pedestrian while staying in the hotel. Also as
seen by the chart, the retail and restaurant businesses -
require 90 total spaces and 65 spaces are immediately - - -
_ available on the surface parking lots . It should also -
be noted that as a function of the hotel business, the-:-___-______:_
restaurants and bars are typically frequented by the ho------ - -
tel guests and may justify a larger than Sys reduction in----- _
- overall arkin re i -
p g quirements . Further, aI_ but 2 park- -
ing spaces as shown on the site plan and in the struc- -
ture are full-size spaces and the allowance in the zon=---
-ing code is 25~ of the spaces may be compact, which____.~..._.._._.
would potentially increase the number of spaces that-
- could be provided. There are 4 spaces on the site plan--~__~ -
- that could be considered as valet._-parking, however
--_..these spaces would be reserved for employees. - ~ -
- The proposed addition and renovation would require 10..6
~ ~ (11) spaces and the submitted parking plan shows that 15- :
! - new spaces will be provided to accommodate the new _ con= " -
• struction. These additional spaces are derived from..
. , - ~ ~ .changes in the circulation pattern as a result from the ~ ~ - -
development of the Gateway parcel and the subsequent :rem . ~ ~ _
duction of a large amount of circulation that .was . re- ! -
~ squired of the old service station use . - ~ - An important ' ~ ~
_ ' ' - -note related to the parking issue is the way -the -Town ~ ' ~ ; ~ ~ i
~ -chooses to treat existing, nonconforming .developments.,-! ' ~ ~ ! ! 1-_
i ~ _ _ i . e . _ provided the proposed addition meets the necessary-'-~-~ ~ `
! ~ ~ ~ ' -parking standards for the addition,- • the remaining por- i ~ ! ~ ~ -
~ i ~ ,_tion - -of the project may remain nonconforming with _re ~ ! ; ~ ! ~ ! ~
i ! i ! --gard .to parking. Recognizing that this project is non--~ ~ ` ~ ~ ; ' -
~ ~ ~ conforming, if the addition were allowe_ d by the existing_ ~ ~ ~ ~
~SDD, additional parking would only be required for -.the - ~ ~ ~ .
! ~ addition alone.
. = - -
! ~
. .
t r ~ I
-~9034PRG.doc ~ -
- .
The parking study that follows shows the number •of --reg- I I , i • - -
- _ _ istered quests that stay at the Vail - Viliage__ Inn --and i ~ - •
_ ! . utilize a parking space. ..A sampling .of the peak _.time~
- ~ of occupancy are indicated, - as well as one off-season. ~
- . week . - ~
-
_ _ _ _ ~ _
- - Week one: Dec 26-Jan 2, 1991-- 50 spaces -were -used-:
consistantly during the week leaving at least- 59 _ spaces -
_ available in the parking structure alone . - _
- Week two: Feb 15-Feb 22, 1991 (President's-Day)-- ~4
: spaces were used consistantly -during _-the "week -leaving
at ~ _ -
_ minimum, 35 spaces available in the parking ._structure ~
- - -alone. (worst Case Example) - - - - - - - -
-Week three: Jan 20-Jan 27, 1991-- 53 spaces were useii
___._...consistantly during the week, leaving at least 56 spaces
available in the parking structure alone. - . -
- - -Week four: July 3-July 10, 1990-- 23 spaces were used--'--_-_
(on average) during the week, .leaving at least 86 spaces _
available in the parking structure alone . - -
- _ - Wank five: July 13- July 22, 1990-- 18 spaces were used
_ (on average) during the week, leaving at least . 91 spaces.
-available in the parking structure alone . -
-Week six: Oct 17-Oct 24 1990-- 5 s aces were used on
P - - _
_ -average) during the week, leaving 104 spaces available _
- in the parking structure alone. -
As can be seen by these numbers, the worst case situa-_--___._.__._:..._
tion leaves a surplus of 35 spaces, not a shortfall -of -
- .parking. Thus, the existing mixed-use development can~_-=__~-,._
- . be demonstrated to function quite well with the amount - _
of parking that is currently provided. - -With the addi- -
-"_-tional parking that will be provided -for the sma1lV:--=_.______ -
. _renovation, the project would likely function as well--- -
---or better than the existing condition. -
___For clarification, the amount of deeded parking spaces =
"-for Phase V that are in the parking structure is 15 and- ~
"the - -number that are deeded to Phase -III-:_is-_29 . _.The ~ num=_
.-ber of required employee spaces is 8. ~ - -
-
I _ _ .
i _ -
I ~ - - - - - - ~ I .
III _ _ _ _ II,~
i
f
' _1.-._-~_ _ I I 1
- -
I ~~1 I _ - - - _ ~ i ! I I I ! i
~ i l ~ . f i l l
~ I _ ~
i~ I ~ l l - i t I I i I 1 I
~ I ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ ~
T,~~_ _ _ - ~ ~ I I - - -
- - - I
_ - ~ _ i I I ~ ~
ijl I!II~I I
i-I I _7 i l l l i i ~
i I--•-
_
-9034PKG. doc - - - - - -
.~_.i_.~ ~.==-i -
.
, ..i
' ORDINANCE N0. 14 -
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0. 1, SERIES OF 1985
TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 6; ADOPTING AN AMENOEb
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
N0. 6, ELIMINATING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 6; CHANGING THE HEIGHT
REpUIRE~IENTS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT N0. 6; CHANGING THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND MODIFYING
THE BUILDING BULK STANDARDS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 6; PROVIDING DIFFERENT
PARKING ANO LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE IV ANO V
OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 6; AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
NOW, THEREFORE. 8E IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL of the Town of Vail as.
follows:
Section 1, Legislative Intent is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to
read as follows:
Section 1. Legislative Intent
A. In 1976, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. 7,
Series of 1976, establishing Special Development District No. 6 to insure the
unified and coordinated development of a critical site as a whole and in a manner
suitable for the area in which it was situated.
B. Special Deve]opment District No.6 provided in Section 14 that the Town
Council `reserved the right to abrogate or modify Special Development District No. 6
for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance in conformity with the zoning
code of the Town of Vail.
C. In 1985, the Town Council of Lhe Town of Vail passed Ordinance ill, Series
of 1985, providing certain amendments to the development plan for SOD N0. 6.
D. Application. has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend certain
sections of Special Development District No. 6 which relate to Phase IY and which
make certain changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 6
as they relate to Phase IV.
E. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has reviewed
the changes submitted by the applicant and has recommended that Special Development
District No. 6 be so amended.
F. The Town Council considers that the amendments provide an even more
unified and more aesthetically pleasing development of a critical site within the
Town and that such amendments are of benefit to the health, safety and welfare of
the inhabitants of the Town of Vail.
l .
' •i • ~ • ~ J
Section 2. Section 18.50.020 Purpose is hereby amended to read as follows:
A Special Development District is established to assure comprehensive
development and use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the
general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreation
amenities, and promote the ob,~ectives of the Zoning'Ordinance of the Town.
Ordinarily, a special development district will be created only when the
development 1s regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council, Planning
Commission and Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the
special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning.
Section 18.50.040 Development Plan Contents is hereby amended to read as
follows;
The proposed development plan shall include, but is not limited to, the
following data as supplemented by exhibits provided by consultants Royston,
Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976 for Phases I, II, III, and as
supplemented by the exhibits of the development plan and the environmental impact
report as prepared by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect, (plans dated February 19, 1987,
revised April 14 and April 22, 1987), and as given final approval through passage
of second reading of this ordinance by the Town Council on May 19, 1987 for Phase
IV and Phase V. This approval recognizes that Phase IV may be constructed in two
phases with the first phase to be referred to as Phase IV and the final phase to be
referred to as Phase V.
Section 3. Section 18.50.040 E is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. For Phases I, II, and III, a volumetric model as amended by consultants
Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976 of the site and proposed
development documented by photographs at a scale of 1 inch equals 16 feet or
larger, portraying the scale and relationship of those phases of the development to
the site and illustrating the form and mass of structures in said phases of the
development. For Phases IV and V, a volumetric model as amended by Gordon Pierce, -
Architect, of the site and the proposed development at a scale of 1 inch equals 20
feet, portraying the scale and relationship of the development on Phases IV and V,
to the site and illustrating the form of mass of structures in said phase.
Section 4. Section 18.50.050 Permitted Uses in Special Development No. 6 is hereby
repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as follows:
18.50.050 Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in Phases I, II, III, IV and V of Special Development
District 6 shall be in accordance with the approved development plans on file in
~ ` ~ -
• the Town of Vaii Community Development Department. _
Section 5. Section 18.50.060 Conditional Uses in Special Development District No. 6
is hereby repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as follows:
28.50.060 Conditional Uses
Conditional Uses for Phases I, II, III, IV and V of Special Development
District No. 6 shall be as found in Section 18.22.030 of the Vail Zoning Code and
as below: A. A popcorn outside vending wagon that conforms 1n appearance with
those existing in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II.
Except, no office uses, except those clearly accessory to a principal use will
be allowed on the Plaza level of Phases
IV and V.
Section 6. Section 18.50.110 Distance Between Buildings is hereby amended to read
as follows:
28.50.110 Distance Between Buildings
For Phases I, II and III the minimum distance between buildings on adjacent
sites shall be as indicated in the development plan, but in no case shall be less
than 50 feet. For Phase IV AND V, the minimum distance between buildings on
adjacent sites shalt be as indicated in the development plan as submitted by Gordon
Pierce, Architect, (dated February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 17, 1987).
Section 7. Section 18.50.120 Height is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. For Phases I, II, and III the allowable heights shalt be as found on the
development plan, specifically the site plan and height plan dated 3/12/76.
8. for•Phases~IV and V. the maximum building height shall ba as set forthEin
"the approved development plan by Gordon Pierce, Architect (dated February 19,1987,"
revised April 14 and April 17, 1987).% '
Section 8. Section 18.50.130 Density is hereby amended to read as follows:
The Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) of all districts in the Special
Development District shall not exceed 120,600 square feet. There shall be a
minimum of 148 accommodation units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA devoted to
accommodation units in Phase IV and V of Special Oeveloment District 6.
Section 9. Section 18.50.130 Building Bulk is hereby amended to read as fellows:
18.50.130 Building Bulk
Building bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions for building elements,
requirements for wall offsets and vertical stepping of roof lines for Phases I, II
and III shall be indicated on the development plan submitted by consultants
Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1975. For Phases IV and V,
buflding bulk, aaximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions for building elements,
requirements for wall offsets and vertical stepping of roof lines shall be as
indicated as per the approved development plans submitted by Gordon R. Pierce,
Architect (dated February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 22, 1987).
Section 10. Section 18.50.180 Parking and loading is hereby repealed and reenacted
with amendments as follows:
18.50.180 Parking and Loading
Following the completion of Phases IV and V, there shall be not less than 12
surface parking spaces. 324 underground parking spaces, and 37 underground valet
parking spaces as are existing and as provided on the development plan submitted by
Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987). The proposed site plan
dated February 19, 1987 reflects the interim parking plans between the development
of Phases IV and V.
Section 11 is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as
follows:
Section 11. Conditions of approval for the development plan of Phases IV and V of
SDD6 as submitted by Gordon Pierce (dated February 9. 1985, revised April 14 and
April 22, 1987), shall be as follows:
1. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in and do not
remonstrate against an improvement district for improvements to the
intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive if and when one is formed.
2. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in and do not
remonstrate against establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phases IV and V to
a future commercial expansion at the Sonnenalp lodge site if and when 1t is
developed.
3. The developer receive approval from the State Highway Department for
reconfiguration of the pull-oft area from the Frontage Road to the entrance to
the hotel prior to the issuance of a buflding permit for Phase V.
4. The developers and/or owners of Phase IV agree to transfer by general warranty
deed to the Town of Yail free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, such
condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq. ft. in size and to be located as
indicated on the plans and specifications submitted with the application.
There shall be no provisions placed on the condominium unit restricting the
Town of Vaii's use of the unit or the subsequent subdivision and/or sale of
the unit.
-4-
5. No grading permit, building permit or demolition permit relating to Phases IV
or V of Special Development District No. 6 shall be issued until such time
that reasonable evidence 1s provided the Town of Vail staff that construction
financing for the Improvements to be constructed as part of Phases IV or V has
been obtained.
6. Restrictions on any units in Phases IV or V which would be condominiumlzed
shall be as outlined in Section 17.26.075 of the Yail Municipal Code and any
amendments thereto.•
7. Upon the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any phase of
SDON6 subsequent to Phase IV, the developer and/or owner of said phase shall
reimburse the Town of Vail for expenses incurred in facilitating the
relocation of the ski museum (into Phase IV) of an amount not to exceed
;75,000.
8. Any remodel or redevelopment of the remaining portion of SDD6 commonly
referred to as Phase V shall include parking as required by Ordinance 1,
Series of 1985.
Section 12.
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 valildity 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 13.
The repeal or the repeal and reenaction of any provisions of the Vail Munlcipal
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 data 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.
.1• ~ ` .
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON. FIRST READING THIS 5th day of Mav. 1987
, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 19th
_ day of Mav 1987 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
der d p t'she , n ull this Bth day of Mav 1987.
Paul R.~ Joh ~ ton, Mayor
A ST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in
full this 19th day of Mav 1987.
/ •
! ~ /
u"
Paul R. l~oh ston, Mayor
Damela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 24
Series of 1989 _
AN ORDINANCE ANIENDIIIG SECTION 8 OF
ORDINANCE NO. 14 SERIES OF 1987 TO PROVIDE
FOR TILE AME17D11EN'1' OF DENSITY OF T11E
APP1tOVED DEVELOI'MEIJ'1' PL11N FOR
SPECIAL DEVELOPIdE17T DISTRIC'L' NO. 6
NOW, Tl}EREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY T}IE TOWN CUUIiCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Legislative Intent
A. In 1976, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance. No. 7,
Series of 1976, establishing Special Development Dlstrict No. 6 to
insure the unified and coordinated develpmenl- of a critical site as a
whole and in a manner suitable for the area in wliicli it was situated.
B. Special Development Uisl-rict Ito. 6 provided in Section 14
that tl~e Town Council reserve the right to abrogate or modify Special
Development District No. 6 for good cause through the enactment of an
ordinance in conformity with tl~e zoning code of the Tow~i of Vail.
C. In 1985, tl~e Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 1,
Series of 1985 providiny certain awen~ments to the Development plan
for Special Development District No. 6.
D. In 1987, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 14,
Series of 1987 providing certain amendments to the development plan
for Special Development District No. 6.
E. Application leas been made to the Town of Vail to modify and
amend Section 8 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 which relates to
the allowed density of the development plan for Special Development
District No. 6.
F. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vall has reviewed the changes.
G.` The Vail Town Council considers flint the amendments provide "
a more unified and aesthetically pleasing development oP a critical
site within the Town and such amendments are of benefit to the health,
safety, welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail.
Section 2.
A. Section 18.50.130 Density is hereby amended to read as
follows: '
The gross residential floor area (GRFA) of'all districts in the
Special Development District shall not- exceed 124,527 square feet.
There shall be a minimum of 148 accommodation units and 67,367 square
feet of GRFA devoted to accommodation units in Phase IV anti Pl?ase V of
Special Development District Nb. 6. 3,927 square feet of GRFA shall
v
be allocated to unit 30 of tl?e~Vail Village Plaza Condominiums~onlya
D. Section it of Urdi??ance 14, 3erles of ly0'! is i?ere~y ame??cle~
by the addition oP subsection 9 which shall read as follows:
9. Condominium unit 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums sl?all
be subject to the restrictions of Section 17.26.075 of the Town of
Vail Subdivision Regulations if utilized for residential purposes.
T1?e Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that tl?is
ordinance is necessary and proper for tl~e health, safety and welfare
of tl?e Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 3.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, sucl? decision shall
not affect tl?e validity of tl?e remaininy portio??s of tl?is o?~dinance;
and tl~e Town Council hereby declares it would have passed tl?is
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 repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any
' provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance
shall not affect any right wl?ich has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any
prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced
under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and re-
enacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any
provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless
expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, REVD AND PASSED Oti FIRST READING THIS 1th day of _
November , 1989, and a public hearing B1?all be held on this
ordinance olr the 7th day of Nove???ber , 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in tl?e
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this' 7th day of Nove???ber 1989.
Kont R. Roaa, Mayor
ATTEST:
~1 K~~. of
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AtiD ORUEREU PUBLISIIEU
oasaed by title only this 21st day Of November , 1989.
~~/yl~i J ~2
Kent R. Rose, M3yo~ .
ATTEST:
i ~1 ~ '
ya,nv~d~,~rK~~f,~
Pamela A. Brandmeye Town Clerk
r t._r'~-.. .rte ~ ( 1 ~I
~
`~.-~.J""r`J'_"lj~; ~'w"""'ti=w.ir.~ _ ~ .r,,•n ~J..' •y»rllY
.r
~ ~ ~
/ Y i
- v,iC'1 1, / \ ~ ~ / p`~-.. "..1
r ~
,
,1 V - ' SITE PIANO r.~
j-~/ r~..
1 ~ ~ ~
t
~f~~ o.o Q ~r ~ ~
® ~ o n ~ - t u _ ` - ~ r
~ ~ a o
o° p ~0 p ~ ~
° ° Q QD ~q oD
° ° Q q p 4 ~ ~ ~ ono
a ~ _ ~ p C]F q
o 0 0 0 o
'r ~ C1li ~ 0 op p o m 0 `.s
_ _ ~ _ o a
- Qpo ~ooa G? ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ t~
_ W ~ •'J
1
1 ~ ~
~ ,-a
~~K ~~i. ate- . , ry .F~ :.q:'•.
'jfi:` •jC'""'. ;,~J 1i.:f y4A. .-T. ~`X'r~ ;L 4'--./-
~.tw 4.. ~ i• - ~LL ~4111F
_ ,.;'='-,;fi;~ r.s. -k rye:
,t _ t
,
J!'~':
'L.
- .n 1 e
-
fir. ~
.L '
7•
~ r.:
:r. •t
~r i~, Y:f
j.:
.:cam;:: {
.Y- n
..R Y'
i'' :.q..
.u
~'N' ~ r ua
1' K
Ai
r.C ~
r M
4;, " y.' r~ ':T'-':`:~'~+ i.~. .'YK~s r•4L .~L'., jjf`3'x,-.:!t`, .
r:-' < y
• '•.1,r'„"• _ _ ~ :'fit. • -sue{^• `:R•` •yi~'~Y"~i. ` ~5~~ ' A,. ~ ri
.~{:%T~~'.~...:.'x'n _ 'y_• ,4~.~a{,,.{w ,..iT v -R' k. ~ tw.f,'f~ .5e ~3ti. xa` ti~
4 ~~y-: sl.'~t.` ~.t•.Y: w,s;~ •W ~.c;~.,y~s'.~1,,~~.~r' ~ ~~f
,r c l i~. G1-M~'
4• - ~ `n r
n`.- + " y~}''s~',-•.'_.%?i• _ fit
IBC y xt ,.r ~ 1 r, ~ 7r 1 -
IKT 1 ` Sr 1 ~ i ~ ~ j ~ ~1' h .l.I .t
~ . y..r..+- ~ ~ 1 ~ fi ~f~t n f' r ~ ~ a ,v . u~ Y~' ~•Za~cr t~
f - _ ; H:2. yy, ~ ..'r -It!t?rs._ri. 4'; t .y 's~.~ • Yryr~ !~.i+~ "i'' st.
~~rsYj4$!....
-vJ
-4 ..Y ~1~
r.y':: r
J e..
' •1`•r
1`.
a' i+-
- ..:t l.- 'c. vl~:r ,r d .x{ 'i3, t ~ .F-rh
f%^..i.. a :y' jet { •~{n.. };"l•~ -t'~' ;~'~i
.}~,a~s.,w.'~..,.~,y:7r{',•~K ~ ~n':.•• . 1:.; i:t .;r. _ Di~,}'!f.-: rr 7`':i ~ k...
~~'^+'-f:.: t'%fY'"b':r )y1 ~ [~~_:C'r ..v.. ± .:Ky.~_. i_~t i f':!'...'s
jl::
i
i. ~
~ ~ I
f 1
J ~
I '
I I ~ \ I' f i
I ~ ~
~ ~
L~J L~J L~ I•
- -
) 1
~ ~ I ; -----I
~ ~ / '~i is~il~.a•~~i~I;i~j9II..h7i!I)I~~~ ~IIII f ~~1 f Alj~y y e~i+~~il
~ III I i' i ; : ~'1 1
11 'v 1 I I ''I I 1
1
W E5T EI~EVATI oN
.
~ I 1
T"
_ , , y
a
. -
. .
.
. ~X1ST~G SPJU'f
H
. .rls ~ ~y ' 1
_
r- - - .
_c..--~---
~ r~~ .1~
.
a...
_ _ . , ~ __--2
1'
-1 ~
I ~ ~ '
1
1 ~ i
I !
~n11111W,..1i~iii~~ii ~i~mi?i~i u ~ -
- -
.
~us~a ' _ -
.rw.: ~ :,;o.
.
~ - - --~-3
.
_
. E~48T ELEYATtC~
VAIL VILLAGE INN
Village Inn P1a2a Condominiums
June 21, 1991
Mr. Mike Mollica, Sr. Planner
Town of Vail
75 So. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail, CO. 81657
Dear Mike:
Just a letter confirming that the Vail Village Inn is willing to
increase the short term free parking spaces by moving most of
the reserved spaces into the structure.
We do have contractual agreements with some tenants that require
us to have reserved spaces for them near their leased premises.
In addition, we are willing to increase the 15-minute parking
limitations to 30 minutes.
I feel that this will address some of the concerns expressed
by the Planning Commission members. However, I would like to
point out that if somebody plans to be in the village for any
length of time other than the 30-minute parking we are willing
to provide free, it would behoove them to utilize the Town of
Vail parking structure.
Should we have additional call for our under-utilized spaces,
we will be happy to make them available to the general public
for a fee.
Sincerely yours,
VAIL LLA E INN
J e to er
Pres ent & M n gang Director
JS:f
100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5622
FAX (303) 476-4661
ORDINANCE NO. 22, Series of 1991
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE INVESTMENT POLICY
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL
WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that certain amendments in the Investment Policy
of the Town of Vail will be beneficial.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO:
1. The Investment Policy of the Vail Town Council for the Town of Vail is hereby
amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance
is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed
this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless
of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be
declared invalid.
3. The Town Council .hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants
thereof.
4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any
duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the
provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not
revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this 16th day of Julv ,
1991, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 16th day of Julv , 1991, at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 16th day of Julv , 1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
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.fmt
Chapter 3.52
INVESTMENT POLICY
sections:
3.52.010 Statement of purpose.
3.52.020 Scope.
3.52.030 Investment objectives.
3.52.040 Delegation of authority.
3.52.050 Investment prudence.
3.52.060 Investment instruments.
3.52.070 Competitive selection of investment instruments.
3.52.080 Interest allocation method.
3.52.090 Safekeeping and custody.
3.52.100 Portfolio diversification.
3.52.110 Maturity scheduling.
3..52.120 Qualified institutions and broker/dealers.
3.52.130 Investment committee.
3.52.140 Reporting requirements.
3.52.150 Monitoring and adjusting the portfolio.
3.52.160 Internal controls.
3.52.170 Policy review.
3.52.180 Funds borrowing from pooled cash fund.
3.52.010 Statement of purpose.
This Investment Policy of the Vail Town Council for the Town
of Vail represents the financial boundaries within which its cash
management process will operate.
REVENUE AND FINANCE
A. Areas covered by this policy include:
1. Scope of Financial Funds to be Invested (Section
3.52.020).
2. Investment Objectives (Section 3.52.030).
3. Delegation of Authority for Investment Decisions (Section
3.52.040).
4. Investment Prudence (Section 3.52.050).
5. Investment Instruments (Section 3.52.060).
6. Competitive Selection of Investment Instruments (Section
3.52.070).
7. Interest Allocation Method (Section 3.52.080).
8. Safekeeping and Custody (Section 3.52.090). '
9. Portfolio Diversification (Section 3.52.100).
10. Maturity Scheduling (Section 3.52.110).
11. Qualified Institutions and Broker/Dealers (Section
3.52.120).
12. Investment Committee (Section 3.52.130).
13. Reporting Requirements (Section 3.52.140).
14. Monitoring and Adjusting Portfolio (Section 3.52.150).
15. Internal Controls (3.52.160).
16. Policy Review (Section 3.52.170).
REVENUE AND FINANCE (CONTINUED)
B. Cash management goals shall be developed within the
constraints of this policy statement. Goals shall include.
1. Percentage of cash invested. The town shall be earning
interest on all available funds for investment.
2. Percentage of return (yield). A targeted range of yields
should be stated as a goal. This target yield goal shall
be presented in the annual operating budget.
3. Total dollar return goal. Combines the goals of
percentage of cash available and the percentage of yield
to obtain a total dollar return goal.
(Ord. 22(1989) I:Ord.34 (1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.020 Scope.
This investment policy applies to all financial funds of the
Town of Vail (hereby referred to as the "town"), except the Pension
Trust Fund. 'Pl.~~e--f-ttr~ds---ere---e~eotmted--~-or--~--tfie--tvwnjs
e~tpre~reasi~e anal-~raa~rcra~-~~oN~~~L---and-~u_~~nt3y rnCi~trde-t~he:
6e~e~a1 -Fx~i-
E~a~pito-l -P~o-je~ts--~t~Rd
Eoestr~~ iExr -Ft~~d-
&pee3a3 Re~e~rtt~e-Gaels-:-
~teal - Est
ato- -~ra~€e r- max
Pik -Fee--~ Ad
Eo~serita~~exr~Frt~s~ -F~
M~a-r-}~et3-r~c~ - ~'~d
£~t~~'pr-ise- F~sds-:
~o-t-e~~-~-Ser~ree----Fiee~ Mainterrenee--~tnd
i~rt~~e~~-Se~~rice- ~-He~~~h-3-trsn_.:....e
De~~-6e~3eo--Ft~rid
6~eeia3 ~9segsme~r~-Fti..~l3
Monies held by the Colorado State Treasurer and Eagle County
Treasurer during tax collection period shall be governed by State
of Colorado and Eagle County investment policies and are not
subject to the provisions of this policy. (Ord.22(1989(
II:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(I987).)
3.52.030 Investment objectives.
Each investment transaction shall first seek to ensure capital
losses are avoided, whether they are from default of securities or
erosion of market value. The town, as its second major objective,
seeks to attain market rates of return on its investments. Market
rate objectives must be consistent with constraints imposed by the
primary objective of the safety of principal, internal cash flow
considerations and any Town of Vail ordinance, restricting the
placement of public monies. Speculative investments will not be
allowed. Speculative investments are those attempting to gain
market premium appreciation through .short term market volatility
resulting in increased risk and loss exposure. The town will not
purchase a security which cannot be held to maturity. This does
not mean an investment cannot be sold prior to maturity.
(Ord.22(1989) III:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.040 Delegation of authority.
Management responsibility for the investment program is held
by the town manager and appointed designees. No employee may
engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the
terms of this policy and any procedures which may be established by
the town manager. The town manager shall review the monthly
investment report(see Section 3.52.140).
It shall be the duty of the controller to manage the day-to-
day operations of the portfolio, and place actual purchase/sell
orders with institutions. In the absence of the controller, the
administrative services director shall assume these duties.
The authority for the investment philosophy and selection of
investment managers for the Town of Vail Employee Pension Plan and
the Town of Vail Police and Fire Employees Pension Plan shall be
the responsibility of the Pension Plan Trustee as defined in the
pension plan document. (Ord22(1989)
IV:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987}.}
3.52.050 Investment prudence.
Investments shall be made with reasonable financial judgment
and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of
prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of
their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment,
considering the primary objective of safety of principal as well as
the secondary objective of the obtainment of market rates of
return.
Investment officers acting in accordance with written
procedures and exercising due prudence shall be relieved of
personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or
market price changes, provided deviations from expectation are
reported in a timely fashion, and appropriate action is taken to
control adverse developments. (Ord.22(1989)
V:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.060 Investment instruments.
The town shall invest in the following accounts, or
securities:
A. Fully collateralized or insured interest bearing checking -
accounts, savings accounts, and certificates of deposit at
commercial banks with amount not to exceed one hundred
thousand dollars if the bank is not designated as a qualified
institution by the investment committee.
Collateral shall be limited to treasury bills and notes,
municipal bonds, and government agency bonds and notes. Real
estate mortgages are prohibited for use as collateral.
A commercial bank may use any securities authorized by the
Public Deposit Protection Act as collateral under the following
circumstances:
When money is being wired from one bank to another and for
some reason the transaction is not completed and in order to
protect the town's funds it is necessary to deposit them into an
account for one banking day, plus any consecutive days that fall on
a Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday.
B. Certificates of deposit at savings and loan associations
insured by the FSLIC or other agency of the federal government
with amount not to exceed ninety-nine thousand dollars.
Deposits with savings banks insured by the FDIC with
amount not to exceed ninety-nine thousand dollars.
--C-:---------1Pre~~~--~iiig; ~;.,::n~~---metes; --t~t°eastx~j?--L :....~s--~
- - -€ede~~l-agencies-aec~urit~~a-w~ri~h-nre-ga..~ ~nteed-by~~he-ftr~~
€a3~~r-and--~~e~r~-o-f- the--i~rcitec~-Stst~ea-o~-A..,,~~=c~.-
-~_----------eke-~~}~o~tng-~•: S :-~od..~...,.ent Ag~..~y-:;.:...ari~i-ea
h i s eot~ n -se a t~~r~ i es-r
Far~r~-redi~~onsa~id.:L~d-Sy ~:.~m-..i3e-c.i~e.,,...~-note's
~edera~-~i~ome-~aan- ~....ka--c~iscrnrrtt- ~es
~edera}--H~...,~ - ~eair-~fort74ye--E..~rarstzorr- j~re.i,~i~
-i~4 tt c~j- -t~ i acrn2 n t-notes
~ed~~41-~rti~..41-Id~~ Lga~-A~~~..i~Li~n-~-FldM~rj-
~ariarb}e+~rate-secn~ i Li~~ .
-~tn~i~..t-Ivan-i~l-arke~;.i.~g-~so~-iatimr-rsar~rte-iKae~
~onr.,..-aecuri~Li~s
Pei ~ ~-~1- ~3a~iona~ -Mor~gage• -Aseoe}at
ien--{-~NM~r}
~e~E~-c3~-~t?rRi-E~~~3~ ~afl~C
~ede~~a~-fie-moan-$a-r~k
Pe~.sra~-3~a~d-irk
C. (1) Any security issued by, guaranteed by, or for which the
credit of any of the following is pledged for payment:
The United States, a federal farm credit bank, the
federal land bank, a federal home loan bank, the federal
home loan mortgage corporation, the federal national
mortgage association, or the government national mortgage
s association;
(2a) Any security issued by, guaranteed by, or for which the
credit of the following is pledged for payment: An
entity or organization which is not listed in paragraph
(1) of this subsection (C) but which is created by, or
the creation of which is authorized by, legislation
enacted by the United States congress aad which is
subject to control by the federal government which is at
least as extensive as that which governs an entity or
organization listed in paragraph (1) of this subsection
(C).
(2b) No security nay be purchased pursuant to this paragraph
(2) unless, at the time of purchase, the security is
rated in its highest rating category by oae or more
nationally recognized organizations which regularly rate
such obligations.
D. Colorado Investment Pools. The town may participate in
a Colorado Public Investment Pool, the Colorado Local
Government Liquid Asset Trust or other similar local
government pools organized in conformity with Part 7 of
Article 75 of Title 24, CRS, which provides specific authority
for pooling of local government funds.
~---------e}--rna~~ce~-aeoc~At--w~kie~-p~3~taf}ice-ra~eg~-i~rr-~reesxry
slate sue- bi 14o- ~asl- bc~~ds- anc~ -goueFame~t~a3- ~geae~ ~ee~rtie~s~ -€o-r
w~i-e~i -sha~~s-maw-be--gt~~rc~ased~-fvrron~-do3~ar- ii~ni~4l.er1
fv~ - ~ -d o3
mar
E. Any money market fund that is registered as an investment
company under the federal-"Investment Company Act of 1940", as
amended, if, at the time the investing public entity invests
in such fund:
(I) The investment policies of the fund include seeking
to maintain a constant share price;
(II) No sales or load fee is added to the purchase price
or 8educted from the redemption price of the investments in
the fund.
Repurchase agreements - with either qualified commercial
banks or a primary securities dealer for which a properly
executed master repurchase agreement has been entered into by
the town. Repurchase agreements involving pooled collateral
shall be avoided. The securities used as collateral shall be
safekept in accordance with Section 3.52.090 on Safekeeping
and Custody.
~'~a ~ewsz-~il4-~ror~ee~tFa~o- r~s-irrrirea~~nt erf~fot^ts-itr; ant
no~xe-ba-~~mi#,ed-to-~~3.S-?-1FFeas~~y-ob•~tga~tiens-; -cer~tfi...:l~ea
of ~Qpos~t-aslsi- i-r~~e~es~-~ea~3~g-e~reeki~rrg-n..,..,n~-is~nec~~p
~~aaei~l-~-ris~~~~~ona-~oea~ed-~r-~~re-~o~r-~rc~ie-~~t~at~-aad
1~~----8~$~~e----~o~-----E-03~~ ac~o-r--------- f6-~~r~-2~ ~-38-9
3.52.070 Competitive selection of investment instruments.
If a specific maturity date is required for cash flow
purposes, bids will be requested for instruments which meet the
maturity requirement. If no specific maturity is required, a
market trend (yield curve) analysis will be conducted to determine'
which maturities would be most advantageous. After selecting a
type of instrument at least two bids should be obtained from
similar institutions. Two bids are not required if treasury bills
or notes are purchased at a treasury auction of for overnight or
open-term repurchase transactions.
The town may place an investment with a local institution that
is not the highest bidder, provided the bid is not more than
twenty-five basis points below the highest bidder.
The rate of interest must be at least equivalent to the
average rate of return available in the market place.
It is the responsibility of the controller to demonstrate
compliance with this section. A local institution is defined as a
bank or savings and loan association doing business inside the
corporate limits of the Town of Vail and/or Eagle County.
(Ord.22(1989) VII:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.080 Interest allocation method.
All investments will be in the name of the Town of Vail and in
most cases it will be a general policy of the town to pool all
available operating cash into a Treasury Cash Management investment
portfolio. However, a specific investment purchased by a specific
fund shall incur all earnings and expenses to that particular fund.
Interest earnings from pooled funds shall be allocated to all
participating funds in the following order.
A. Payment of interest earnings shall be allocated to designated
funds from its specific investments.
B. Payment to the general fund of an amount equal to the total
annual bank service charges as incurred by the general fund
for all operating funds as included in the annual operating
budget.
C. Payment to the general fund of a management fee equal to five
percent of the annual pooled cash fund investment earnings.
D. Payment to each fund of an amount based on the average monthly
cash balance included in the common portfolio for the earning
period. (Ord.22(1989) VIII:Ord.34(1988):Ord.l7(1987).)
3.52.090 Safekeeping and custody.
All investment securities (which are held in book entry form)
purchased by the town shall be held in third-party safekeeping by
an institution designated as primary agent. The primary agent
shall issue a safekeeping receipt to the town listing the specific
instrument, rate, maturity and other information.
Securities may be purchased from the primary agent's brokerage
department and safekept by the same bank's trust department.
(Ord.22(1989) IX:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.100 Portfolio diversification.
The town will diversify use of investment instruments to avoid
incurring unreasonable risks inherent in overinvesting in specific
instruments, individual financial institutions.
Maximum Percent
of Portfolio
Diversification by Instrument:
Money Market and Interest Bearing
Checking Accounts with
Commercial Banks 50%
Money Market A~cc9t~~rt~ Funds 50%
U.S. Treasury Obligations
(Bills, Notes and Bonds) 100%
U.S. Government Agency Securities
(per Section 3.52.060(C1)) 100%
U.S. Government Agency Securities
(per Section 3.52.060(C2a)) 25%
Repurchase Agreements 75%
Certificate of Deposit
Commercial Banks e€ or Savings Banks 100%
Certificate of Deposit
Savings and Loan Association 25%
Local Government Investment Pool 100%
Diversification by Financial Institution:
Repurchase Agreements
No more than fifty percent of the total investment
portfolio shall be secured in Repos with any one
institution.
Certificates of Deposit - Commercial Banks
No more than twenty percent of the total investment
portfolio shall be secured in any one commercial bank's
CDs.
If the amount of any of the above investments are in excess of
the percentage allowed, it is not considered a violation of this
. policy if the amount is corrected within thirty days.
' (Ord.22(1989) X:Ord.6(1989)Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.110 Maturity scheduling.
Investment maturities for operating funds shall be scheduled
to coincide with projected cash flow needs, taking into account
large routine expenditures (payroll, bond payments) as well as
considering sizeable blocks of anticipated revenue (sales tax,
property tax). The average maturity of the portfolio shall never
exceed two years. (Ord.22(1989) XI:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.120 Qualified institutions and broker/dealers.
Qualified banks - can only be commercial banks and the town' s
investment with the bank may be in excess of one hundred thousand
dollars. The town's finance controller shall obtain and review the
bank's quarterly consolidated report of condition ("Call" Report) -
the annual audited financial statements, the monthly listing of
securities pledged for collateralization, and the independent bank
evaluation, quarterly, to determine that the banks meets the
standard selection criteria established by the investment
committee.
Non-qualified banks - can be either commercial banks or
savings and loans or savings banks and the town's investment with
the bank is or will not be in excess of one hundred thousand
dollars. The finance controller shall inquire with bank officials
and/or review an independent bank evaluation to determine the banks
meets the standard selection criteria established by the investment
committee .
The town shall select a primary bank, the bank the town uses
to process daily deposits and checks, every two years beginning in
1990. A formal request for proposal should be used in the
selection process.
Securities dealers not affiliated with a bank shall be
required to be classified as reporting dealers affiliated with the
New York Federal Reserve Bank, as primary dealers. Broker/dealers
which are not primary dealers may be used if they have been
approved by the investment committee. The investment committee
shall develop and document the methodology for qualifying non-
primary broker/dealers. (Ord22(1989)
XII:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.130 Investment committee.
There is hereby created an investment committee, consisting of
the town manager, administrative services director, and the finance
controller. Members of the committee will meet at least quarterly
to determine general strategies and to monitor results. Minutes of
the decisions made by the investment committee shall be kept on
file in the town clerk's office. The committee shall include in
its review and deliberations such topics as: potential risks,
authorized depositories, rate of return, maturity structure and
investment transactions. (Ord.22(1989)
XIII:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.140 Reporting requirements.
The finance controller will submit a monthly investment report
which discloses investments on the last day of each month. This
report will be distributed to the town manager, town council
members, and the administrative services director. The finance
controller will present at least semi-annually the investment
report to the town council. (Ord.22(1989)
XIV:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.150 Monitoring and adjusting the portfolio.
The finance controller will routinely monitor the contents of
the portfolio, the available markets and the relative values of
competing instruments, and will adjust the portfolio accordingly.
(Ord.22(1989) XV:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.160 Internal controls.
The finance controller shall establish a system of written
internal controls, which shall be reviewed annually by the
independent auditor. (Ord.22(1989) X:Ord.34(1988):Ord.17(1987).)
3.52.170 Policy review.
The investment policy shall be reviewed annually by the
investment committee and the town council. (Ord.22(1989) XVIII.)
3.52.180 Funds borrowing from pooled cash fund.
All funds may borrow cash from the pooled cash fuad in order
to cover shortfalls in their equity in pooled cash. The interest
rate charged shall be equal to the interest rate earned on the pool ;
at the time the money is borrowed. -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 16, 1991
SUBJECT: Review of the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of three
variances for the Sonnenalp proposal
..........:......:,......:...:;.r.:.:::::.,,..:::.:..,:::......... ~
~~vrnw:.vv~.~:. .vsssx
...............u~xfi~eu. rv tii.. ice.
i~~. fi..e ii.4ii:.
r:
s:
~rx.wii}'1....:.. ~s»sss:::.i~~i::~er:::.i.:iiiiii:::
i:'.'.:i.}:.i:.ii::
is }i:::i:
In this packet of information, staff has provided:
1. The staff memo, as presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission.
2. A letter from Richard Rosen, representing the Villa Cortina Condominium
Association, appealing the PEC's decision.
3. A portion of the minutes from the July 8, 1991 PEC meeting, including the
motion of approval and the conditions of approval. The conditions of approval
have been modified from the staff recommendations shown in the memo.
4. A set of drawings of the proposal.
The PEC unanimously approved the three variances, 7-0.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 24, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for height, parking and density variances for the Sonnenalp, part of
Lots K and L, Block SE, Vail Village 1st Filing/20 Vail Road.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
.•::::......r......r x:
v:::.w:.~m:.v: i:::::x v::: x
:
:.::::................:~:Y.S:litipi'lxxx~:.,, ::v~: •rx:: ...rv:
x:::::::....x:
r: r:::
n F~........... x............................ ...............::.:............:::n.........................::::::::::.~::::::::::::::w::::.::
r n...... n.......................... ;;.f...........
rv w::::::::
iiiiiii...: ii: v: . . f... :v.
v. x: t:: r::
nom:
n...............::::::::..~
m:::::.~::. .............xnv:........r...:.:
x::xx ~i.-}:-:-fit x:
u:
ni'. ~ ::w::::::: :w:::::::::.
Vii:%%i'~i~i$:r xvvv.•:.-i~++='~
~+i
is~L'vi'?'i{:~:~~...~....~..~..:<.yi:%i{:::ii
r.....;; +++-~'~•iiiii:i•.iiiiiiiiii}iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii::iiiiiiiii:~iii:v}ii:~fiiii.ii::.
~N
::::::::::::::::::iii:.......:
iii.,.; ....:.~.iiiiiii::::::::;; . ;if...; .........~H{.:...: v.-:::::............rv
.......:x:.riFii'fif.....: •.::fit•:
?rfi: rYit{4r:............. .YMv~.: F-'.; ~niYr:ixx::
n-
I. DESCRir i iON OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, is planning to undertake a major renovation of the
Bavaria Haus. The remodel and expansion involves three wings. The existing wing which
extends from the lobby to the Talisman will be demolished, except for the foundation and
concrete floor plate of each level. The exterior walls will be expanded and a loft level above
the 4th floor will be added, as well as a new roof. The second major component of the
expansion involves extending a wing north from the existing lobby, parallel to Vail Road.
The new wing will include the auto court and will be the focal point of the hotel. It will be
the tallest part of the building at 56 feet, and will require a height variance. The existing
wing, housing the lobby, restaurants and kitchen, is the third component of the project, and
will be remodeled, will have a third floor and a new roof added to it. All of the parking for
the hotel remains in the general location where it is now, and remains surface parking. There
is no commercial proposed at this time, but there will be an expansion to the restaurants,
lobby, spa area and the conference rooms.
The request involves three variances from the zoning code. The applicants will need
variances from the height standards, the parking standards and the standards for the amount of
allowable common area. The table in Section II shows the extent of the requests.
A. Height Variance
The building complies with the 48 foot height limit of the Public Accommodations
zone district in all areas except above the auto court along Vail Road. For this portion
of the building, the roof is 56 feet high. This exceeds the standard by 8 feet, or
16.7%.
1
- B. Common Area Variance
The applicant is proposing to exceed allowable amounts for common and accessory
areas as shown below:
- Common area over by 25,908.6 sq. ft., or 56.7% instead of 20%
- Accessory area (eating, drinking) over by 1,651.4 sq. ft., or 23.4%
instead of 10%
Section 18.22.090 of the Public Accommodations section of the zoning code states
that:
"Total density for permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses shall not
exceed 80 sq. ft. of GRFA for each 100 sq. ft. of site area."
After combining the different categories of floor area:
- The structure is over the .80 cap by 47,067.6 sq. ft. or 66.7%.*
The implication of Section 18.22.090 of the zoning code is that the total square
footage for GRFA, accessory (restaurant bar), common area, and accessory uses as
defined in Section 18.22.040 shall not exceed 80 sq. ft. of gross floor area for each
100 sq. ft. of buildable site area. Given the combination of floor areas, excess unused
GRFA can be used to compensate for the overage in accessory/restaurant square
footage and meeting rooms. These calculations having been made, the project results
in a total common area of 40,015.1 sq. ft., which exceeds the allowable by 25,908.6
sq. ft., or 36.7%.
* The overage in total square footage is made up of the following areas:
GRFA: Approximately 60,000**
Accessory
(Restaurant/Bar): Approx. 9,000
Common: Approx. 46,000
Meeting Rooms: Approx. 4,000
119,000
-71,000 Allowed
Approx. 48,000 Overage
Please note the project does not exceed allowable GRFA `
2
C. Parking Variances
There are two variances needed which involve pazking. The first is a request to
reduce the supply. The second is a request to allow more than 25% of the spaces to
be unenclosed. The applicants are required to provide a total of 138 spaces. Of this
total, 37 are required for the addition. The existing pazking lot has 101 spaces on it,
which was approved in 1986. The applicants are proposing to add 7 new spaces to the
supply, resulting in a total supply of 108 spaces. Of the 108 total number of spaces
provided, 12 aze valet. Providing 108 spaces will require a 21.7% vaziance to the
pazking requirement. Concerning the enclosure requirement, 75% of the required
spaces, or 28 spaces, are required to be enclosed per the code. The applicant proposes
to locate 16 within the auto court, which requires a 57% variance to this requirement.
The code requires 10% of the parking area to be landscaped. The applicant is
proposing to landscape 14%.
In summary, the variances needed aze for height (8 feet), common area (36.7%),
pazking supply (21.7%), and enclosed parking spaces (57%).
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Lot Area: 2.024 acres or 88,165.4 sq. ft.
Zoning: Public Accommodation
Transfer of
Allowed Proposed Unused GRFA Difference
AU 100 or 90 (10)
DU 50 (25 du/ac) 0 N/A
GRFA 70,532.4 (80%) 58,750.3 (11,782.1)
Accessory 7,053 (10%) 8,704.4 -1,651.4 0
Common* 14,106.5 (20%) 45,817.1 -5,802.0 40,015.1 sq. ft.
(56.7%); 20%
allowed; 36.7% over
Meeting Room** 4,328.7 -4,328.7 0
Pazking* 138 108 (30) 21.7% under
Site Coverage 48,490.9 36,033 (12,457.9) 25.7%
55% under the allowable
Height* 48 feet 56 feet 8 over
* Categories needing variances
Meeting rooms broken out to determine parking requirement. For floor area
calculations, meeting rooms are considered accessory azea.
Total floor area within building: 121,890 sq. ft.
3
III. STANDARDS USED TO EVALUATE PROPOSAL
A. Variance Criteria
As this project involves variance requests for height, parking and common area, each
one is discussed under each variance criteria.
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
a. Height
One portion of the building exceeds the 48 foot height limit. The roof
in this area extends up to 56 feet, which is 8 feet over the allowed
height in the public accommodarion zone district. The applicants have
designed the roof as a modified parapet wall. The interior is flat with "
the exterior walls extending up to 56 feet. The flat area will be at a 48
foot height. Mechanical equipment will be located on the flat portion
and will be surrounded with the sloping portion of the roof. This
portion of the roof that surrounds the mechanical will be a void space
and will contain no GRFA.
Staff believes that the height in relation to the Village is generally
compatible. The peak of the tower at the Vail Village Inn (VVI) Phase
V is 70 feet tall, and the eave is 50 feet. The high part of the proposed
Sonnenalp structure is larger than the slender tower of VVI, but it will
be 14 feet shorter. The Vail Village Master Plan calls for structures on
this portion of the site to range from 3 to 4 stories. This part of the
building falls into that range with the highest part of the tower having 4
floors.
One of the benefits of locating the mechanical on the roof is that "the
noise and exhaust drafts caused by the chillers will not impact adjacent
properties. By locating the chillers on the roof, the distance between
the chillers and the properties reduces the impacts on surrounding
development. Other locations on the site where chillers could be
located would impact adjacent structures or public areas more directly.
All of the west side of the site is adjacent to Vail Road. The north side
is adjacent to Meadow Drive. The east side is adjacent to the Talisman,
and the south side is adjacent to Gore Creek. If the mechanical
equipment were located on the ground, it would have to be screened.
Staff would be concerned that a fence around the chillers would not be
easily integrated into a site plan, and that the impacts from the
mechanical would increase if located on the ground.
4
b. Parking -
The amount of parking required for the addition is 36.7 or 37 spaces.
The existing parking lot has 101 spaces in it. As a result, the total
supply should be 138 spaces. The applicant is proposing 108 spaces,
including 12 valet, which is 21.7% less than the requirement.
Variance to Sunnly Requirement: Staff understands that there aze trade-
offs between providing parking spaces and using area within a pazking
lot for landscaping. Generally, additional landscaping within the
parking lot improves the relationship to the surrounding uses and
structures. Given that, staff believes the variance request to reduce the
number of spaces required, and provide additional landscaping,
improves the relationship to the surrounding azea, especially given the
staff's pazking analysis for this property.
Variance to Enclosure Requirement: Because 57% of the parking will
remain open, and because the Public Accommodation section of the
zoning code only allows 25% to remain open, the applicant needs a
variance. Ideally, the parking would be located underground,
completely "screened." Staff has spent time in the pazking lots of the
Talisman and Sonnenalp, and has spent time discussing the landscaping
issue with the architect. The proposed landscaping plan has been
designed around the concept to: 1) increase the amount of landscaping
around the perimeter of the parking lot on the berm, 2) provide, to the
extent possible, a band of landscaping running through the central part
of the parking lot, and 3) increase the amount of landscaping at the base
of the buildings. Staff believes this pazking lot design is a good balance
between supplying pazking spaces and screening them with landscaping.
In addition to the landscaping to be located in the interior of the parking
lot, the applicant will be reconstructing the bus stop area, redesigning
the azea in front of the Swiss Haus entrance, and replacing 6 parking
spaces by the loading dock with landscaping. Given these
improvements, which all include landscaping, in addition to the fact that
the pazking lot landscaping exceeds the code standard by 4%, staff
believes the pazking lot will be screened sufficiently from surrounding
uses. Without the landscaping, staff believes the relationship of the
proposal to the surrounding uses is unacceptable.
5
c. Common Area
Staff believes the amount of common area requested by the applicant
affects the surrounding uses and structures in that it adds somewhat to
the mass and bulk of the proposed structure. Approximately half of the
common area will be located in the basement levels. In general, staff
believes the size of the structure is reasonable, and this variance request
does not generate negative impacts. The structure has been designed so
that it is 25.7% under the allowable site coverage. Given that the site
coverage has not been maximized, the mass and bulk resulting from the
additional common area is reasonable. Additional analysis of the mass
and bulk of the structure will be provided under the Vail Village Master
Plan section of this memo.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and .
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the obiectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
a. Height
The height variance is needed because the applicant is proposing to
extend the roof to screen mechanical equipment. Because portions of
most mechanical systems are located on the roofs of large buildings,
staff believes there is not a grant of special privilege. The mechanical
system for this building has been designed so that most of it is in the
basement. A flue runs through the building from the basement
mechanical area within the tower to this part of the roof. Because of
the locations of these parts of the mechanical system, locating the
exterior portion of the mechanical system on the roof of the tower is
logical.
Given the design of the mechanical system, the applicants have
attempted to screen the exposed part of the mechanical by extending the
roof. Staff believes this is a much more aesthetically pleasing solution
than the typical screen wall found on other buildings. Staff did not
believe that this part of the structure could be approved without a
variance, however. Though we determined that it had to be considered
as structure and not an architectural projection, we believe it is a good
design solution for an issue common to many large buildings in town.
6
The purpose of the roof in this location is strictly to screen the
mechanical. There is no GRFA within the structure that exceeds the 48
foot height limit. Town staff believes the architect has planned ahead
and incorporated the mechanical into the building. Given the
comprehensive approach to the design of this project, as well as the fact
the purpose of the height variance is strictly to enclose the mechanical,
staff can support this request.
b. Parking
Variance to SunDly Reauirement: The applicant is requesting a 21.7%
variance to the pazlcing standazd; 78.3% of the requirement will be
provided. In 1989, the planning department staff did a study of parking
lots within the Town. Staff determined the percentage of parking
spaces utilized in many different lots during peak weekends between
December 29 and July 1. The Bavaria Haus parking lot was one of
those studied. Of the 21 times staff checked this parking lot, only 2
times was it utilized more than 70%. The applicants are proposing to
supply 78.3% of the total requirement. The two times which did exceed
this amount were December 30 between 11:OOAM and 2:30PM and
January 18 between 6:OOPM-7:OOPM. The average utilization of this
pazking lot over the six month period was 55.2%. Staff believes the
proposed 78.3% will provide a reasonable number of spaces, given that
there were few times when more spaces were needed.
Staff is proposing to reduce the lodge parking requirement for the Town
slightly, based on this parking analysis. The change will be proposed
through the zoning code amendment process currently underway. The
department feels comfortable with the reduction in parking as the
property is a lodge use, and the reduction does not conflict with actual
pazking numbers from the study. Providing spaces according to the
study's conclusion is reasonable in this instance, and makes the general
proposal compatible with actual demand for lodge parking within the
Town.
Variance to Enclosure Requirement: Staff believes the applicant has
included a reasonable number of landscaped islands within the parking
lot, and has increased the amount of planting around the perimeter of
the parking so that the goal of screening it from the public has been
reasonably achieved. The fact that no spaces are presently enclosed, `
and that some will be enclosed (16 spaces) is an improvement to the
appearance of the parking lot. In addition, the spaces along Vail Road
by the loading dock will be removed, reducing the public's view of
pazking significantly. The fact that the applicant is exceeding the code
7
standazd for interior landscaping within the parking Iot, and that the
applicant is increasing the landscaping on the perimeter, justify a
variance to this requirement. Based on the appearance of the parking
lot design, staff believes it will be a compatible treatment with other
sites in the vicinity.
c. ~ Common Area.
Most of the common area of the project is found in a few large areas.
These include the basement at approximately 20,000 square feet, the spa
area of approximately 10,000 square feet, and the lobby at
approximately 5,000 square feet. The portion of the basement to be
built under the auto court will be built on two levels and will be able to
structurally support automobiles. In the future, the applicant may
construct underground parking garages, which will tie into these two
levels. The hallways throughout the building make up the remainder of
the common azea at approximately 15,000 square feet.
The Town of Vail zoning code standard for common area in multi-
family development has recently been increased from 20% of total
GRFA to 35% of allowable GRFA, and has been defined in a new way.
Though this project was submitted prior to the adoption of the new
code, it is important to provide the background of the code change for
this memo. In the analysis of this code revision, staff took into account
the many different kinds of multi-family development. On one end of
. the spectrum are residential condominium projects with very little
common area, and on the other are lodges that usually have a greater
amount of common area. In order to balance the two types of
development, staff had recommended 35% for the code standard. The
35%, however, reflects a compromise. Even during the zoning code
amendment process, staff acknowledged that some variances will still be
needed for multi-use lodges, like the Sonnenalp.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
popularion, transportation and traffic facilities. public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
a. Height
The one impact which the height of the building could have on the '
above-referenced issues involves light and air. The shadow this
building will create will be much less than what the previous proposal
would have caused. Staff believes the 165 foot setback from Meadow
Drive to the wing parallel to Meadow Drive is adequate to protect
8
Meadow Drive from shade. The tower is closer to Meadow Drive than -
the rest of the building and may shade it for some time. Staff believes
the 56 height, the 100 foot setback, and the relatively narrow tower
width of 40 feet, are such that the shadow impacts will be reasonable.
b. Parking
The proposed design for the parking lot affects transportation and traffic
facilities, specifically the circulation within the parking lot and access to
the parking lots. Staff believes that, as a part of this approval, the
Town should require the Sonnenalp to provide an access easement to
the Talisman. Currently, the Talisman residents drive through the
Sonnenalp pazking lot to reach the Talisman parking lot. Staff believes
this solution works well and should be made permanent. In addition,
the access easement from the Talisman parking lot to Meadow Drive
should be abandoned. Staff believes this will insure the quality of the
pedestrian area on Meadow Drive, insure public safety, and will
maintain the functions of the existing transportation and traffic facilities
in this pazt of Town. Staff does not believe there are any other impacts
from the variance requests to the supply requirement or the enclosure
requirements on the above-referenced criteria.
c. Common Area
The variance request for additional common area has no impact on the
above-listed issues.
d. Transportation
The Town's engineer has reviewed the proposal, and has stated that any
future expansion of the Sonnenalp, which may include commercial
facilities, will require aleft-hand turn lane to be built in Meadow Drive.
As the building in the area of the auto court has been designed so that it
does not encroach into the front setback, there is enough room for such
a turn lane. However, some landscaping would need to be removed.
At this time, aleft-hand turn lane is not needed.
4. Other Factors and Criteria
a. Landscaping
There are six critical areas of the site where staff believes good
landscaping treatment is critical. The first is the corner of Vail Road
9
_ and Meadow Drive. Currently there is an electrical switching gear
station on the corner. The applicant has deleted the plan to build a wall
around the switching gear to screen it. Instead, a softer treatment of
landscaping will be used. The edge of the landscaping will be
expanded into the street, where totems are currently located. The added
landscaping will not impact traffic flow, as pedestrians are the only
users of this part of the street.
The second area of concern is the bus stop along Meadow Drive.
Currently the bus stop is situated between two railroad tie wall planters.
The concrete in the area has deteriorated. The applicant will be
replacing the concrete with pavers and rebuilding the planter walls with
boulders, if necessary. Additional landscaping will also be provided in
the area, which will also help to screen the parking lot.
A third area of concern to the staff is the area adjacent to the Swiss
Haus entrance. Though this area is not part of the Bavaria Haus parcel,
the applicant is redesigning the fire access points in this area as a
requirement of this request. Fire trucks will not be able to access
through the auto court. In addition to relocating the planters to provide
the correct angles for the fire trucks to get into the parking areas, the
applicant will add landscaping and pavers to the front of the Swiss
Haus. A site plan will be presented at the hearing showing details in
this area. In addition, the applicant will extend the berm east along
Meadow Drive to the fire access points.
The fourth area of concern to staff is located adjacent to Vail Road by
the loading dock area. The applicant will be removing six of the seven
parking spaces in this area and replacing them with landscaping. In
addition to the landscaping, the applicant will be constructing a paver
sidewalk from the corner of Vail Road and Meadow Drive to the bridge
over Gore Creek. Staff believes these changes will be very positive.
Another modification in this vicinity is an expansion of the Bully and
reduction of the dining deck. The deck will be reduced by
approximately 350 sq. ft. Staff believes the deck reduction is
acceptable, given the landscape improvements, removal of parking, and
the fact that most of the dining deck remains.
Other areas of concern include landscaping on the interior of the
parking lot as well as augmenting the existing landscaping on the berm
along Meadow Drive. The berm landscaping will be planted with
approximately twice the number of existing bushes and trees. See
discussion above relating to the parking lot interior landscaping.
10
b. Stream Walk _
Staff has studied the stream tract between Willow Bridge Road and Vail
Road. We considered impacts to adjacent property owners and the
stream environment, and believe that by benching the path in at a lower
grade from surrounding property and screening it with vegetation,
pedestrians would have very little impact on lodge guests. For example,
the areas along the south side of the stream by River House and
Edelweiss provide a reasonable alignment since the first floor of these
structures are parking garages. Staff also believes that the kitchen,
loading dock and conference facilities of the Bavaria Haus would not be
impacted by a stream walk. Staff believes that a sensitive alignment
would start by the Sonnenalp loading dock on the north side, continue
east past the conference facilities, then cross over to the Edelweiss and
the Summers Lodge properties.
Staff thinks that it is important that the Sonnenalp's pool and garden
area be designed to be pleasant for hotel guests as well as to be
compatible with a stream walk. The applicant has designed the
landscape plan identifying a narrow path alignment. Staff is concerned
that the alignment is too narrow and that the Town land should not be
planted with vegetation that would be in conflict with the construction
and location of a stream walk. Staff believes the alignment of the walk
should be shown on the landscaping plan, and that an adequate buffer,
20 feet, around the path should be identified. This buffer is needed so
that construction activities do not require cutting any trees down. In
addition, staff believes the sod area of the pool area should be entirely
contained on the private property of the Sonnenalp. The Town-owned
stream tract should be preserved naturally, so that the eventual
construction of the stream walk is not perceived as disrupting a private
area. We would want to see the path graded into the site with this
proposal to minimize further disturbance. The applicant has agreed to
remove the existing lights on Town of Vail property which illuminate
the landscaping, and that no lights will be reinstalled without Design
Review Board approval.
c. Employee Housing
With the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on
November 20, 1990, housing is an issue that must be addressed with
applications such as these. At this time, the report has been adopted
and provides guidelines for new development. The report's
recommendations are currently being incorporated into the Zoning Code.
The Land Use Plan also calls for employee housing by stating:
11
- ~ Goal 5.3 - "Affordable employee housing should be made
available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives,
provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions."
Although the applicant believes no additional employees will be
generated as a result of this redevelopment, staff believes a
redevelopment of this magnitude should have some permanent employee
housing located on site or off site. The housing analysis equates square
footage to number of employees, and though conceptual as to
recommendations, suggests a certain number of employees for different
types of uses. The report is being prepared by Rosall, Remmen and
Cares. The recommendations are based on surveys of businesses in
Eagle, Routt, Summit, Pitken and Blair (Sun Valley) counties. Based
on the information in the study, the increased floor areas will generate a
need for additional employees, as shown in the tables below:
Existing Proposed
1986 1991 Difference
Spa 403 9,693.1 9,290.1
Common 3,061 4,328.7 1,267.7
Accessory 5,623 8,704.4 3,081.4
Rooms 80 90 10
Preliminary
Housing Study
Increase in Employer Number of
Floor Area Sa. Ft. Ratio* Additional Emplovees
Spa Area 9,290.1 1/1000 9.3
Conference Facilities 1,267.7 1/1000 1.3
RestaurantBar Area 3,081.4 5/1000 15.4
Rooms 10 .25/room 2_5
28.5 Total Employees
* Employees/sq. ft.
There are two methods of calculating the number of restricted dwelling
units to be requested. The first recommended in the affordable housing
study suggests that developers house 15% of the employees required by
expansions. This first method was intended to be applied to "by right"
projects. The second, which is intended to be used for those projects
12
requesting squaze footage above what the code allows, recommends the -
applicant deed restrict enough housing units to cover 30% of the
additional employees.
Using the fast method, 15% of the 28.5 additional employees would
result in 4.2 additional employees requiring housing. Assuming that 2
employees will shaze a dwelling unit, the 4.2 is divided by 2, resulting
in 2.1 or 2 dwelling units.
The method which is required to be used for projects involving
variances would be as follows:
28.5x.30=8.6
8.6 / 2 = 4.2 or 4 dwelling units
Staff believes that, because the spa area, the conference facilities, and
the restaurant/baz azea contribute to the variance request, the applicant
must provide housing for these areas. Because the applicant is not over
on GRFA or density, staff believes it would be reasonable not to require
employees for that portion of the expansion. By deleting the GRFA
component out of the equations, the first scenario would be as follows:
26.0 employees x .15 = 3.9
3.9 / 2 = 1.95 or 2 dwelling units
The second method of calculation would be as follows:
26 x .3 = 7.8
7.8 / 2 = 3.9 or 4 dwelling units
The Sonnenalp employs approximately 270 employees during the winter
season. Of these, the Sonnenalp currently provides housing for
approximately 145 employees. 33 dwelling units aze owned by the
Sonnenalp, housing 67 employees, and 20 units aze rented by the
Sonnenalp, housing 78 employees. This assumes that each bedroom
houses 2 Sonnenalp emplovees.
Staff acknowledges that the applicant has voluntarily addressed the need
for housing. However, in staff's opinion, it is not appropriate to rely on
an employer's past record to solve the housing issue in our community.
We believe that some of the housing privately held should be deed
restricted to insure its perpetual use as employee housing, or new
housing units should be constructed on site. Staff believes that, for this
request, the recommendations from the housing study should be
13
- implemented. Specifically, staff recommends that for the areas
requiring a variance, housing should be deed restricted for 30% of the
employees. In other words, 3.9 (or 4.0) dwelling units should be
restricted.
B. Vail Village Master Plan
The portions of the Vail Village Master Plan which pertain to this project include
three subarea concepts and five illustrative plans.
1. Subarea concepts.
a. Subazea 1-2 -Vail Road Intersection. Subazea 1-2 states that:
"Possible realignment of intersection in conjunction with
relocation of ski museum. Focus of redesign should be to
establish a small park and pedestrian entry for the west end of
the Village, and to provide a visual barrier to discourage
vehicular traffic from heading south on Vail Road from the 4-
way stop. Specific design of ski museum site to be included in
West Meadow Drive Pedestrian Improvement Project. The
pedestrian connection both north and south along Vail Road
should be improved."
Staff Response: Staff believes this subazea concept has been
addressed, as the applicant will be building a sidewalk from this
intersection to Gore Creek along Vail Road. In addition, the
landscaping to be planted in front of the transformer should
improve the appeazance of this intersection.
b. Subazea 1-3 - Sonnenaln Bavaria Hausl Infill. Subazea 1-3
states that: "Commercial infill development with second floor
residential/lodging to enclose Meadow Drive and to improve the
quality of pedestrian experience. Designated walkways and
plazas with green space should interface with those of the Vail
Village Inn. A pedestrian walkway (possibly arcade) should be
provided to encourage pedestrian circulation physically removed
from Meadow Drive. Mass of building should not create a
shadow pattern on Meadow Drive. Development will require
coordination and/or involvement with adjacent property owners. `
Existing and new parking demand to be provided on site."
14
Staff Response: Shading on Meadow Drive is no longer an -
impact with this project. Because the applicant has chosen to
renovate the existing wing of the building, there is now a 165
foot distance between the edge of Meadow Drive and the east
wing of the building.
The adjacent surface pazking and removal of most of the
planting island in the center of the existing parking lot reduces
the quality of the pedestrian experience along Meadow Drive.
The additional landscaping to be planted in the berm along
Meadow Drive helps provide some enclosure to Meadow Drive,
and screening of the pazking. The bus stop improvements also
will comply with this subarea concept.
c. Subarea 1-9 - Study Area: Village Stream Walk. "Study of a
walking only path along Gore Creek between the Covered
Bridge and Vail Road, connecting to existing stream walk,
further enhancing the pedestrian network throughout the Village
and providing public access to the creek. Specific design and
location of wallcway shall be sensitive to adjacent uses and the
creek environment. "
Staff Response: Staff believes this element can be reasonably
incorporated into the proposed design and site plan. We believe
this amenity is in the best interests of the community, and can be
added to the site plan without impacting the Sonnenalp Hotel.
Appropriate creek crossings, and grading which provides for the
trail to be benched in at a lower elevation than the pool, can be
done in a way that is compatible with the courtyard area of the
hotel, and should be shown on the site plan as discussed above.
2. Illustrative Plans
a. Illustrative Plan -Land Use
1. North side of Sonnenalp site -Mixed use
"This category includes the historic Village core and properties
near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail
and limited amount of office use are found in this category. `
With nearly 270,000 sq. ft. of retail space, and approximately
320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a
major factor in the appeal of the Village."
15
- Staff Response: The commercial retail has been deleted from
the previous proposal. As a result, the hotel facility will not
have as many uses as the Land Use Illustration Plan calls for.
There still will be restaurant and bar use open to the public.
2. South Side of Sonnenalp Site - Mediutn/high density
residential and mixed use.
Medium/high density. "The overwhelming majority of the
Village is lodge rooms and condominium units are located in
this land use category. Approximately 1,100 units have been
developed on the 27 acres of private land in this category. In
addition, another 110 units are aYy~~ved but unbuilt. It is the
goal of this plan to maintain these areas as predominantly
lodging oriented, with retail development limited to small
amounts of accessory retail."
Mixed use. "This category includes the historic Village core and
properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village.
Lodging, retail and limited amount of office use are found in this
category. With nearly 270,000 sq. ft. of retail space, and
approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of
these areas is a major factor in the appeal of the Village."
Staff Response: The project complies with the designation of
medium high density, as it is nearly at the maximum allowed
number of accommodation units for the property. The fact that
all of the units will be accommodation units is a positive benefit
to the Village.
b. Illustrative Plan -Open Space
The plan calls for:
1. A planted buffer is to be created on the corner of Vail Road and
Meadow Drive.
2. Plazas with green space are to be created between the Sonnenalp
and Phase V, as well as between the Talisman and VVI
sculpture plaza.
3. Open space is designated along the entire stream comdor. "
16
Staff Response: _
1. Planted Buffer: Staff believes that the additional landscaping on
the corner of Vail Road and Meadow Drive fulfills this element.
2. Plazas: With the renovation of the bus stop and the reworking
of the Swiss Haus entry, the two areas shown on the illustrative
plan for plazas will be improved. Full scale plazas, as shown on
the illustrative plan, as well as the Vail Streetscape Plan are not
appropriate to require from the developer at this time, as a future
commercial expansion may affect the design of these areas.
Staff believes the work that will be done in these two azeas is in
compliance with the concepts of the illustrative plan.
3. Onen Snace Corridor: See discussion under stream walk above.
c. Illustrative Plan -Parking and Circulation
The plan designates:
1. East Meadow Drive as a bus route and pedestrian street with
plazas; and
2. The Gore Creek corridor as a study azea for a walking path.
Staff Response: East Meadow Drive will continue to function as it does now.
We recommend that the access easement for the Talisman be vacated as
discussed above, so that access onto Meadow Drive can be avoided, and the
pedestrian nature of Meadow Drive can be preserved. Staff believes the
proposal should incorporate a stream walk.
d. Illustrative Plan -Building Height
The azea along East Meadow Drive is recommended to be a maximum of two
to three stories. Three to four stories are designated on the southern 3/4 of the
property. Staff is pleased the current proposal complies with the height plan.
A majority of the facade along Vail Road is three stories high, with the
building going as high as four stories at two locations. The center of the site
includes a wing that goes as high as four stories, which complies with the
designation of the height plan.
17
- C. Vail Streetscape Master Plan
The Streetscape Plan calls for two pedestrian plazas along East Meadow Drive. Staff
believes a contribution to the treatment along East Meadow Drive is necessary, and
that the upgrade to the existing eastbound bus stop, the improvement to the
landscaping along East Meadow Drive, and the reworking of the area in front of the
Talisman and Swiss Haus generally fulfills the standards of the plan. Staff believes
the improvements are in general compliance with the concepts of the Streetscape plan.
D. Findings
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified
in the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hazdship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict inte~Y~:,tation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same district.
V. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the three variance requests as the request meets the criteria and
findings for a variance. Concerning Finding number one, staff believes that there is not a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties for ,height, as
mechanical areas are typically located on roofs. Screening the mechanical according to the
18
proposed design is a solution that integrates the screening into the building well. Analysis of _
parking demands in the Town suggests that the code requirements exceed the utilization
demands, and that as a rule, lodges do not require as much pazking as the zoning code
requires. Lastly, the increase in common area is not an uncommon occurrence. Common
azeas for full service resort hotels typically exceed the amount allowed by code, as the code
requirement pertains to several different types of multi-family development.
Concerning the second finding, staff believes that none of the requested variances will be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfaze.
Concerning the third finding, staff believes that strict interpretation of the code regarding
height would result in a practical difficulty. Locating the mechanical equipment on the roof
is a reasonable solution that is commonly done. Locating it elsewhere on the site would not
be as practical, and would possibly result in greater impact to adjacent properties. Staff
believes a strict enforcement of the parking regulation is not necessary, based on staff '
research, and that enforcement of that regulation would be an unusual and unnecessary
requirement of the Sonnenalp lodge. Concerning common area, staff believes, again, that a
strict enforcement of the common area regulations is not in line with what many of the other
lodges in town enjoy, and that a strict enforcement is not appropriate.
Therefore, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the three
variance requests for the Sonnenalp renovation, with the following conditions of approval:
1. Prior to Design Review Boazd approval, the applicant shall submit a site plan showing
in detail the descriptions of the following areas, as referenced on the site plan dated
July 8, 1991:
a. The corner of Meadow Drive and Vail Road shall include vertical landscaping
to screen the transformer, and shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
b. Detailed information as to the quantity, species and size of landscaping to be
planted at the base of the building shall be provided. This landscaping should
include a variety of trees, including aspen and spruce.
c. The bus stop plans shall be drawn in detail to show seating, pavers, boulder
retainage (instead of ties), pedestrian access to the parking lot, as well as
landscaping.
d. The berm along Meadow Drive shall be extended as far east as possible,
approximately to the fire access points. The amount of landscaping along the
berm shall be approximately doubled.
e. All landscaped islands within the pazking lot shall include coniferous and
deciduous trees.
19
f. The fire access to be built between the Talisman and Sonnenalp parking lots
shall be constructed out of pavers, and shall be designed to replace the existing
access between the two areas. Any landscaping that is to be removed shall be
replaced within the parking lots in a different location.
g. Afire access turn around shall be designed in front of the Talisman to meet the
standards of the Town of Vail Fire Department. Access onto Meadow Drive
via the recorded easement shall not be an option to meet the Fire Department
access requirements. The area in front of the Swiss Haus entrance shall be
redesigned to accommodate fire truck access. A combination of landscaping
and pavers shall be planned in this area to create a plaza, according to the
concepts of the Streetscape plan.
. h. The applicant shall comply with the staff recommendations on the stream walk
found in Section 4b of the memo. The alignment of the walk shall be
indicated on the landscape plan, a 20 foot buffer be provided for construction
of the walk, and preliminary grading for the path included in the landscape
plan. (If the PEC does not concur with this condition, staff believes all
proposed landscaping on the Town of Vail stream tract shall be removed from
the landscape plan.) Town-owned land shall be revegetated after construction
to a natural state, and shall not be mowed or incorporated into the pool
courtyard area.
i. All landscaped lighting on Town of Vail land shall be removed as part of the
renovation. Any new landscape lighting to be installed shall first be approved
by the Design Review Board.
2. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the renovation, the applicant shall:
a. Provide detailed engineering drawings of the curb and gutter and sidewalk
along Vail Road for the review and approval of the Town Engineer.
b. Dedicate an access easement from Vail Road to the Talisman parking lot.
Additionally, the existing access easement from Meadow Drive to the Talisman
parking lot shall be vacated.
c. Dedicate 4.0 employee units according to Section 18.13.080(B) of the Town of
Vail Zoning Code.
c ~pec\sonenalp\variance.708
20
PROJECT DATA
A. Total Floor Areas
Common Area Accessory Area GRFA Mechanical
Basement 15,681.2 4,328.7 - 3,734.6
First Floor 16,794.6 8,704.4 782.0 62.9
Second Floor 5,481.9 - 23,812.4 111.0
Third Floor 4,813.7 - 20,068.2 180.5
Fourth Floor 3,045.7 - 11,611.7 200.8
Lofts - - 2,476.0 -
Totals: 50,145.8 8,704.4 58,750.3 4,289.9
Grand Total: 121,890.4
B. Site Coverage
Allowed: 88,165.4 x .55 = 48,491.0 sq. ft.
Proposed:
Vail Road Wing (Including conference area underneath Ludwig's Deck): 25,973
Meadow Drive Wing: +10,060.5
Total: 36,033 sq. ft.
C. Parking Requirements
Vail Road Wing Meadow Drive Wing
AUs/Pazkin~ Spaces AUs/Pazkin~ Spaces
Basement AUs 0/0 spaces 0/0 spaces
First Floor AUs 2/1.6 spaces 0/0
Second Floor AUs 25/23 spaces 15/14.5 spaces
Third Floor AUs 23/21.5 spaces 10/10 spaces
Fourth Floor AUs 6/6 spaces 9/9 spaces
Total: 85.6 parking spaces for the Accommodation Units.
Baz/Restaurant Area - 6,360.1 / 15 / 8 = 53.0
Meeting Room Area - 4,328.7 / 15 / 8 / 2 = 18.0
Accommodation Units - +85.6
Total: 156.6 spaces
Total From Above: 156.6 spaces
Multi-Use Credit - -2.5% _ - 3.9 svaces
152.7 spaces ,
Non-Conforming Amount Approved in 1986: - 15.0 svaces
Total: 137.7 or 138 spaces
Amount Proposed: 108 spaces
Deficit: 30 spaces or 21.7%
21
REC'~J JUL 1 1 1991
' kC : RoN Py//[C/PS
THH LAW OFFICBS OF
WEAR & ROSEN
A Partnership of Professional C... t,,,. ations
SUITE 205, BENCHMARK PLA7a BUII.DING
0048 EAST BEAVER CREEK BOULEVARD
AVON, COLORADO 81620
MAII.ING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 1626
JAMES R. WEAR AVON, COLORADO 81620
RICHARD P. ROSISi
RICHARD D. TRAVERS TELEPHONE (307) 9a9-1437
FACSRdII.fi (307)845.7603
July 11, 1991
Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Sonnenalp Hotel
Dear Town Council:
This office represents the Villa Cortina Condominium
Association.
This past Monday at the regularly scheduled meeting of the
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission ("PEC"), three
variances were approved for the renovation and expansion of the
Sonnenalp Hotel. The three variances included an increase in the
height limit from 48 feet to 56 feet, an increase in common area
from an allowable 25,907 square feet to 40,015 square feet, and a
decrease in the required parking of 138 spaces to 108.
As a result thereof, an appeal of the PEC's passage of the
variances in question is made to the Town Council pursuant to
Section 18.62.070 of the Vail Municipal Code. Such appeal is based
on the improper findings of PEC in the approval of the applicant's
application for the above-mentioned variances. Before granting a
variance, specific findings must be establish by the PEC relative
to the subject application. In particular, the PEC must determine
"that the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
(a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title;
(b) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in
the same zone; or
Profu~ionil Corporuiona: J~me¦ R. Weir, P.C. and Richud P. Roin, P.C.
Town Council
Town of Vail
July 11, 1991
Page Two
(c) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of the specified regulation would deprive the
applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district." Section
18.62.060 (B) (3), Vail Municipal Code, as amended.
No such findings were made by the PEC. In fact, no such
findings could be found thereby allowing the PEC to grant the
variances requested. The PEC has acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in its decision and voted merely on personal feelings.
Accordingly, the PEC, in granting the applicant's request for
specific variances, has violated its own rules and guidelines as
provided by the Vail Municipal Code.
It i s with the above facts i n mind that I respectful 1 y request
the Town Council to review the findings and subsequent approval of
the variances in question by the PEC. Given the findings relative
to the subject application, the variances should not have been
granted.
Respectfully submitted,
WEAR & ROSEN
ichard P. Rose P.C.
I
,
RPR/cac
cc; Villa Cortina Condominium Association
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
July 8, 1991
3. A reauest for height, parking and density (GRFA/common areal variances for the
Sonnenalp, Part of Lots K and L, Block 5-E, Vail Village First Filing/20 Vail Road.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties
Planner: Andv Knudtsen
Ludwig Kurz moved to approve the request for height, parking and density variances for the
Sonnenalp, part of Lots K and L, Block SE, Vail Village First Filing/20 Vail Road per the
staff memo with the following conditions:
1. Prior to Design Review Board approval, the applicant shall submit a site plan showing
in detail the descriptions of the following areas, as referenced on the site plan dated
July 8, 1991:
a. The corner of Meadow Drive and Vail Road shall include vertical landscaping
to screen the transformer, and shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
b. Detailed information as to the quantity, species and size of landscaping to be
planted at the base of the building shall be provided. This landscaping should
include a variety of trees, including aspen and spruce.
c. The bus stop plans shall be drawn in detail to show seating, pavers, boulder
retainage (instead of ties), pedestrian access to the parking lot, as well as
landscaping.
d. The berm along Meadow Drive shall be extended as far east as possible,
approximately to the fire access points. The amount of landscaping along the
berm shall be approximately doubled. The new landscaping shall be of equal
height to the existing trees, and the Design Review Board shall investigate the
possibility of deciduous trees along the berm.
e. All .landscaped islands within the parking lot shall include coniferous and
deciduous trees.
f. The fire access to be built between the Talisman and Sonnenalp parking lots `
shall be constructed out of pavers, and shall be designed to replace the existing
access between the two areas. Any landscaping that is to be removed shall be
replaced within the parking lots in a different location.
1
g. Afire access turn around shall be designed in front of the Talisman to meet the
standards of the Town of Vail Fire Department. Access onto Meadow Drive
via the recorded easement shall not be an option to meet the Fire Department
access requirements. The area in front of the Swiss Haus entrance shall be
redesigned to accommodate fire truck access. A combination of landscaping
and pavers shall be planned in this azea to create a plaza, according to the
concepts of the Streetscape plan.
h. Town-owned land along Gore Creek shall be revegetated after construction to a
natural state, and shall not be mowed or incorporated into the pool courtyard
azea. Access azound the southwest corner of the Sonnenalp property for the
construction of a stream walk shall not be denied.
i. All landscaped lighting on Town of Vail land shall be removed as part of the
renovation. Any new landscape lighting to be installed shall first be approved
by the Design Review Boazd.
j. A parking attendant shall be on duty at all times to facilitate use of the parking
lot.
k. The pazking supply and design approved with these variances shall not be
viewed as a legal non-conforming solution which would otherwise diminish
pazking requirements for future expansions or redevelopment.
2. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the renovation, the applicant shall:
a. Provide detailed engineering drawings of the curb and gutter and sidewalk
along Vail Road for the review and approval of the Town Engineer.
b. Dedicate an irrevocable license agreement providing access to the Talisman
from either Vail Road or Willow Bridge Road/Meadow Drive, outside the
restricted pedestrian azea. The goal of this requirement is the elimination of
the access easement from the pedestrian area.
c. Permanently restrict two dwelling units, totalling 4 beds, for employee housing.
The applicant may transfer the deed restriction to two other comparable units
within the Town of Vail after securing written approval from the Town of Vail.
Said employee units shall meet the restrictions as follows: the employee
housing 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 Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail
and Avon and their surrounding azeas. A full-time employee is a person who
works an average of thirty hours per week. The applicant or his successor in
2
• 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 Sonnenalp.
The findings supporting the variances are D(1), D(2), D(3)(a) and D(3)(c) of the staff memo.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 7-0.
3
1, REC'C J U L 1 1 19 91
ke : Roiv /'nl/cc /PS
THE LAW OFFICES OF L~/)A/V ,('/J Ut/~S f/)
WEAR & ROSEN
A Partnership of Professional C.,.r,,,. ations
SUITE 205, BENCHMARK PLAZA BUII.DING
0048 EAST BEAVER CREEK BOULEVARD
AVON, COLORADO 81620
MAIISNG ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 1626
JAMES R. WEAR AVON, COLORADO 61620
RICHARD P. ROSIN
RICHARD D. TRAVERS TELEPHONE (303)949-1433
FACSIMII-E (303) 845-7643
July 11, 1991
Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Sonnenalp Hotel
Dear Town Council:
This office represents the Villa Cortina Condominium
Association.
This past Monday at the regularly scheduled meeting of the
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission ("PEC"), three
variances were approved for the renovation and expansion of the
Sonnenalp Hotel. The three variances included an increase in the
height limit from 48 feet to 56 feet, an increase in common area
from an allowable 25,907 square feet to 40,015 square feet, and a
decrease in the required parking of 138 spaces to 108.
As a resu 1 t thereof , an appeal of the PEC' s passage of the
variances in question is made to the Town Council pursuant to
Section 18.62.070 of the Vail Municipal Code. Such appeal is based
on the improper findings of PEC in the approval of the applicant's
application for the above-mentioned variances. Before granting a
variance, specific findings must be establish by the PEC relative
to the subject application. In particular, the PEC must determine
"that the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
(a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical.
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title;
(b) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in
the same zone; or
Professional Corporations: James R. Wear, P.C. and Richard P. Rosen, P. C.
r
Town Council
Town of Vail
July 11, 1991
Page Two
(c) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of the specified regulation would deprive the
applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district." Section
18.62.060 (B) (3), Vail Municipal Code, as amended.
No such findings were made by the PEC. In fact, no such
findings could be found thereby allowing the PEC to grant the
variances requested. The PEC has acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in its decision and voted merely on personal feelings.
Accordingly, the PEC, in granting the applicant's request for
specific variances, has violated its own rules and guidelines as
provided by the Vail Municipal Code.
It i s with the above facts i n mind that I respectfu l l y request
the Town Council to review the findings and subsequent approval of
the variances in question by the PEC. Given the findings relative
to the subject application, the variances should not have been
granted.
Respectfully submitted,
WEAR & ROSEN
ichard P.(,Rose P.C.
RPR/cac V
cc: Villa Cortina Condominium Association
1~ Gig/ \ Z-~-~~~~t~~'
yy ~
. , +;;,m,,,,. ` - The V~oii Rel(glous Foundcatfon
..~,,,~,,.,,,a.
16 July 1991
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
Vail, Colorado 81657
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Application for Variances of Sonnenalp Lodge
Dear Kristan:
Please be advised that the Board of Directors of the Vail
Religious Foundation has had the oppotunity to review the plans of
the proposed renovation of the Sonnenalp Lodge. The Board has
asked that I advise you that, if the Sonnenalp Lodge renovation
plans are approved, the Vail Religious Foundation would favor
approval of the height variance which has been requested to shield
the roof mechanical facilities from view. The Board felt the
presence of a wall above the height limit would be more attractive
than the mechanical facilities alone. The Board took no position
regarding the project as a whole.
V y trul our ,
VAIL REL G S FOUN
thur A. Abplan p, Jr.
AAA,jr
19 Vall Rood • Voll, Col..,.. 81657
1
y~
{
.i
1 `
f `
ak ,
a•ww EAST MEnDUw DANE _ - s.M ~ - - _ I _
~ /
~ `
1
r
' ~ I
1_ ti ~ ~ ~
~ ';i'~Y
:.I.r. ~I Ij011 f' ..l l ~ ,O, (RIN .O~~I / / v~ri
` fL~ ! ~~V``
~ ~ / /
' ' i
y 1 9y.q~i M /
.;'I ~~,~y t r..t ~ ~i~s SONNENN.P I .
F.I ,W~t Mori ~ I ~ . .f _ _ r~~ . ~ n`\ • J ~ ~ / SWISS CNALE7
s '1~.. ~ . ie5 ~a• I ~ -rr' ~ 1 TALISMAN ~ -
I r~,, Y~., I u I ~ , 10f. f } :y.. w. zit: i -
T~'j Y~ / / i GORE CREER
I, _
V RIA HOUSE ' 1' I \ \
~ / /
G
:f ~ ~`I,, wit.- i ~ /
.n `
~..e :rr~ ~ 11 ~ ry~.e'i1.t
i `
~ A 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1~ r~ tiws M /
' n 1 .eF~ .~.i•'~4L Mi / i
i rem i tn
i ~ /
~ ~ ~ ~ - - / ROOM ~ PARKMG REQUIREMENTS ,
~ lol
~..aat ! D,./ , ` STiE PLAN Fx1SnNG
` aM / ~ / ~ ~ QD SECOND 15 10 ADDI110NAL ROOMS ]0 CARS
~f ? I
' ~ i%~ MEa11H0VE ~ 1,651A s.(. AeeeswN 14 {
~j TH01D 33
FDURIH 20
i / i
TOTAL 90 _
_ .
,
~
/ + ~
Plant Material Legend
i
~ i~ Conifers • Includes new and
iE
~ I Aspen • Includes new and tr
_ .
Accent Trees • Flowering Cr
~ ~ 1 s ~ Shrubs • Native and orname~
~I
N ~ Perennials and Ground Cove.
• ";~f. Annual Flowers
e i
t.:
.
Sod Lawn
~ _ 7
~
{ ; ~ ~ Native Grasses and WildfloK
4 1 • ~ ..i ~~P
' f
'i - y - - -Existing Walk ~ r
v ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 1 v ~ i Spa 1'~ -s=:~ ~~a
a ~
"'1 Pool Flagstone Paving
. ~ , Bus Stop -Concrete Interlocking • Planted Slope.
- ~ - _ - - - / Pavers ~
- ~ i_ ~ CO ~
i ~ y~,
I Concrete Band - r
Y
` ~ ~ Planted Berm ~ A
I ' ~
' ~ Sonnenalp Hatel
' l Bavaria Haus 1
~ ~ ~o I
''a',.
, C..
'S ~ - ' - ~ ~ (r ]7
Va>I Road ~YY/
Stone Wall
1 Boulders ~ ~
r )
, - PllTU.
s<E«~~s ~
$q~ I
index to drawings Art~it«~ i
pro) data -
uaoncnin 'i
MMMIXC
SONNENALP HOTEL °"*'ptl
DESIGN REVIEYJ BOARD SIBiF4TCA1 • MAY 13.1491 AO TR7E SHEET _ ~L
~
~
Q BAVARIA HAUS
Al ST1E PLAN .
f, _ , , Vail, Colorado ~ APE P~ ...~v.
rn rnu
r.~.~.w.~~.
A3 ROOF PLAN n
A4 BASEMENT DEMOIliION
rtr~.s•in
AS LOBBY LEVEL DEMOLITION m
~ n ~nw
A6 LOHBY IEVE1. DEMOIITION , ~
01VNER „u~cdAL CONTRACTOR ;SECOND IEVFl DEMOLITION ' .
~ :~,~~~.>X ae 'vfm • coeu~eucnon ea AT MEaANR~IE 1FVEL DE1NOLriION
~ ~+t C~.a W ?Alsa 161001 A8 THQlD LEVFi. DEMOLRION ,
' Etianlr, GD t101! Ds.ati CO 60S1~ . 0
(mn xf{tw uoD FOUR'CH LEVEL DEMOLRTON .
FOURTH IFVF]. LOFT = j b
, . ARCHITECT 'MECHANICAL & PLUMBING CONTRACTOR DEMOLRION I J = C
eoe¢+soe ~wacu A9 LOwQt BASEMENT PLAN . I ¢ Q U.
?a3CE a SPAEJI ABa...c...s. Ir. ALA
~ieoo s - ~ ~ YeN Wr •mo ssn c~.i e+,.n ~ r r.,i BASEMEN PLAN ~ z ~ i
v.~ c. nua Mi18r. ~ X0301 A10 PARTIAL LOBBY LlrYEi. PLAN I ~ ~
a0p ~u-ssos
Ooa_aiuu- ,All PARTIAL sECOIm AND ~ m. ~ .
r- ~c,
ELECTRICAL. CONTRACTOR THRD LEVFI PLAN •i Q
STRUCTURAL ENGRQFfR. '
Als PARTIAL THIRD Alm r
• xoFUrm ~ssoaAr?s, c~c ov~A R.- - -
FOIJRTHLEVELPLAN
,1~7L wd.n sa.s DLO 3107 w. CaOga Aw.. ~ '
~ ~ umt c 4 m wlte A13 PARr1Al. FOURTH AND ~
t>oU ur~cn w~ ~~'970° LOFT LEVEL PLAN - ~ e j
A14 PARTL41 LOB8Y LE1iF7. PLAN , ~ ~
_ _ _ _ _ -abbreviations PLAN
? ' ' _ - ~ w _ _ ` _ s ~ _ - _ Y= A1S PARTIAL THBID lEVF7. PLAN , 3no'°°'
° - ~ ~ ~ } ? _ .'sr f PARTIAL. FOtTRiH IEVEI. PLAN • ~
r+ ~ ~ - ~ . _ = s ~ = i - LOFT PLAN
- - ,j ~ _ ~ ~ z _r__ •a ~ ~ - y = _ ? 'Al6 ElfVAT[ONS
_ ~ "s•. c_
r- a i s~ i• ~ ~ ~ ~ AIT ELEVATIONS
_ r s.
e = ~ _ !e ; _ ~ . ~ = Ale, ELEVATIONS
z r
I
•site plan symbols "architectural symbols material symbols
~ ~ ~ e..,c,o
~ . ~ sn. wfana aaws ~ rr ,eaan ~ rm . ®
o°n' p ~ rr~~~~ ~
` r
~revt 0 s~ ~ sm ma,or ~ ~Ll1 ,
. r~ 0 raa 1 ~ soar ~aasr,m
arrua o aarar • _
. ursaa ~ awe ~aaaamrr .auu~s ~TTiLF OF dtAW[riG. p~7a„~~ '
.lTy.~ ~ l.-- ~~+u ~r'• r.. 1 Via. r1!!lllL[0Q'-''
, ~'n rv , ? s~iaom ? ~-~-~uoora o•s~tsr~ ID~e. ~LLUn
i~ va:rrn~
AIL^T~uI^I d f ww.~a~ rJ~ Haar i
~ .n~mA. n.®..r, ~
. .a.a.o. ~ IcL,dd er
~uv m.~r ~ ,ra ~ ~ a
~fw lr+~aa~Ma~ ~ r
AO
_ ~ I Nerce, i
Segerberg & l
' ~ l Spaeh
j Architects i
• c-. _ _ P.G•AlA. ~
• I
~ iutwrtrn'n i
. I runenc
. .
~ I wrtawu
I
_ i sae
' ~ ~ is s~r:..R e.~r. i
~ nus.~~n 1
v v.1r FAST MF
IDOW DRIVE - ~°w'~
~.ti
t ~ K I ~ 1. - Y ~Iq ~~9 :fv.y~ ~ ' tl M ~ ~ _i ~ ~fl'/ i? 1Nr' _
1TM 'illy
.tll7] /
_ w
t
~4 _ i..~ .
1
~ ~ v I' . _ ~ ~ _
1 J. v.
. e i ~~~~o~~ eel Y _~H... ~ _ Aao11L 91M1I! - i W = tJ
_ _ -4~= ` ~ 11 I~ _ J i / i / 11 Q ~i
' _,,,-y
J.. i / i
Z~ ~
• ~ -
cI-Lr iisi .e II ~ / IT1/ 1 / I Z m
~ •I ° e I TAL6MAN / O
~ - 54RSS t]IAIFT '
i i. ~
~ i i ~
_ .ta
. • ~ ~
- j
~ ~ , 4~.~ rr eQ~L7ar.r ~ ~ ~ S
a if yj ~ - i _a
~I ~'~~1 lot AT r _.`I.-- iI' ~ T ! _ _ ti
~ - ~.%...~.::v Ili
1R.v4 _ ~~~--1' II .E-'-{ r~_~. ~-F-~_ _.y.-~ ~f~r ~~llnlxi~/ _ \ ~
~ ..1. 1 v ~ -
. j _ ~ `
_ I Ae.unm
}e
. ~a ~ -1~- Tt`_.:. ~ ' ~ r ~ {~a,.ras=.-: `r 'L~.~.-: Lam.; ( ~i ~ ~ . _ _ . \ _
i' ~ i
_ ~ ~f Gam- _L'^•xt I Li.W~~..a~. -1Ir' 1 flr.y / I .
„ \ I
C~ ~ _ • _ _
_
' ~ ~ ..r. - . - _ -
x
• _
/ ~w•
/ /
~ - _ -
/ aar. ~
.
~ ~ /J
t ( / \
,_t:,.e ~
. ~ ~+ffe
la.q ~ _ _ . .
1
_ u~ F . ,
~ '•rntM _ _ _
1. yv, a.. _ _
' ~ ROOM COId'1f_ a
S~ P~ vAHKII'IG Q[JQ~FMf]Y1S i Due: rr u nn
_
v.n / : . _ _ . _ IA88Y ~ k~us r u wa 101 ~ ~ . Pmrm ro: ~
J~ , / _ y _ . . 16 ADDR101~IAL ROOMS- to CARS
. 1L/
. - ~ ~ / _ . _ - MFIIMQ~E ?D
~ - /
_
_ h~ ~ 1,65L4a1A..., , , 14 ct:Am nr
- _ . _ ~ ~ Al
.raui. ~o
_ / ~ .
! - mrAi.REp~mnt~.„y iu- - -
=
• ~
' ~ / ~n:cLi~ecu
" Plant Material Legend
-
Conifers - tick~des new and transplanted trees -L
54Jr`"~
~...m
. Aspen - trx~udes new and transplanted trees
d..~.~
Accent Trees -Flowering Crabapples _ .
. rN °"w Slvubs -Native and ornamental
Peremials and Grand Covers W
F"
0
Amual F~ _ ~ o
r ~ CL =
~ ~ sad Lawn Q ¢ o
V
1 lit, „ Q
- ~ ~ ' ( ) Native Grasses and widflawers ~ ~
m _
o ~ zm >
• a~
m ~
Existing wak s
;,~I Pool • ~ Flagstone Pavng_.____. ~
eD
. ~ stop Caraete trterlaclcirg ~ . -
• - Planted
Pavers \ Sbpe
I I -9"
~
I I ~ = \
' .
~ Conaete Band 4 h • Via.. ,
III(IIII -
~ Planted Berm ; ~ ~
_ ° ea
^ ~o Sonnenalp Hotel ~ ~
. Bavafla Ffatu
a
i" o
°
r 1 ~
_ Vai ROad doe.:.... I
i n°w
_-Stone Wal WI signage- .a... a:
- . ~ ~ ~ ~ e«~~
~ Preliminary .
w I
_ _ . ~ - . _ SCAP LAN a.
.
• _ Flagstone_Pavng - - - awe
- -
- lamp / Piaster:_ • ling Path. ~
r~v.r
S~ : alp ~ and Stone • - - . -
- _ - - - _ _ - - L-1
-
t
r ;
o-" yfu
ITifp
~xy~
1
1
_ _ _ _ ~ (a(~
~ NF~DDW DR7VE ~ _I -+f? ' •"'wa'r ~ I
_
i ~ ~ y ~ ~ a
~ ~ ~ 1
' /n 1 ~ 1 ..rf5'...t \ Nc.. / '.IG'~' Q
r ~ i
~u~}, . 4 ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ V i
r a I
v 4 J. . Y / / ~~lilu. g
~ 4 v J~ ~ r ~ / ttDUSE 3
z ~ ~ x
.1 1``L n tN~"" ~ I
L ii
1 ~ / ~ u¢ _ ..may' I
_ ~ N I
. y'! ~3 ~ • tf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~t
?
t ~f ~ r 9~ I
d
1 ~ ~ I I 1
f -~"tl"'f
E--~'.~`-0 < r .M, / Buildv~8 1,500
W \ / yad~g ~ QeciG
,I ~ ' / / f / Tp7AL: 38.0` 55x , M""'b
` / ,p,IL Nom, 11 ~1~ f~C Wf'°'_'; IDatt~
~ M~~.,,;>,,. ~ 88.148 ~ ~ebf
J \ /
I f
~ ~ 1,.'~' .n+.bi%~wi,~• GREQVIRF]4~
~ ~ ~ - ~ ` + 4ARK~ 67 CARS I
' { ~ti.y s i ~ ~ M ~J~+"" S~G O wags ~ { i~Y6ti
j ~
. ~ r ~~~j[
/ ~y3Y 10 ~DmONA?-ROC 12 CARS s~ a
- s F F 7A ~`uu~,~fu• 10 CARS A~
I o
90
~ ZgtAL ,~pA,RE
/0'" ~
o
~ ~ ,
~ ~ i .
~~~/J / ~
-i/
I /
l
-
_ . _ . _ ~~f«,
Se;erber; &
Spaeh
- _ Ar iccb
rc•e.u
~ ~ .a~rrcrmt
~o~
amwv
o..os.
,rr.r~s~eu
is im x
~.u,erm
av,auv
rr,.'~.
.
~ ~ .
. ' ~
- -
. • _ .._.u_ ~
- - - E - . -
J.:
l ~ - - . _ : ~ i .i, .----~-tom A
- L_.
- ~u y
F
_
. .
_
_
- -
_
_ y.~ ~
- - - -
. _
- - _ - i _
•
_ _
1 .
_ ,,,~----II__
_ -
_
_i - _ - i - - -
• -
]Tr
~ ~ _
9~ ~ ~
_
. _
_ _ ,
I
' .
_
_
_ _ _
_ _
.
~ IDu:
_
_
-
_ I C~edM SF
- iAm Or
i
f
_ ?
- - - i Pierce. I
Se;erber; g j
' ~ Spq~e6 I
' Architecu I
~ a~ncruu i
wlnuc I
i I
mar i
I~1r f~~lVr
Nifr1~IWI I
11YLYp
I
mar I
IT~f~.f~ltl I
1~I1O1 1
~.C~I.m I
ldlb® I
. _
-
~ ...,._....r
...:.;::.~i..~:
-
/ 7 ~
- i
a
\ ` I.
I.: .
~ ~ I
_ . I
i
. , .
. .r _
.r.
-
d . ~
_
~ ~I - _ ice: - _
_ 1_
l:
- ~ r I .
I - - ~s a--d.lac-e- -
r - - - - - -
. .
_
- _ _ _
_
- _ _ _
_ _ _
I[
+ ~ ~ ` ~ - ~~I ~ s ~ I ~ rL, slab
.
_ _ _
i..
~
= --Q.- - - _ _ -
_ - -
r - - - - - - - - - -
. _ . - -
_
~
_
I T _ ~ ~.~~,1 -L -
I --r 1
r...'
I. - -
,,r ~ ~ - - -
1
~ ! ~ _
Q. 1
_ ~ Y L ~T T iy _ - _ - _ _ -1141'-~YL'-
_ ~ .
_
. [Dl~n I
- _ ~
J _
_ _
.
_
.
i .
-
C3sled ~
' _ - _ - _ - _ ej'
Or
I _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
- f -
1
Architects i
_
.c•~.e.
.
1L1N~pC ~
_
rsrrwq ~r r. 1
i \ a~wru
o..®.
- _ itr.~.i~u
imrsa
~..c.rrrt I
~ - - ~ tl9Tlkw
_ , r
- _ .
- - - I
_ _ .
.I I CI I I C _
-
- -
I-
I _ _
. .
_ -
_ _
_ -
. _
- _ - -
- _
_ _
_
. _1_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
_
.
_
_ - - - _ - _ A
_ .
add
_
_
_
- a
I - - - - - - - ---z - - -
i
' - - _
1
I
. _
_ ~ . _ , _ Aerce,
ppae
i
ArchitetU
. P.GAJ.A.
u_
. _ s nrt
rocs `
-
r _ _ _ _
~I~
-
i -
_ . _ ~ _ _ . - I T L U
_ I
-
~ ?J O ~m
.
_ - _ ~y _
J.{ II
_ _ r .
L~
_ .
. .....I - .
,w
C V I I
t _ ..I
.
~ _
_ _ f ,..~s~. _ -
_ . _
_ _ - ~ f__ _ - - - ~ _ - . _ I z ~
_ - _
_ _ - ~Wa-
. z~
- -
r I 0
- _ _
_ ~ : _ iu~ ~l
-
- - _
- - - - -
. i
_ _
-
- -
.
_ - ~ - - tt a ~ ~ n
- - _ - ~ _
- - -
IAn
fts~.~
_ _ _
_ - _ _ i _ -
_ - - ~ - -
r~ _ ,ac
_ f . - - - -
I ~
_ _ r.z - - - -
t.. _
.T T .
I it
~ ~ - - ~ I~ I
- _
- eAS~iENt.,~ nEMOLIfION PLAN=.. - - _
- -
- l
~ I
_ _
E...
.
.
_
- ~
. .
. .
T- - _
_ _
_ _ _
L
_ . .
~ - - - Wlr Irnim
I
r- -
- _ _ - - IhaKCI m: Irnr
i - r _ ' _ . . _ _
_ - _ _ r_..__.__. _ _ - iDnn A
_
iC~at br ~ .
- - - -
_
.
I
- I Rene.
- - . . _ - - - Se6erberg &
~ - . .
Ar 'tetU
. tC A.LA.
.
_ - arnwn
- -
.
_ .
-
_ .
. _ svwru
-
"
rt u
. .
IAY
~ I
- _
- - ~~.f Ol
nmw
. - - - - I I
_
a -
- _ . - m - ~ " . ~
.
_ - _ .
- -
~ i~
_
- I=~ o
- - ~ i
p. ~ a o I
- _
. ~
-
~Z~
_ -
- _ _ - ~ ~
z'
- ~ ,
m
;;I; ~ z
- ~ _
_ -
~ _ IIIIIIIII _ ,o
-
- v
. -
- II ~ a
~ I ~'a ~
II
.
0
• 1; a II n
~ -
_
- ~ . ~ ~ ~ cnc ixnrw of
-
_ - ~sirsra
_ ~ _ _
~ ~ ~
- Vu r-al
` r~~:~---
- - _ ~
. _ _ _ . Y
, - .
_ 4 -
_ - ~ , a..5, , . - ~
- ~ _ _ 1 I
. _ _ i w. -
_
i s - - " . a luuL11 4
- ® ~ a l I
i
- ~ „av ~
. ~
_ ~ .
. -
- - -
_ . _
- -
_
- -
-
.
_ .
r
- _ . ~
-
.
_
_ _
- _ -
\ ~
- _ E1H0 PIAN _ _ _
_ LEVFl
_ - - - . -
. ~
- . -
;n„
-
- -
. ~ ~ _ _ _ - o
-
- - - .
~ - - - - _ - a
. .
c~a
_
_ - - - - - a
~s~ ~
I
_ _
Nerce,
Seer r; &
_ .
i
_ .
I r.c•,u.~. I
_ arena
_
_ ~ _ ..d.
I It•fe F~~y~ 1
. _ _
_
1 _ _ .
f _
I M1YN ~ I s
. _ _ _ a9
. _ ~ n,~~
_ I ~
_
r.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ U-- ll _ I ~
_ .
i__ -
. _ _ _ _ - _ . . a
I-
!.n I
. _
- _ - _
_ _ _
_
~ _ _ _ ~ - L
' .
~ 1 J Q
' -
I
_ _
. -
_ _ . i
. _ ( ~
_
i - iW¢.
.
- -
_ ~ z
_
_
- .
-i~b _ ~ ~ - ~ i
_
, ,
i i _ _ _ - a
- _ _ a
_ .
_ -
€
i ~
i - - - - ro - _ N
- _
i ~
- . -
.
_ u - I
_e ~ ~ _ -
_ ~ _ _
- -
. I _ IM
. _ ~ ilr Ie` _ _ - -
_
i
_
_ Lam. ,
_ . _
- _
_ -
' _ I ~ .
I -
I i ~ ~ ~ - -
- : _
-
-
'
u _
-
_
_ f _
_ -
: -
- .
.
.
- .
~nmea awn
.
.
r..
_ _ Lid
_ n
_
.
. . ECOND LEVEL DEMOLITION PLAN, ~ ' - a
P LOBBY LEVEL DEMOLITION PLANF _
_ . . - _ - - - A6
Q . _ _
1
1 ~ ~ ~ Q ~ .
- II II
! `
Segerbert ~ i
Spp~~eh i
Architeco i
u.. u ~I
n.eena i
a i
~ I
it m. i
rye R~.~rr i
eic RYA i
~wd.m i
tea.
_ _ _ _ rtr~.~~e
isiwa
_ ~ ow.rrm
nlm~
i~
_ - ~ _ _ _ _ W
~ 1 0
Q ~
~I - - - J = o`
~ QQ o
_
i ~ > -
- - - _ Z m ~
0 '
- MFZ7.ANIIVE Q.OF'n DFMOllT[ON P1AN-- (n
g
- _ . - - - r4 ~
i
- - a- -a-- ~ - i _
i
~~u ~ I f„ -IL~ - -
.
_ ~ .
.
-
_ _
_ . _
~ m ~
I ~
_ _ _ I
_ _
i - -
~
-
_ _ . .
..::.:Ihrr1ANIlVE LEVF1 D~tOLTI'fON PLAN . _ _ ioo.: 1
.
i - - . a
_
.
.
~ a
. _ . - - _ - ~ - A
_ 7
.
.
i
Piercq
Sc;erber6 &
- PPaeh
- - - - - . - Arehitech
uxxinc
amaze
ro.os.
. _ ,K.,
ara.m
owo~.
I I I
p ~rc ^ ~ ~ ~ li I I II I ,I
inrt~-f~~n
_ airoa
i ~..cr~m
I 1 mmvu
i
- = - I ~ I -
~ I _
- I
j I - J
- I I ~ I
- rl I - - j Q ~
,..1~~1,: ~ a
r I I Q 9
I ~ _
- I < < o
a
_ _
- - . - E- -
~ w Q .
- - ~ - ~ I if i ~ i ` _ ~
_ ~ _ - _ - ...._.1-.--- ;
-
- -e
I~ ~ I
- - - - ye - - - ~ I_ I I a
~ ~ ~ ~ _ n« ~ -
I I ~
- - - - - - - , - hl I ; _
I ~ ~
~l
,a.a~. ~...._•i,~~ ~ ~ 1
Wu--~ , I I
r
, I ` I
~ u -V ~ I - - ~ I _ _
. I - -
-
. .
I I
- • - I
-i i E I
-
I I
-
1n
~ I-
19'.,,~
.
a... ~ ~
IRD LEVEL DEMOLITION PLA ~ _
' „ - - FOURTH LEVEL Q.OFIIDEMOLRION pLgN i~ a
- - FOURTH LEVEL DEMOLITION PLAN
A 11 - _ ~ 0 ii
II : ~n -
- I I SegerberE~
' _ I I - - - - Piero. -
i SPPaeh
Arehitats
, . - - - - - - tc
~ ~
. \ - . f . me
L_
- ~..4...m
i
~ ~ -_I
f
~ ~l - -
i i Ltil
~ F.
- - - ..l - i - 0
~ ~ 1 i= ~ o
~ . ~ c -
- i;; 1 ~
I - - ~ ~ ~ I - c j _ _ _ i J = i
~
- ~ - _ a
7
..a...
~ a.o.~ _ -
r.....i. - ~ ~i W
~ I L - - iZ
~ ^
• - ~ _I.1 _ ~ ~ o
~ fir-- I - - - - _ ' i to
_ ~
- - ~I.-' s ~
~,p ~
ti
°
- ~ ~ - -
_ .
ti _ _ _ - -
,
~ _
~ i ~ ~ _ i
~ - i
l ~~rl ~ - - - - - .
.
j _ ~
. - -
- -
_T -
-
_ - -
I
- ,
- • . - . ~ . - _ = : _ . _ . _ (TPPERBASEMENLFLOOIi.PLAPIL _
-
i
- f X F _ 1
- . '
- -
-
~ I . -
i
IDau I
1 LOWER BASEMEN fL00R PLAN _ ~
.
.
- - cam.
-
c - _ - - - - - - - - -
.
- - - - - - - - _ - - A9
~ I
I I
PSRCL•
1 ~ it S4 ¦!b
j 1~1C~IlKCt
urm~srnru
,
- munn
- ~ _ 11111111
~ Iljlll II
- - -
- -
- .,o,~. - - -
_ ~T~f ~L1tl
1 a is isa
. ~ . - - ` 9 mac m
0
~amun
_ e
a
w~ <
iK Z
' la
a
,m _
~ _ ~ ~ ' ~ ,4.,
~ ~ I •.1 . ~
- _ _ ~o
~ ~ _ ~ o, Q CJ
~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 1 ~ 'y
~ ~ ~ ~ - - I'' ~ i i ~ z
I _ I ~ 1. I ~I..~ ~ ~ 0
_ 1~ ~ ~ ~
_ .
~ ® ~
:ova r - l . ty'-°' ii ~ ~ I. 1 - 1
- ~~Q---- ~ - - - - 1 - - - . ~ _ ~ ti
r
~ ~-t ' veer - ~ t .
~ _
~ ~ - i
-
_ _
-
_ 1 , I ~
~ ~ ~ - - - - ~ I i - -
_ .
\ _
i~
. - ~ ~ r
Y L~~. _ ~ -
~ ~ .
1 1 r
_ ~ -
- . •
l
s , - ~1
x
- ~ err - - ~
4,~ ~
- K _
~ _
. -
- \ _ L
g+o......... ~ r ~
- -
_
_ _
,
PAR7L4L;LOBBY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN----. _ _ ~ . .ua ~nL,:..~.~ 1
-
r7
- - - b i
.t
. - i~ a
- _ _
_ ~ A10
-
- _ . I ~ Pierce,
' Se6erberg d
SPaeh i
. ArrLitectc i
' i-. _ P.C A.IA
ucsnrn~aa
Mv~'ryG
. I 15
QRpq
I
. . I rme I
IQOSp {~~yN i
rrCw,li~S'
I n.a..u ~
~ - - ~°tl6° 1tl
sras
I - - b ~aiw
I _ - - ' - i I
I
' - - - - 30} - - - - . - - 1
\ 314 _ J
j
1.~ - ~ Ira
i - - IW
219 - - - I F
- - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ II
i
302===
- ' _ ~
_218 - - - - - ~ Q+ E ~ i
_ ~ 315 ! ~ - .a
21T I ¢ ¢ V
~ I,z~ .
3a1 ~ , W >
_220 ~ 216 ~ ~ I z
I
~c~`'~ Ate:' I i~ it ' i I
- - ~~,111///YYY41+4}c Y3i 11 ~ ~ I a
221
-
~ ~ ..ear ~~~~;;'ll ~-I ~ ~ L~' o
f ~y~r
I
~ ~ ~ ~
~ - f 234 233. Y32
I .'224
- _ I ianuam
i
225. _ 228 I '-"1~' I
I 226 -227 - ~ 'i
_ _
~.c i i
i J ~ - _
I - ~
' 229 230 231 I I
- - _ -
-
- ~~-1 ~ i ill i i~ i. I
~I
~ ~ - .o. .x.
_ ~
~f? _
_ - _ -
_ C
• f '
I I i~ I~ii~•~I
} ~
I PARTIAL SECOND LEVEL::&PAR'IIALTE~tD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN__ iDne: coon
\l\V ~
- - I a
~ All
I
-
~ Pierce, i
Spseh
- Architects
_ . P.C.•A.LA. i .
~ unvntmrr I
ruwrvc
i vmuots
7.:
. .
_ _ - ~ rr ore
- v
r s.. r,~..r ~a
v1 CrrY ~i1P 1
b•Myll
- metlfv
1~ ~ „uaua1 I Il~.~ 5~f1)
~ ~1u1
III
I ~
I
- - - --409 - - _
- - - - 414 - _ ~ _ _ ~ ..1
~y ~ , W
r ; - - ~ -
~ - - -
r. 1
~I 319 - ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~
{ - _ ~ ~ o !
~ _
===_ao2==== ~ IL Q_ ~
y I
318 - - - - - _ - ~ C
~ ~ - - - I Q Q o
, t,: y,.: i i , , I ~ 415
' U ~
.317 I ~ Q
ii
- ~ 401 ~ ! Z ~ >
316 i + _
- - - - r -
320.
~ ~I~ _335 _ I ~ ~i i ~ ~
'V - - - - . . - - ~ r~
321 ~ ~ , I i ~ ~ ~I
i
_ ---4,.
322 ~ ~ _ i
- 329.. - - _ - ~ - - -
- . _ - f - 3~ - i
' 329 _ -
•
----325' - - - 328. _ _ v_. - _ i
.
326 327 - ~ i
- - ~ '
- - - - - - I - - - I ~
- o~ ~
- 329 930 = ~ v
- 1 I I -_-1 ~ -
_
_
____.T[-~iDI.EVFl. &PARITALPOI)KII-ILEI/E]..F7.OORPIAN_ ~
I ~•..Pmltn m.~srs
. r, ,fin`,
.V ~CTaleO M'
I ~
' ' ~sam Ot
i _
A12
. _ Pieree.
Segerberg & ;
Sppaeh I
~ Architetb I
' ~ uewrtcTUrt
runnmc I
ortwou I
- - mar.
;sir e,•.,~a.ew I
nun.em
_ . o.~ae. I
, _ ~ ia,mx I
' ~ ~ i ow. r sm I
' I
m~auu i
~ ~+er+ee, rrf7NV I
%'-I - -I ` 403 LOFT' ~ - - -
I : 414 LOFT ~
I
' ~ I
- ~ ~ I
~--j- - - ~ I
402 LOF7 ~z„~v ~ ~ ~ ~
\ ! ~ 0
417 i ~ ?'a ¢ C
- - ' I - r---
- - ~
416. 1 ~ 415 LOFT ~ ~ ' ;
_ _ , 401 LOFT I - - - Z ~
I
_ ..a ~ ea9u I z ~ 9 I
0
t, I
_ _ ~~I II ~
a
i -
o
i ~ ! ~
_
423: - ~ ~ - - - '
_ - _
- -
_ '
' - 4261 - 427_ I
_ _
. _
_ -
. -
_
_ - _
_ : . _
'
-
----:FQUR~LLEVQ~:~PAR'I7AL FOURTH LEl/Q. Q.OFn FLOOR PLAN - = - . i
_ _ _ _ tea roams I
[Dnem
. .
- - _ - - A13
.
~ -
Pierce.
1•, ,'d~ Segerberg&
' :,L 1ro'~ paeh
` ch
r c ~.ta.
-CIUTZM
vfrxwo~
209 203
t7F 9~ _ tr
_ I Q ~ I
210 207 - - - - - 4 Z
a+sa rrrwc j J 0
t it it it 1,
Z m >
n p 21L. 0
\ I tt
I
!i
\ 212
.LO.. ° _ ti- - amlam
--213 204 - uuar6 - 1 .
J
-
: III
M 214 203 ' -
PARTIAL LOBBY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
- - - _ t mim.
201
shm or
7 - - .__t - A14
SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN -
i ~
' - Rerce. I
Se;vberR & i
I Sppaeh I
1lrchitects i
~ ucwrernn
_ . ~ runnlnc
_ urtmon I
i . ~ ~ Y urar I
II I ~ Ili ~.141~WIW1
1 LInWp
l ~f ill I ~I I
_ I ~ ! ( ~ ITiC .S~SIf I
it - I ~f III ~ i ,;ICI ~ ~ I 309 ~ ~m I
_ 308
it ~ ~ I
I I
~I ~ ~ I~~ 408 ~j i
~I I
I
~I:;~;~ .,i l.~ I, i,~,lj ,~'I!:,~,:' 11II1~ ~
~ ~~i i ! ~ ~ IL ~.~.1~ I
I i
t~
--1"`~*~~ 410 LOFT 407 LOFT. I snrl I 410 407 M 310 307 ~ ~
~II~~~ i i Y !I~ I y _ Q Q 0
. . i =1 ~ ~ ¢ L
+ 411 LOFT 406 LOFT' I ~ ~ "I~'_~°n'1 i 411 406 311 306
~ II ~
a ;
I ~ 'a
-II ~ ~
~ II ~ I ' I ! I c
? ~ I 412 LOFT' 405 LOFT +'aeiav~ I 412 405 ! 312 30S ~
-
----~_-a-1--- ~ ~
I _
~ i ~ ~ , : I j ~ ~ Ilnluom
\ ~l'"r'0^-~ 413-LOFT 404 LOFT I~r ~"'a^~ j 413 404 _ 313 3~
If _
I - I
II'= ~ ~ ~II '~III~~ j
1
. II Ili _
_
I I f ~.1
wiaue raau~ ~ _ . I
' II I
- . I .
_
I~
~ - , _ _ _ ~I
. - - I
. PARTIAL FOURTH LEVEL Q.OFD FLOOR PLAN _ pAR'~AL FOUII'Ii~t LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PARTIAL THRtD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
IProleu m:ms
_ _ ~h
- Am p ~
. A15 ~
i .
Pierce,
" Se;erberR & i
~ _ Spae6 i
Arcbiteccs i
~ acmrtrn.n i
ILa.~e1vG
meson i
~a.m.
' Im SYI~w V ti i
~YCd 141
p MYp
r ~ Ld~~~ f
+I limos ~Llb
MY
~~.f~W~
/ O~DW I
% \ _
/ lam. - /i
A._ ~ L1.,_~_i _ ~~Ff.H'rr
- ,
_ -
~ ili I ~ ~ II ICI I ~ `I)~i tl ~~il ~ ~ ~t~~ ;,c ~ .I k ~ ~ _ ~ a
_ _ . ~ d
- - i- I - ~ ~wrMp:.. _ 'i~~_ y r•.~• 3_=1L. 4 II a 't7
.r~+'r+ s a . 111. ~ !l~l~l, I I~ II~ I ~*Jl ~ ~ f i~.,._~ - t~ ¢ c
- . a ~ ~ II I I , Im
~li~ ~ll~. - - I,ttr , + _ t - INN I ~"'~r ' - ~ I ~ Q c~
I~~1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y'i~
s..~~.r. ~ 4 ,
_.ts~~.i. i, ~ C
NOR'!'H ELEVATION
u.l~.
- ~
_ -
- - - -
i
1. rcx~ t~'~-e ~luw1..- ~ f i
. .
f ~
f-
_ i
_ ~ - i
_ ~ _ . ,
_ ,
_ _
_ _
_
• It+m~
_
Lr ,
.I _
pmo A.
PAR77AL EAST ELEVATION .
~PARIIAL NOEEIH ELEVATION I I~
~ a
_
_ A16
.
_ _
t
I -
Pierce, i
~ ~ I Segerberg &
. !i i Spaeh I
a I Architects j
' ~ I P.C.•A.LA• i
t.. f .
. ~ ~ ruaaec i
. aneioas i
~ mmo
iam s..~,~.~¢.,,as I
~wc uu i
ni nu
I n ~ i
I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ irr~a..~u ii
i menu I
ni sums I
I
~ ~ _ ~
- - - ~ ~ ~ ~ >-=ri a !~I~ir~~ al Ih~ ~~a~~iaii lai~iai~ - , I , , o
_ ~ I~.Id{~ 1 1I r~~~ t~tl{~~,~~~,~,~~~~~~~~~L~j fIIII'II~I~II'i
I I ~ ~ II~.'~~'~~ ~1W1WlL'WI1~ i11Wllllllyi~~`uuuull:Wlll~C ~i l~ ll 1Wll } ~ lllllllllllllll, lfll_ ~ i i I ;~d 1~ - I = ~
s ~ st ~ _ ~ 0
I ~ \ ~ ~ 7, - ~ -
I I I~II~ 1~ ~I
' ~ ~ ~ I ,ti~ p' b ill , I Iti ~ . ~ I I . I',I • ~I ~ I~ ~ ~ o
IJ~,.~ t ~ ~ _ l Ili I:II ,irio c = ~ ~ I ~ ~Jf?.ikr, r,~- ( IIAII71F1~ 5'- II ~IQI~ ~a ~1~ ~ ~ U
. ,-n ;;,rte I - - - - 4•, ~ ~ _
'~-ln lly(.I~'~~ ,'!fir ~III~~i'i l]I ~~'..1Y ~I~I~L. I~TI~.k:6~r~c~~ii,~. - ~ ~I, I --~.L Q j 1 /I 't• ' _ ~~O/~
11~~~--~,y~ ~ll~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ r - - ~ 1 ~ ~ n-.- ~ r:. 7ei~a - ~I
4c
e
a
- - - c
~.-ACtc_otiKCC n.c~sr.~in
- - i-rs ~-,fr I l4,
_ •c €
i~.__
~c~sao~., . i'
- - - - ~ O ~
- I ti
i I
SOUTH ELEVATION
'
- - ,e•.~o
I ~
.
-
i
~ ~
~ ~ e''''''rr.,
~ ~ _ - ~1.~J-_- ~ 1~=k~ - AF~B~
_ ;~/-~:.~;~p` r/'~~ ~ ri`~:~111 -i
I - I~ I i:... ' ;S'~ ~ it 41 ~ II
i as ` M~ ~ ~f ~ S. . ~cs.:ac_.~-i` J i' _ _ ~ l„`h~•s ~'s'~ I ;i - _ _ -
_
'c>c~' . ,ri. - - ~ _ - r ~ Tom- ---,-a - ~ _ ! - - - -
~J F-; _
- - - _ - - ~ o~.~ a k
EAST ELEVATION
-a,
- ~ Cneciea n
-
skri or
I - -
A17
-
-
i
I
i ~ Nerce. I
` i Segerberg &
Spaeh I
~ 1 I
I Architects i
i
. • j .unancrua[ I
I OefrllDaS
. - I _
-
1 ~Cns~ae lN1T
~v Rv
IID 11u S.
lLv. C-r e1L!
_ _ I IT~fm "a 111
x])11
i I
I' i i ~ ,
. ~ 0
~ '
_ . _ - - - ~ I' ~ 0 I
~ i
~ 0
Q¢ o
I
_ _ i I Z Q ~ I
Z~
~ ,
- - - ~ ;
~ !
i - . _ ~
_ _ - l - - - - - - - : 1
I ~ _ _ _ ~ i €
~ 1.,,..~,.,
- - -
- ` I ~
_ ~ a
_ ~ ~ ~
'I
I .r-.
~ ~ ~IF(F~~I I~ BFI ~ J~aEI=~ ~i~i~a ~q~ . ~~1 - ~
- rk ~ i 11WWWWIWI •
~!(~EIE~I ~p~~~a~i : ~iB~e ° ~-jute , , ~ ~ - ~ _ _ _ _ ~
~~'~.~'1 ~ilJmrgil -1k'~ilPl }tI F~ I~MN'4A~:. ~ ~ . •k - _ I ~ - ~ , ; - ~~'r',},i~'~ ~ , ~t~, l
_ h~~ ~ sl `i y~NA~ ~Sr`N~-a • J~ ~ :'llu`~T• r~ - / 1J
Jo*rr ~ n~c srs~a ns.wf~. r.~ - -
- ~ -.efi~k.
1 1
I _ - WEST ELEVATION
_
~I - - - ~ - - - i
- ~ - I Dea: ¦n t0.1n1
Cntteed M
- . _ ,Sleet Of
-
~ - - - _ A18 I
-
i
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 10, 1991
SUBJECT: Appeal of staff interpretation regarding site coverage for the Stanley Residence,
1816 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of
Sunburst.
Appellant: Jack Stanley
Planner: Jill Kammerer
~v..v...,...w~.,
Mr. Stanley, the owner of the residence at 1816 Sunburst Drive, has requested to enclose the
area under an existing unroofed deck which leads to the front dcor of the primary residence.
Section 1 of Ordinance 41, Series of 1990, which addresses the definition of site coverage,
reads:
"'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 greater. Building area shall include all buildings, carports,
Porte cocheres, arcades and covered or roofed walkways. In addition to the above,
. building area should also include any portion of roofed overhang, eave, or covered
stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more
than 4 feet from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns."
(Emphasis added by staff)
According to this site coverage definition, there is a 4 foot "grace area" for overhangs, eaves,
etc., from the face of any building which does not count toward site coverage. In this
particular instance, the deck which covers the walkway, is not considered to be a roof per
Section 18.58.060 of the Municipal Code: "...A balcony or deck projecting from a higher
elevation may extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a
roof for the lower balcony or deck. (Ord 8(1973) Section 17.203.)" The appellant believes, as
written, that the site coverage definition should include areas underneath decks as site
coverage.
c:~peclmemoslsfilyapp.610
y
~ ~
RICH AND KR USEN DESIGN
ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
Tawr? Caunc i 1
Town Of Vail
75 Sc•. Frontage West
Vail Co.81E~7
June ~t?, 1991
Re : Appeal o i' 1='. E. r. ciec i s i are
cm the Stanley Duplex
Ta Whorn It ~1ay Concern:
' P.ecer,tly, tt-~e F'. E.. C. upheld the staff' deci sic?r-. to rind tt-~at
areas l?ndi-2 r^ a c~_wered walk are not site C:rwer^age de~pil:e the' 1`:031
ordinance reading "building wren- st~~,11 include ~~l.l huilciir~ds.
Car'p~_~r^t 5, p~!rte c~_~c:heres, arCadF_%!i; aY~cj 1_~!`/E?'r`BCj dY1Cj r`~~'~t:~i't~~~
walkways. I~Jt-~i le it has been explained tt•?,t t:he intF~nt ~•,as nc:~t: t~~
co~_int the area ~_,nder a dPCk in Close. pr,-~xiroity t.-• a h~.iildinn, ar~d
this is a very reasonable approach, this is n_t wh~.,t: w~,~--~ wr^i t te_,n.
We sirnply set i~,_?t to follow what was twe rF~lt? c1e~.?^1y st~~t:ed in
the nFw c~rciinance, lJca reasoned that i r tt~c~ et~vc.r-•~~d wa11< werN
considered site c~.~vera ge we wvu.l d be perr,? i t t ed t i n f i t 't t h i
area witha,.it r~eyativ~ly irnpaeting thca site r_cwer-•aoE:-. We h~~cl n~~
lnterttlGn l_if Seek. .t rig a ~~loGphGle~~, b,lt r^clther^ 53t?b?f~lE?Cj tip hive
st urnb 1 ed on a very c~_~nt rod ] ct ory area of t hE? new or-ci i r,anc_e and
then proceed to spend a gr^eat deal t~f t inre on what scae~roed t~.~ hey a
lc~gica] inter^pretatic~r, cif that sectic~r,.
As you know better than anyone else, the wr^itir,g of laws is a
difficult task, however, until all the bugs are worked out it,
seems only fair to give us the benefit of the doubt,
Thank you far your time.
Very Tru 1~/Y-~:~urs,
` LAG
• Jack K. Sr~c~w, Arctr i t er. t
P.O. BOX 45 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 303-926-2 2 8 6
. ,
' Xc Tc
R .,J
~ ~R~y
AGENDA
LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY ~,~~i?
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 10, 1991
10:00 A.M.
1. Consideration of the Authority of a modification of premises
for Vail Food Services, Inc., dba, Frasier's at Lionshead/
Trail's End.
Sandy Davies present.
APPROVED: S-0
2. Consideration of the Authority of a modification of premises
for Legends of Vail, Ltd., dba, Gondo's.
Present: Bard Garton
APPROVED: 5-0 approval CONDITIONAL on PEC/DRB approval July 22, 1991.
3. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Authority of an
application for a Special Events Permit, Malt/Vinous/
Spirituous Beverages, by the Vail Alpine Garden,, Inc., on
Saturday, August 3, 1991, from 12:00 noon to 10:00 p.m., at
the location of Gerald R. Ford Park/Lower Bench, 530 South
Frontage Road East, Vail, Colorado. Officers for this event
are as follows:
President - Helen Fritch
Events Manager - Becky Brake - Present
Event will take place from 5:30 to 7:30; open bar; bartenders will be checking
I.D.s, when necessary.
APPROVED: 5-0
4. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Authority .of a 100%
transfer of ownership of the Hotel and Restaurant license held
by Alma Equities Corporation, dba, L'Ostello, to Bienvenu!
Inc., dba, L'Ostello, at the location of 705 West Lionshead
Circle, Vail, Colorado.
Lewis Futterman - President, Treasurer, Director, Registered
Manager, and 100% stockholder
John Lunsmann - Vice-President
Starla Futterman - Secretary
Lewis Futterman, John Lunsmann and Jay Peterson present. Foreclosure took
place on 5-29-91; they are now in a period of redemption until 8-12-91. Larry
addressed issue of bankruptcy. It was agreed to send packet to state with
condition that we are waiting for Treasurer's deed so that License will not lapse
5. Status of Gary Haubert, Steve Buis, etal, dba, Lionshead Bar
& Grill 100% transfer - 7/8/91 filing deadline imposed by
Liquor Authority
Paperwork was filed on 7-3-91; lease assignment is not complete. Schedule
transfer for 8-14-91
6. Senate Bill 91-139 - Concerning the Issuance of Temporary
Permits Authorizing the Sale of Beverages Containing Alcohol
Pending a Transfer of a License to Sell Beverages Containing
Alcohol at Retail
See attached
7. Notification to the Authority of recent renewals:
a. Clair-Boris, Inc., dba, Montauk
b. Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., dba, Sonnenalp Restaurant
c. J.S. Ho, Inc., dba, Szechwan Lion Chinese Restaurant
d. Vail Racquet Club Restaurant, Inc., dba, Racquet Club
Restaurant
e. B.J. McFadden & Company, dba, Lionshead Liquor Store
APPROVED: 5-0
8. Any other matters the Authority wishes to discuss.
Davey Wilson brought up the matter of wedding receptions on hotel premises
and guests leaving the premises with drinks. Additionally, occasional room service
drinks leaving premises. Call regarding problem with security.
TOWN OF VAIL
Vail Local j%Licensing Authority
f ~ ~ ' (~~z~2Gv
Mart a S. Raecker
Assistant Secretary to the Authority
~ ~
_
SENATE BILL 9I-139.
BY SENATORS Pastore, Leeds, and Mutzebaugh;
also REPRESENTATIVES Prinster, Anderson, P. Hernandei, June,
SalaZ, 0. Williams, and S. Williams.
CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY PERMITS AUTHORIZING THE
SALE OF BEVERAGES CONTAINING ALCOHOL PENDING A TRANSFER
OF A LICENSE TO SELL BEVERAGES CONTAINING ALCOHOL AT .
RETAIL.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. Article 46 of title 12, Colorado Revised
Statutes, 1985 Repi. Vol., as amended, is amended BY THE
ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
12-46-106.5. Temporary permit. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING
ANYTHING IN THIS ARTICLE TO THE CONTRARY, A LOCAL LICENS
AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A
TEMPORARY PERMIT TO A TRANSFEREE OF A FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE
LICENSE ISSUED BY THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO
THIS ARTICLE. SUCH TEMPORARY PERMIT SHALL AUTHORIZE A
TRANSFEREE TO CONTINUE SELLING FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGES DURING
THE PERIOD IN WHICH AN APPLICATION TO TRANSFER THE OWNERSHIP
OF THE LICENSE IS PENDING.
(2) A TEMPORARY PERMIT SHALL AUTHORIZE A TRANSFEREE TO
CONDUCT BUSINESS AND SELL FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGES AT RETAIL
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LICENSE OF THE TRANSFEROR SUBJECT TO
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
{a) THE PREMISES SHALL NAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY LICENSED BY
THE STATE AND LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITIES, ANO SUCH LICENSE
SHALL HAVE BEEN VALID AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER
OF OWNERSHIP WAS FILED WITH THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY
WHICH kAS JURISDICTION TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A
TEMPORARY PERMIT.
Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes;
dashes through words indicate deletions from existing statutes. and
such material not part of act.
(b) THE APPLICANT HAS FILED WITH THE LOCAL LICENSING ~
AUTHORITY ON FORMS PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AN
APPLICATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE
LICENSE. SUCH APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT 8E LIMITED
T0, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
(I) THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE APPLICANT; IF THE
APPLICANT IS A PARTNERSHIP, THE NAMES ANO ADDRESSES OF ALL THE
PARTNERS; AND, IF THE APPLICANT IS A CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION,
OR OTHER ORGANIZATION, THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE
PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT, SECRETARY, AND MANAGING OFFICER;
(II} THE APPLICANT'S FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED
TRANSFER;
(III) THE PRfMISES FOR WHICH THE TEMPORARY PERMIT IS
SOUGHT; AND
(IV) SUCH OTHER INFORMATION AS THE LOCAL LICENSING
AUTHORITY MAY REQUIRE.
(c) THE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY PERMIT SHALL 8E
FILED NO LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF THE
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP ANO SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED
BY A TEMPORARY PERMIT FEE NOT TO EXCEED ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS.
(3) A TEMPORARY PERMIT, IF GRANTED, BY A LOCAL LICENSING
AUTHORITY SHALL BE ISSUED WITHIN THREE WORKING DAYS AFTER THE
RECEIPT OF SUCH APPLICATION. A TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED
PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE VALID UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE
APPLICATION TO` TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF THE LICENSE TO THE
APPLICANT IS GRANTED OR FOR ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS, WHICHEVER
SHALL FIRST OCCUR; EXCEPT THAT, IF THE APPLICATION TO TRANSFER
THE LICENSE HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED DURING THE
ONE-HUNDRED-TWENTY-DAY PERIOD AND THE TRANSFEREE DEMONSTRATES
G000 CAUSE, THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY MAY EXTEND, IN ITS
DISCRETION, THE VALIDITY OF SAID PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL
PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED SIXTY DAYS.
(4) A TEMPORARY PERMIT S?;ALL ALSO BE AUTHORIZED IN THE
EVENT OF A 7RANS~ER OF POSSESSION OF LICENSED PREMISES BY
OPERATION OF LAw, A PETITION IN 9ANKRUPTCY PURSUANT TO FEDERAL
BANKRUPTCY LAW, THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER, A FORECLOSURE
ACTION BY A SECURED PARTY, OR A COURT ORDER DISPOSSESSING THE
PRIOR LICENSEE OF ALL RIGHTS OF POSSESSION PURSUANT-TO ARTICLE
40 OF TITLE 13, C.R.S.
(5) A TEMPORARY PERMIT MAY BE CANCELLED, REVOKED, OR
SUMMARILY SUSPENDED IF THE LGCAL OR STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY
DETERMINES THAT THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE
TRANSFEREE HAS VIOLATED ANY PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE OR HAS
VIOLATED ANY RULE OR REGULATION ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL OR STATE
PAGE 2-SENATE BILL 91-139
r.
r=.,
LICENSING AUTHORITY OR HAS FAILED TO TRUTHFULLY DISCLOSE THOSE
MATTERS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION FORMS REQUIRED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.
SECTION 2. Article 47 of title 12, Colorado Revised
Statutes, 1985 Repl. Vol,, as amended, is amended BY THE
ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
12-47-106.5. Temporary permit. (I) NOTWITHSTANDING
ANYTHING IN THIS ARTICLE TO THE CONTRARY, A LOCAL LICENSING
AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A
TEMPORARY. PERMIT 70 A TRANSFEREE OF ANY CLASS OF LIQUOR
LICENSE ISSUED BY THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO
THIS ARTICLE. SUCH TEMPORARY PERMIT SHALL AUTHORIZE A
TRANSFEREE TO CONTINUE SELLING SUCH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AS
PERMITTED UNDER THE PERMANENT LICENSE DURING THE PERIOD IN
WHICH AN APPLICATION TO TRANSFER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LICENSE
IS PENDING.
(2) A TEMPORARY PERMIT SHALL AUTHORIZE A TRANSFEREE TO
CONDUCT BUSINESS ANO SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT RETAIL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LICENSE OF THE TRANSFEROR SUBJECT TO
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(a) THE PREMISES WHERE SUCH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE SOLD
SHALL HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY LICENSED BY THE STATE ANO LOCAL
LICENSING AUTHORITIES, AND SUCH LICENSE SHALL HAVE BEEN VALID
AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP WAS
FILED WITH ,THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY WHICH HAS
JURISDICTION TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY PERMIT.
(b) THE APPLICANT HAS FILED WITH THE LOCAL LICENSING
AUTHORITY ON FORMS PROVIDED BY 7HE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
APPLICATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE. SUCH
APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED T0, THE
FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
(I) THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF 7HE APPLICANT; IF THE
APPLICANT IS A PARTNERSHIP, THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL THE
PARTNERS; AND, IF THE APPLICANT IS A CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION,
OR OTHER ORGANIZATION, THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE
PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT, SECRETARY, ANO MANAGING OFFICER;
(II) THE APPLICANT'S FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED
TRANSFER;
(III) THE PREMISES FOR WHICH THE TEMPORARY PERMIT IS
SOUGHT; AND
(IV) SUCH OTHER INFORMATION AS THE LOCAL LICENSING
AUTHORITY MAY REQUIRE.
PAGE 3-SENATE BILI 91-139
z_
(c) THE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY PERMIT SHALL BE
FILED NO LATER THAN THIRTY GAYS AFTER THE FILING OF THE
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED
BY A TEMPORARY PERMIT FEE NOT TO EXCEED ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS.
(3) A TEMPORARY PERMIT, IF GRANTED, BY A LOCAL LICENSING
AUTHORITY SHALL BE ISSUED WITHIN THREE WORKING DAYS AFTER THE
RECEIPT OF SUCH APPLICATION. A TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED
PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE VALID UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE
APPLICATION TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF 7HE LICENSE TO THE
APPLICANT IS GRANTED OR FOR ONE HUNDRED TWENTY GAYS, WHICHEVER
SHALL FIRST OCCUR; EXCEPT THAT, IF THE APPLICATION TO TRANSFER
THE LICENSE HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED WITHIN THE
ONE-HUNDRED-TWENTY-DAY PERIOD AND THE TRANSFEREE DEMONSTRATES
GOOD CAUSE, THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY MAY EXTEND, IN ITS
DISCRETION, THE VALIDITY OF SAID PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL
PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED SIXTY DAYS.
(4) A TEMPORARY PERMIT SHALL ALSO BE AUTHORIZED IN THE
EVENT OF A TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OF THE LICENSED PREMISES BY
OPERATION OF LAW, A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY PURSUANT TO FEDERAL
BANKRUPTCY LAW, THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER, A FORECLOSURE
ACTION BY A SECURED PARTY, OR A COURT ORDER DISPOSSESSING THE
PRIOR LICENSEE OF ALL RIGHTS OF POSSESSION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE
40 OF TITLE 13, C.R.S.
(5) A TEMPORARY PERMIT MAY BE CANCELLED, REVOKED, OR
SUMMARILY SUSPENDED IF THE LOCAL OR STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY
DETERMINES THAT THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE
TRANSFEREE HAS VIOLATED ANY PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE OR HAS
VIOLATED ANY RW.E OR REGULATION ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL OR STATE
LICENSING AUTHORITY OR HAS FAILED TO TRUTHFULLY DISCLOSE THOSE
MATTERS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION FORMS REQUIRED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.
SECTION 3. Effective date - applicability. This act
shall take effect July 1, 1991, and shall apply to licenses
for intoxicating beverages issued on or after said date.
SECTION 4. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby
PAGE 4-SENATE BILL 91-139
~4.ry
i
.r ~ _
tip.,' .
finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary far
the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and
safety.
~J .
_ ~"1 'i ` 10'~'~4'
Ted L. Strickland ~ 'C a erry ~
PRESIDENT OF ` SPEAK OF HOUSE
THE SENATE OF EPRE NTATIVES
~ ~ i..~
n M. Albi / Lee C.~~ahrych
ECRETARY OF CHIEF CLERK OF T~19E HOUSE
THE SENATE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APPROVED / 99/ /f
6
Roy er
60V OR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
PAGE 5-SENATE BILL 9I-I39