Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-21 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1992 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 2. Presentation of Grants from Colorado State Forest Service to the Town of Vail for Volunteer Tree Planting Project and the Tree Planting Brochure. 3. TCI Cablevision Presentation. 4. Trout Unlimited Presentation. 5. Consent Agenda: A. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 9, Section 5 of the Vail Municipal Code by the Addition of Chapter 9.54 -Restrictions on the Possession of Glass Containers. B. Ordinance No. 7, Series 1992, second reading, an ordinance adopting the Town of Vail Art in Public Places program policies and guidelines; establishing a board for the process of reviewing proposed public artwork for the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. C. Ordinance No. 8, Series 1992, second reading, an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail; adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 28 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Applicant: Paul Johnston) 6. Resolution No. 8, Series of 1992, a resolution recognizing "June as Recycling Month." 7. Appeal of a Design Review Board Decision Regarding Exterior Window Detailing of the Residence at 3010 Booth Creek Drive, Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing. (Appellant: Werner and Gilda Kaplan, Owner: George Caulkins, Jr.) 8. Reappointment of Housing Authority Member, Mark Ristow. 9. Adjournment. C:WGENDA.TC - VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1992 7:30 P.M. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 p.m. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:45 p.m. 2. Presentation of grants from Colorado State Forest Service to the Todd Oppenheimer Town of Vail for the Volunteer Tree Planting Project and the Tree Planting Brochure. Action Reauested of Council: Accept the grants. Backaround Rationale: The TOV Public Works Department applied for both of these grants through the Colorado State Forest Service. The Town will receive a $1,000 grant which will be applied to the 1992 Volunteer Tree Planting Project. The second grant is an educational project grant in the amount of $1,096. That grant will be applied to a tree planting brochure to be created by the TOV Public Works Department and Community Relations Department for public distribution. 7:50 p.m. 3. TCI Cablevision Presentation. Bob Shirk Structure. Goals and objectives. Backaround Rationale: Brian Shirk, State Manager, with TCI's Denver office, asked to present an informal session to Council. regarding their goals and objectives and their current fee structuring. This meeting was continued from April i4, 1992, to allow an appearance at an evening meeting that would be taped for public viewing. 8:35 p.m. 4. Trout Unlimited Presentation. Bruce Keep Backaround Rationale: The Eagle Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited recently completed a survey regarding Gore Creek's stature as an angling and recreation resource. Trout Unlimited will present survey results indicating Gore Creek is on the decline. They feel current trends need to be addressed and a long term program be instituted for public education, assessment, and maintenance of Gore Creek. (See enclosed letter dated April 7, 1992 from Bruce Keep, Trout Unlimited.) 8:55 p.m. 5. Consent Agenda: Larry Eskwith A. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 9, Section 5 of the Vail Municipal Code by the Addition of Chapter 9.54 - Restrictions on the Possession of Glass Containers. 1 Shelly Mello B. Ordinance No.. 7, Series 1992, second reading, an ordinance adopting the Town of Vail Art in Public Places program policies and guidelines; establishing a board for the process of reviewing proposed public artwork for the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Kristan Pritz C. Ordinance No. 8, Series 1992, second reading, an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development . District No. 28, Christiania at Vail; adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 28 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Applicant: Paul Johnston) 9:05 p.m. 6. Resolution No. 8, Series of 1992, a resolution recognizing "June Susan Scanlan is Recycling Month." Action Reauested of Council: Approve or deny Resolution No. 8, Series of 1992. Backaround Rationale: Last year Council passed a resolution recognizing June as "Recycling Month." Staff would like to continue this effort for 1992. This is a statewide effort. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 8, Series of 1992. 9:10 p.m. 7. Appeal of a DRB decision regarding exterior window detailing of the Shelly Mello residence at 3010 Booth Creek Drive, Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing. (Appellant: Werner and Gilda Kaplan, Owner: George Caulkins, Jr.) Action Reauested of Council: Uphold/modify/deny DRB decision. Staff requests Council members visit the site on their own as opposed to doing a site visit at the work session. Backaround Rationale: In the initial July 11, 1991, DRB approval of this residence, the DRB specified that the shutters/doors were to be a wash/stain treatment versus opaque. There was not mention of the shutters being required to be solid in color. On August 7, 1991, Council voted 4-3 to approve the residence with the condition that the shutters be "done in a solid color." On April 1, 1992, the DRB unanimously approved a request by the owners of the above residence to allow them to maintain the exterior shutters and doors as they currently exist (blue and white details). The DRB found that the scale of the building, the landscaping, and the exterior finishes were compatible with the neighborhood. The adjacent property owner is appealing the DRB decision made on April 1, 1992. 9:40 p.m. 8. Reappointment of Mark Ristow to service a 5 year term on the Town Jill Kammerer of Vail Housing Authority. 9:45 p.m. 9. Adjournment. C:UIGENDA.TCE 2 January 17, 1996 -2,4-hour turnaround for small 1~uilding Permits . ~ Responding to a raft of complaints that even piddling business takes forever to transact; the~Town .of Vail ' has reorganized. its community .development department. _ . Now, you can walk in anytime between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on normal working days - no appointment . ~ needed -and get a 24hour turnaround for small-scale building permits and other minor approvals that don't require public works or fire department approval. Oh, but the application must be complete.. ~ The ~ department also is creating a . housing division, headed by Andy ICnudtsen, and plans to improve the design review and development review processes later this year. . 'R .1 .d ' REC~IV~~ 2 1 199 To: Town of Vail, Town Council From: Jim Lamont, planning consultant Date: April 21, 1992 RE: East Village Homeowners Association On behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association, please consider the attached as an addendum to the materials previously submitted by the Association regarding the pending application of the Christiania Special Development District. Attached are copies of appropriate sections of the Town of Vail, Streetscape Master Plan as it affects the Christiania and P-3 sites. It is requested that the sections be taken into consideration during your review of the Special Development District application. cc: Bob Galvin - - _ Below Ground Utilities Construction of right-of--way improvements and sub-surface utility improvements , are disruptive to the streetscape environment. Disruption would be lessened if all ' streetscape and utility upgrade projects were coordinated together. It is recommended that the Town and the utility companies work together to complete any underground work prior to constructing streetscape improvements. This level of cooperation is even more critical since Vail's construction season is very short. For example, the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District has plans to upgrade water service soon, primarily in the Village Core. The Town of Vail also needs to upgrade or install storm sewer lines in the same area. The timing of these projects will have a substantial effect on the timing of the streetscape improvements. The Town should plan the streetscape improvements and storm sewer work to coincide with the utility work. The impact of construction will be lessened as will the cost of both utility and streetscape work Private Development As private property in Vail is being redeveloped and/or upgraded, an opportunity exists for many of the . proposed Mastex Plan improvements to be done in conjunction with or entirely by private property owners. For example, the improvements in the Gore Creek Promenade were funded in this manner. There is no way to predict which property will be redeveloped, therefore, each application for redevelopment will need to be reviewed to determine what streetscape improvements. can be completed as part of the private construction. Achieving the Greatest Impact Elements of the Streetscape PIan that are more visible and create the greatest impact should have the highest priority. Some elements that fit in this category are: - The focal point areas: • The Children's Fountain . • Seibert Circle • The intersection of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive • The intersection of Willow Bridge Road and East Meadow Drive • The Ski Museum pocket park • Slifer Square. These key areas have been designed in the Master Plan to stand as independent units and therefore can be improved in advance of the rem ;Wino streetscape work Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan page 122 ,.„x.w.. COvEREO BRIDGE 9UILDING "'~r ~ m~ sFi,n~'c 7..M-\ /lr \',\IL I•x'Krr 1'.VtA cn.`:CRLTL UKR YA tTJC1 ' I aEEKS+DE srA<o.u, sc<n.c ~NDOIAINIVI,{5 ~~y pRlf%PA\1'G ' 4', GHLLc`RV ~FY _ 9UILDIrJG ~ ncclnovtn ncrL+ tit ~ ,`~ti-' . v ~ ~ E\'FRCREE: nLESs 1. / _ - GASTHOF ^C Y ~ GRAI.t$HAI.IMER CLOCK T CO::CRkTE l'~r7 rA\'EICS gulf 5/K1)IER O~'~CR 1.1L~KiE F.Srt:I\f ~OUttT 3V4DING 1 ,i '?~;-C•~Yi 1 a/1LLCRErJ(YA7lX ~ ~ Q!y 4 , . 1~ ~ ` 04 7EQt7cE A.~"D DEL(t"CffT f ANICI:.+C p~ACE< ~1 ,,~~cc~~ ~ ~ . Y.~4 ROSY F+OMES _ ' A 6 D Bi11LDING ~;R!s~,~ ~ _ 5'' _f ~ ~ -7 @~1 ~ rt Y. ARCADE ~S1N0 BUILDING ~ A_~'D u'"nsCJ~nvc C`CJJ ~ _ p • ~ N~ * ~ ter'. y~,~~+}', RVGKSACK > : a c:.: - ,r BUILDING ~1; _ ! IdtLL GAE ~:ri; ^.~t- e ~ _ ,`•\et~\~~ REC LKJN 1Nrv ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - J. PL:.ZA ~ CONDOfAIN1Uf.15 <_J ~~:.,.c+::: ~ ~ Qr LODGE C" t . L _ ~t _ Aar iXV CNriIC~IP7Ja ;~={ic t . ~,f 5 - u+c ~*L; ~NIIJ CRl:EN 1'.cT11 `f 'f' HILL eV1LDING CYRANrjS OfaE vAIL PLACE 9VILOIvG BUILCtNG / ~ cV.~'CltTl'T. L:~II rA\'EIC: \.'l ll\.~.+J.I Y,x 7i - - YIA TEk MITI( L/IR'.TE/`.! • GOLDEf/ a_ti~ I~+GDSc V l L L AG E C O R E ' ~ VA~L VILLAGE STF~ETSGaPE ~ IA.IPROVEIv1ENT ?LAN _ '1 ' f ~ f . 1 ~ . \ 1 L ~ 8i5 f1 ~ •~tl t !t I1 Yl C. 11 ~ f There is a need for additional seating opportunities along the pedestrian system in the East Village area. Roger Staub Pazk, on East Gore Creek Drive, is an existing amenity and potential destination in this sub-axes. This is an excellent example of a pocket park It is under used due to a lack of signage to direct people to the park and because the park appears to be private property. LANDSCAPING The East Village is well-landscaped with mature trees and landscape planters. n_ The major problems are the use of railroad ties for planters in parking lots, and parking lots on Vail Valley Drive that have little or no setback or screen landscaping. Landscape treatments, that might be proposed as a part of the Master Plan, will only address those areas where landscaping infill is needed L1'1'1Ll'1~L~S Since the streets will not receive specialty paving, there should be no conflict between utility lines and improvements that will be proposed by the Master Plan. Above-ground utility pedestals, light poles, etc., at the edge of theright-of-way will have to be incorporated within the proposed pedestrian walkways. Lighting The "Town and Country" light fixture is used in the East Village area, primarily at intersections. The spacing of the lights averages 300' apart. However, there are some sections, such as Vail Valley Drive south of Manor Vail, that have no lights at all. While there were only a few public comments regarding inadequate lighting in the East Village area, it is safe to assume that some additional lighting will be required. PiIBILIC CONIIViEN'lC Residents of the East Village sub-area had a wide range of opinions on the types of streetscape improvements desired in the area. Most of the comments received focused on the Blue Cow Chute to Mill Creek Circle. portion of Vail Valley Drive. The primary areas of concern were: Town of Vail Streetacape Master Pian Page 82 - Streetscape Iynprovernent Plan East Villacge ~ a The Streetscape Improvement Plan (Figure 18) for the East Village focuses on the pedestrian corridors adjacent to the asphalt roadway. The primary goals are to create a safe environment for the pedestrian along Vail Valley Drive while accommodating the heavy vehicular traffic, and directing pedestrians to key destination points, such as the Gold Peak ski base facility, the Children's Center, Ford Park and the Ford Amphitheater and the Village Core. For Hanson Ranch Road and East Gore Creek Drive the goal is to maintain the present character but to also improve such elements as lighting, landscaping and roadway edge treatments. No major changes to the vehicular circulation system or the roadway are proposed as a part of the Plan for this sub-area. PR.EI.YII~INARY CONCEPTS Of all the sub-areas covered in this Master Plan, the East Village has remained the most consistent with the concepts that were originally proposed for the area. The concept of creating separate pedestrian comdom that are adjacent to the roadway was proposed, and adopted, very early on in the design process. Some of the other ideas and concepts that were suggested and discussed during this plann;ng process included: • Removing both the east and west-bound bus stops near the intersection of Vail Valley Drive and West Gore Creek Drive. Some of the suggestions for implementing this concept included moving the stops to the east portal of the Village parking structure and/or to the intersection Mill Creek Circle and Vail Valley Drive. The idea of moving the westbound bus stop to the parking structure was discarded because the Town's Transit Department felt it would be too close to the bus stop at Slifer Square. Moving the eastbound bus stop to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan p~ 85 Due to the scale of this sub-area and the straight forward nature of the improvements; the Plan for the East Village (Figure 18) is diagrammatic. A detail of the Blue Cow Chute to Mill Creek Circle portion of Vail Valley Drive (Figure 19) ' is provided to better illustrate the proposed improvements for this sub-area. The Design Concept There was clear public consensus that asphalt roadways with wide sidewalks, separated from the street by curb and gutter, were appropriate on Vail Valley Drive. There was also general agreement that where there ,was only room for a wide sidewalk on one side of the street, the west and south sides would be best suited. Pedestrian ways on the west and south sides provide good access to the major destinations in the area -the Village Core, Gold Peak and the Children's Center. The proposed improvements are also intended to highlight and improve access to Ford Park and the Nature Center. Improving vehicular circulation, by removing pedestrians from the street will be an additional benefit of these proposed changes. For Hanson Ranch Road and East Gore Creek Drive, the concept of the pedestrians and vehicles shank the same roadway was generally endorsed as a workable solution, given the very narrow rightrof--way and lower traffic volume. Throughout this area, more landscaping is necessary to soften the building facades and to screen surface parking lots. Pedestrian Circulation The proposed streetscape improvements for the East Village sub-area are as follows: Vail Valley Drive (from Blue Cow Chute to the entry to Manor Vail) West and South Sides: Concrete unit paver walkway, 8' - 10' wide East and North Sides: Concrete unit paver sidewalk, 5' - 6' wide At this time, the primary pedestrian path is proposed to go on the south side of Vail Valley Drive, adjacent to Vail Associates' Day Lot. Having parked cars immediately adjacent to a major walkway is less than desirable, however, the path is proposed in this location with the intent that, as the site redevelops, allowances will be made for pedestrians. Town of Vail Streetacape Master Plan Page 8? • Vail Valley Drive (from Manor Vail's north entry to the soccer field) South Side: Concrete unit paver walkway, 8' - 10' wide - Retaining walls will be needed in some areas due to an inadequate right-of--way and a hillside being immediately adjacent to the roadway. - There is no sidewalk proposed for the north side of the street due to the tight physical constraints along the northerly right-of-way line. - A sidewalk crosswalk solution will be necessary to provide safe pedestrian access through the Golden Peak bus turnaround area. • The existing Vista Bahn/Gold Peak recreational trail and the pedestrian connection to Ford Park through Manor Vail, will be used as a part of this sub-area's pedestrian system Manor Vail's entry to Ford Park should include additional signing or an entry statement. • Additional minor pedestrian paths, either concrete or asphalt, are proposed as follows: - An east/west connection between Vail Valley Drive and the existing recreational trail west of the Tivoli. - A path north of the tennis courts to the north entry of the Gold Peak ski base facility. • The existing shared use of the street, by pedestrians and vehicles on Hanson Ranch Road and East Gore Creek Drive will continue. Brick or concrete unit paver bands should be added at the edge of the asphalt to better define the roadway. • Consider eliminating the winter-time parking use on Chalet Road. Closure of the dead-end road and development of a pocket park/open space area should be pursued. Town of Vai] Streetscape Master Plan Page ~ Additional landscaping is needed azound the e~sting parking lot between Hanson , Ranch Road and East Gore Creek Drive. , Roger Staub Pazk also provides an excellent seating opportunity, however better signage and lighting is needed to direct pedestrians to the park. Removal of a portion of the existing fence along East Gore Creek Drive is recommended and, overall, a "public park" image should be attained. Additional picnic tables should be added. Lighting and utilities will be covered in the Guidelines for Paving, Public Art, Site ' Furnishings and Lighting section of this report. Implementing the Concept Figure 19 is a detail of Vail Valley Drive from the bridge over Gore Creek south to Mill Creek Circle. The detail illustrates: ° The major and minor pedestrian paths on each side of the street; ° The integration of a bus stop into the Garden of the Gods' site; • Additional landscaping and the proposed focal points; • Reconfiguring the parking at the Vorlaufer to provide for a pedestrian walkway on the west side of Vail Valley Drive. Of the 12 existing spaces, two "guest" parking spaces for the Vorlaufer may need to be relocated to the east side of Vail Valley Drive. The final design shall ensure that there is no net loss of parking spaces for the Vorlaufer, • Relocation of parking and planters on the east side of Vail Valley Drive; and • Widening the Vail Valley Drive bridge over Gore Creek to better accommodate the proposed pedestrian walkways, • Adding a neck down at the east end of Hanson Ranch Road (at Vail Valley Drive). This narrowing of the roadway discourages unnecessary traffic and provides an opportunity for additional landscaping. Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan Page ~ removed to allow for subgrade repairs and can be replaced immediately after the work is finished. The primary paving unit for the Master Plan area is recommended to be the 4" x 8" x 3 1/2" rectangular paver (the dimensions may vary with manufacturer). The pavers .are typically set on a sand/gravel base. The design for the sub-base will vary with soils type and the type of vehicle that will be using the roadway. Detailed soils testing and roadway engineering will be necessary to determine the appropriate roadway section for each area as it is improved. Streets that will be handling bus or truck traffic on a continuous basis will require, at a minimum, a geotextile under a high capacity gravel sub-base or a concrete slab as a sub-base. Once again, the final design for this type of roadway will depend on the existing soils. The paving pattern for the pedestrian streets in the Village Core and for East ~ ~ ~ L L ~ ~ Meadow Drive will be as shown in l~gure 15. The primary field will be a basic t ~ herringbone design with a double soldier course at the edges of the right-of-way, j ~ ,v. and regular, perpendicular bands along the length of the street. The bands and soldier course will allow for paving to be phased by creating potential ,y,~ ~ ~ beo nning/end for the paving system. The soldier course will also serve to separate the public right-of-way paving from the range of materials allowed on private ~ ~ property. At times, the distinction between public and private land should not be ? ~ delineated if good design is better served by blending the boundary. Please see the comments relating to paving design in the Village Core sub-area. During the public review of the proposed streetscape options, there was consensus that the paving treatments in the Village area should be simple rather than intricate. Therefore, a simple paving pattern is proposed, one which would not compete with Vail's unique architecture and that can be constructed in phases. PROPOSED COLOR. RANGE Recommendations for a specified color mix are being made to establish a starting point for the final detailed design. The actual color mix may change once a final design is submitted and reviewed. The range of tints for concrete unit pavers is almost unlimited. Given the scale of this project, special "Vail Blends" could be produced specifically for the Town. This would give the Town complete flexibility to develop a Town of Vai! Streetscape Master Plan p~ g7 The lighting along East Meadow Drive certainly does not reflect its position as one of Vail's primary retail commercial areas. The lighting design is not . , only inappropriate but along the west half of the area, the light levels are also inadequate. There is essentially no lighting along the south side of the street. The orange tinted, cube fixtures found along the west half of West Meadow Drive should be replaced by the "Village" fixture. The intersection of Willow Bridge Road and East Meadow Drive is also seriously underlit. Existing pole and building mounted accent lights that shine directly down on pedestrians should also be replaced. A framework of streetlighting using the "Village" fixture is needed throughout the corridor. For areas where there are commercial uses- fronting on the street, a mixture of light sources should be encouraged. Window displays should also be included as a part of the overall lighting scheme. Private property owners should be encouraged to install subtle lighting for landscaped areas along with bollard lights and building illumination. These supplemental light sources should be used to round- out the framework established by the Town's right-of-way lighting. The intersection of Willow Bridge Road and East Meadow Drive should have a higher lighting level than other sections of the street. On the east half of Meadow Drive, additional lighting is needed, especially along the area adjacent to the Village parking structure. ° The Village Core (Figure 25) The nightlighting for the Village Core should be varied and carefully planned_ By far, the best approach i.s have one integrated lighting plan. While some areas such as the Gore Creek Promenade and upper Bridge Street are adequately lit, other areas such as Gore Creek Drive along the Lodge at Vail, need additional lighting. It is recommended that the Town provide a basic framework of "Village" fixtures and that the private property owners be encouraged to supplement the Town's lighting with their own accent lighting. In time, this system would achieve the proper level of lighting throughout the Village Core and still provide the range of varied light sources that provide the best lighting scheme. Lighting plans Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan Page 114 ~ > ~ @G Wit! ,~,~~;o for each proposed upgrade will need to be carefully evaluated and compared to the existing conditions. Figure 25 shows one possible approach to creating the appropriate level of lighting for the Village Core area using a variety of light sources. • East Village (Figure 18) The lighting needs for the East Village are similar to West Meadow Drive. A good framework of "Town and Country" lights is already in place and it will only be necessary to add lights where there are gaps in the coverage. For this sub-area the "Town and Country" fixture will be appropriate for _ the foreseeable future. Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan Page llb ' - 5 s 1 tIi 7 ~ ; ~ ~ '~4 _ J - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ e . , ti ~ y4 x i 4 M ; ti : . .ice ~:?::!V!'Rr. V • , S` ` 'I x ,.era:. ~ - . ~ . s." 'o . `h, w , y~ ~ e 2 -;Y , ~ t r+ p. Vii.: ` ~V c h` . tp .~l- x ' - .n - ~ ' t:: A L :~'~..y. i.., ~.i ~ ~ 'i .a:: - 1` ~ 4 ~ j "'fGV+""' s -:+Yf:~:'Lj w~~. 2~ . a ~ , ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ _ . h ,~s., b ~y Y - _ o ~ • .r; t 1~~~.„~~i ~ nl o .~s..i?±;_S 44 . ~e a lw' ~ yt mow. F4gure `~5 , TREE GRATES AND GUARDS Tree grates are recommended for street trees when they are used in an urban setting, such as the Village Core. A number of manufacturers produce this site amenity so the Town is not limited to the product shown below. The intent is to allow additional opportunities to bring a beautiful design accent into the streetscape. mss.` c~~ li~i~~~ _ , ~I~l~ll~r~o f.~ o ~Ya• ~ ~ I. z..• TREE GRATES TREE GUAI~.D , WALLS Retaining walls and planter walls can make a significant contribution to the character of a streetscape. For the most part, Vail has seen great success in this area with the extensive use of stone-faced and boulder walls. The following guidelines are intended to build on that success. • Walls should integrate into planters or be used for retaining earth. Freestanding walls are discouraged. • The use of caps on walls should be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. If caps are to be used, then the cap should maintain a natural finish to the wall. Town of Vuil Slreclecape MuaLer I'lun Page 107 • Only durable materials should be used with a preference for locally - , obtained stone. Railroad tie walls are not recommended. _ • Walls higher than 3 feet should be terraced. • Large boulders should punctuate walls when possible to soften the linear appearance of a wall. • Boulder walls are strongly encouraged, as this type of design is very compatible with Vail's natural setting. • Walls should not be geometric, but should gently undulate. r MISCELLANEOUS ELEMENT'S A number of miscellaneous site elements would typically be included in a streetscape plan such as decorative bollards, fencing, phone booths, bulletin boards, kiosks, etc. At this time, most of these elements have not been identified as being needed in the study area. • Utility boxes and pedestals, when possible, should be placed in below grade vaults or, at a minimum, should be screened by landscaping. D m O ~ ~ BII.ow-ca$ouxn o$ sc~Errsn vrII.rr~s Town of Vuil Strcetacupe Muster Plun pogo log rY _ . fi-~~ -_-~-~~GZrf~ - ~~u - - _ _ ~A~~ - _ _ _ _ . _ . • ei• N Dug ~A~~ ~t~ts~ErJ-~--~rtR~.c~ _~~G~ A~ - . EdrEs~ror~ L~Gr~ , p~N~~1L~, its ~'~'n~ A5-A~~16W~lh ~ R~~'110~1 t~:~tt~~. il~t~ 1M5~.~IA~G~ ~ q~ c~~~t~2~+~u?~s _ Ain ~Uy D1~ ~l~' ~ Cc~{I.1~ fi~h~K pF.~A'l.S~~?~S -~ts~r~ - - G~• fi~ RISE wA5 s`~~E'~t~Jb• - - - - xTs ~ ~JroN r~,~v ~ Ail ~C~Ls ~~uuD ~o~~~~~ _ ~ , ~r 1s~~ -_rr~ Gz~?~_AIh:~~L s~~rzrs--,tor- VYftN st~~M'J~~l6 . ~~?!dl' NUn~(~~LS 5_~t ~ ~rr~1D~~ f~ flit ~ ?D -A- _ _ - - ~n~~ ~~(iT~ ~ fi~ ~?vST s~tr~-~,~b~pA~2rr~A~us~~u1~ 5 Ylt'1C~'!t?A15-• -A?"~tf~--~ZIStC.t~ _~f.~liJ~hl b A_ ~q~?nl S.T;w~l~ ~ - - - - GU21~~~11~5 A~~~A~1D, Aft ~ t~~S'(; GD~1~7~VI ~6~~ _~_IN - ~~uG.~~Cirl~r,~,l.~ - -A~'~S~ f bud ti'~~N1~N(,~_. -~S.-~cID_1" fi~-~~ ~Zl~ _1l'Y~'Lt1 _ . . ~U1JG1 ~ ~ /1~1})aJC~ AS A ~A~l f~St~lt~l_i~ LN{~C"/V~~T tel..-~ -k~:6GrG~~ _ . -`.GFffI~b11.~1TIW1~l-Ct~INJCIL_M3F?bt)-6_JS.~Sfl~S7R~i9f3GC~_A~11~A.f_. - 6RRLIEST_Ca~!t!~D(~G~ -~P~',~~f~f~J.S~ut<OAAZ~ - --A.I~.~20_fD ~r"OJV~U.7-AT'MD5~1_lbv0 V!II,L_INf~IAQ~.~~'7RA_G?~[E~~- - - - G1~~Hc-~A~%faf ~-LPL ?~1+9NK5,-I~?,~irA_ ~Ar~Y£-tz~2-t~u~t~ n~1 - SIN~2~ - _ . - - fl . GORE CREEK SURVr:Y t The following questionaire involves both current and past fishing conditions on Gore creek. and will enable the Board members of the Eagle Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited to complete a project currently underway. The information you provide will be used in upcoming presentations to local, county, state, and federal agencies. The information we recieve will be used for collation of data ONLY, and names and references to specific persons and/or events will remain confidential. Details and explanations of this project, and its' goals, will be outlined at the next chapter meeting in early December. So Grab a pen or pencil and please take a few minutes to fill this out, and please have it in return mail no later than Nov.31,1991. Thank you, Eagle Valley Chapter Trout Unlimited Board of Directors _ 1) Name 2) Phone 2) Address • 3)How long have you lived in the valley? 4)How many days (app.) did you fish Gore Creek this year? 5)Approximately how much over the past three years? 6)What area of the creek do you predominately fish? 7)Have you seen a significant change over the .past three years? YES NO 8)If yes to X17, please explain. 9)What is your average size and specie caught? SIZE RAINBOW CUTTHROAT BROWN BROOK 10)In your opinion, has fishing pressure increased? YES NO 11)How many more or less fishermen have you seen, on a daily basis, over the past three years? 12)While fishing Gore Creek have you ever been asked to present a valid iisiiir~g license? YES NO How many times (if applicable) 13)What agency asked you? D.O.W. Vail P.D. County sherriff State Patrol 14)Have you personally witnessed any violations of current regulations, or found evidence of same? YES NO a)If yes, please describe b)If yes, did you make an effort to contact an enforcement official? YES NO c)If yes to b), which office did you contact? d)To the best of your knowledge, was there any follow-up? YES NO UNSURE 15)How important to YOU is the preservation of open space along the Gore Creek corridor? Extremely Very Somewhat Not very Concerned,but need more info. 16)Do you support the proposal to locate future employee housing on the lower bench of Donovan Park ? YES NO NOT SURE 17)Finally, if you have seen any instances of damage to the riparian habitat in the Gore Creek corridor that could be of damage to the creek itself, please outline and give specific details and locations below.(i.e.,garbage deposition, loss of willows or streamside cover,or damage to creek banks etc., etc.) In closing, we thank you for your input and immediate attention to this survey. Any further comments or items you feel need addressing .can be written on the back of this survey, or addressed to Bruce Keep @ 476-~0. L~1~ To help with quick turn-around our address is on the opposite flap from your mailing label, just re-fold so it is visible, then staple or tape closed and drop in the mailbox. Again thank you for your cooperation. SEE YOU IN DECEPIBER! ! ! ! I C~K~tr~c _ _~F~ ~sE~r£~_f~_y_u9~~~r~ ~ACr~ cuA~?r~cL.~u~~vnr_r~n ~QPkG~tC~lJS _CI_v_~2_~V1C~~N~~J~1Z~q' Nu!~ ~52.5~~ 1 G~?~~~ Sum Q.._R_G~MC71o~i-f~'I"N~(mg~L~ ~crE_?D_= AA-_2Eb~t~AitO~lS_V_~~cAiio~v5 ~P._~tJSS_tf~lc_ Rr~}21AA1_A_(~~1~ re._i~lr~ls~n16 AnL6~E2_~55UR~ -~?,rrcrN~ oF_Surl?ky _ -~__r1Nc7_ ~~SNES-f~i2~ C2l~K - _ _Z. aVb. D11~5--~a2. ~C~1,2_~Gf~r~(~G~?'L - 3~ ~non~Ls) ~~Nr~wb ~~rzr5 - - - ~_~?~xr~~rwnorr ~~r~~ea~25 A. ave.. 5~2E_ R. s~ciE~ c. uUn,n,~a~ 2 a~5 krnun - -~TQASSlST-ru~Gtru2E f.~RMi~lAfrvN ~r "P_~J(Na~11'AT ~f5.. Wt(N f~Uod~1DA5~'(AT6~dAlG~2t~•FIA~iC(ArS,~t7cA~~ItJTS~ ~IIY1~n1f~~i~S~C~Gy f17/Z RIP~Q1.~ y~~~~IJ) - - 5 Slt,~.?~~1/~EnlCEpfA~~(k~2~2E~N2E _ _ _ ~JSI~AI, GMf~1GE t~ UCG~1SE~k~EUI11Tlon15 ~~GKS - 7. _'.'_Sl~t~f9Jl(X~JI.E DF ~e~UtA7~~lJS VIOt,~tllvNS - - i S~+c~/_~~su~T~ ~ co_v~2,~t~~ia~i~NT~~r_s o~~,~ . ---(.---MA~~~G_v1T-L3a ~~G?R~,1 ~ f-~2__~aVL~._3_~lo R~s~1.t17ArJTS_~t~- ~:Or~S~I-LZYlE CMG-W-?~1sf 3 y~925~.- - - SU2vC-~ l~aEs110~1 A~vb. Au6c~_~~ s~.rr_ -i ~ na ffs ~2~R ~ aNr~ti._ - - ----~acvuE_cc~s~rur~s c~c._Zaa~ a~r~ o~ys t~s2 3 yrz ~v~). . _ ~ Q~i n~osT~sN~ ` -lam M~1A~~C~toN - - - Slravr~ cA~f G(~A~IbES ~ 9/v ~E5 w_~o~ Anf6~o25,L ~rs~ - A~f~ S~Zc ~ S~~Gi~S-Cllvif~fT :._J_~`~~5 - _ - 7~ ~~V ~Il~.l(1.FJV~ ~S~O._ ~~I.J . fJ-CIO C(.{lj~{~tJA~ Z ~ID P AC _ ~ 12 . CUAI,tCJ(~fJ_~L UC(~JSE.~ IGJOWI,6!)bE U% k'~6V1[~}?70~J~ ~ _ ~c _ _ . _ ---~r9°~~ uo - - - _ _ _ _ ~r~{. v,Irn~~s51-D_ f~+umor~s v1o1sM~1v5 ~ - - - . - - ~~5 DF YI.OCA~10~15 ' I (,ff~A~111CK1-E ~ KIGG1~,11~ c~ U~'GSI ZL~ FrsN; ~s DF~~s~f7AK(aJ ~Epi~lb ~i~i~~P.aA6/fbss. Ci~nrP f~• ~f~f?D C~/J121GT U}W ~nl~t~Rl,~M~f~fFfGIA~~A(aE1.fGy - ------~(S v~0 ~l0 - - I ~ d U5 ~i '1}FE I/, ~.V•TU • 1~0~ ~IGL~ ~i}GI ZE ~}~f?~ sUcu rz~s~vr~sESc~u,~~ c~r.~s~c-DAs s~cu~ari~,~r' Pxs~' ~T~s, A~'r6~L~c~, o~r~.~ ~4 sUrL~. _ wE G€~ fEE~, Nv'w~~G'L, ~HAt ~ P-&S~~o~1sE5 ~i rNE -----~f}271C1(~An~IS_A~ll~ CAr,~E~~ A(~GifZ~i7E. (~EI~Jb~,1N~ ~~b'1K' f~Wi~ 2~tFf-5_~nl rl'SE~P, A~2b95 c~Gr.3VG~a2~V AND~~J71AL ~ . ~zvf_~zMS~SE2~lJN_I~ ~ ~ N {~'~L_4~~r>1~Ar_1G1~1f~~ (~,~2~ ~,2~fC._AS~I~A~IAbE ~a5N6.2~j./_fd~GC~,~ittOrJ_f~sc~U~~ I~~Cv'~NQ1E~f1?/fiG~l~ !~~~2itMrn&>aAt~E_~ G~S~~~r_C~f~z}t~u~~FIE_~wtrN{~l- '~LG!NA_?1G1.f_G~=_ GX_(~ 1S~IJ1}1~]2(~]t~ffRt~~.~~(-(~( ~Fi12T A_ f' ~~IC_E~ACst'f)c7~ ~ _ L~~f_~1_S11~1J~11~~~LVIlzN~~[ 2. R~cano~s_cI~GLS 3. fh) ~M~ co~umu_S~u_WCAG ~1(~'25 us~1~1f~ Acc&s5_, ~fiUCR11AV5,_~lG. -N~7~GlANGlER6E_~z?AltlcnJ(~ 5, RG~ArL ct~17,~r~(a2soIJ~1~(,1nAi~)w(~_ - ~ r~wsr_AU,1tl~ A~P~ -f~! ~N C~.r1wJG~ruN wrt~ ~N_Uf_ _ ~lAl~, R O.W. ~ VAII. ~f~, ~}I6c~ C~Uti~ SFfE'~UiFS_OFFiCc, ETG• - - ------NK~nPxlL50_F?:U~ ~(~rG2 °A~o~IRrt~ ~0_wU.i1~25. - . - ~I~IK~ir~tA{alAnlcE~C~t~Jj vf~tGW~-ro - _ ~SE1.f1-f~1~2~iNOnJb51D~'ff~TOuNDF'~At~~O~t U~.. - - Slnf - .~~.r - - - ?Afc~~16cEViGU.6/ ~11~it1"UNUV~tftt~ i.. hOf7lT?Ot_JA_ L-~1Cti25}~UI~LfS'~5_~tA_ G'tE!~ IrJ C~IAntGi2oN W_tM (C(z~K-Su~~ Arr~ ~s&J~1?ON ~(~iT/~ttiuhl 1~C'G~-~,~I,llJ(~ - f_~61G1~IA..CD_ll?,~~it72_~tSN6rUE_S~_~OW AGAN_~Zf,~(KGtSN -_(c~61~LAL_AQNEFI-(G-~fD(~O~ISf,_D-•I~,W. c~uE w~rmr_- rz?Pa~+~ti ~~rs_ca~~~rv2~_~+?~rc~wry ~Av_?262?nir~=c~r7n!~ar~2-~ f~a,~cr~~L.- (LiCN~~ ~I(luES_- _Ct~n1r~N~1 rt ~ ChviSr_onl,_~x~.rcf,~2c(~AtID~1~s_OF~fI,~ ORDINANCE NO. 5 SERIES 1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, SECTION 5 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE B3Y THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 9.54 - RESTRICTIONS ON THE POSSESSION OF GLASS CONTAINERS. WHEREAS, taking glass containers and bottles onto the public parks and athletic fields within the Town of Vail has caused a safety and litter problem. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. Title 9, Section 5 -Offenses Against Property - is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 9.54 -Restrictions on Glass Containers to read as follows: Section 9.53.010 -Restrictions on Glass Containers Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to: a) Enter or remain in any Town of Vail park or Town of Vail athletic field in the possession of a glass bottle or glass container. 9.454.020 -Exceptions a) Glass containers and bottles shall be permitted on the premises of any liquor licensed establishment. b) Glass bottles and glass containers shall be permitted on the premises of any event which has obtained a special events liquor license. 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 1 herein. 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 7th day of April, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 21st day of April, 1992, at 7:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 21st day of April, 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk C:\ORD92.5 2 f ORDINANCE NO. 7 SERIES 1992 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE TOWN OF VAIL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM POLICIES AND GUIDELINES; ESTABLISHING A BOARD FOR THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING PROPOSED PUBLIC ARTWORK FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's opinion that the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Town of Vail would be enhanced by the establishment of an Art in Public Places program setting forth policies and guidelines relating to the funding, reviewing, purchasing, and deaccessioning of art to be placed on public property; and WHEREAS, in order to administer the Art in Public Places program, the Town Council, in accordance with Section 8.6 of the Charter of the Town of Vail wishes to create an Art in Public Places Board. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado that: Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Section 2.26 - Public Art Program, to read as follows: Section 2.26.010 The Town Council of the Town of Vail hereby adopts the Art in Public Places program including the Art in Public Places program policies and guidelines dated July 1989 and as they may be amended from time to time by resolution of the Town Council. Section 2.26.020 The Town Council hereby appoints the Town of Vail Arts Board composed of eight (8) members who shall act in accordance with the Charter, this Chapter, the direction of the Town Council, the ordinances of the Town of Vail, and shall be appointed and serve as provided in this Chapter. Section 2.26.030 -Members -Appointments -Terms The Arts Board shall consist of eight (8) members appointed by the Town Council which shall include six (6) members at large, one (1) Town Council member, and one (1) Planning and Environmental Commission member. In addition, the Arts Board may consist of honorary advisory members who shall not have the power to vote on issues which come before the Board. The number and term of such advisory members shall be at the discretion of the Town Council. All members of the Arts Board shall be individuals who have demonstrated expertise in architecture, art criticism, art education, art history, foreign arts, graphic arts, interior design, landscape architecture, town planning, or other art and design related fields, or who have demonstrated a strong interest in the visual arts and civic improvement. All members shall either be residents of the Town of Vail, or own property within the Town of Vail, or own a business, or be employed within the Town of Vail. The terms of the members of the Arts Board shall be for three (3) years. 1 ~ ~ Section 2.26.040 -Removal from Office Members of the Arts Board shall serve at the will of the Town Council and shall be subject to removal by the Town Council for inefficiency, neglect of duty, failure to attend meetings, malfeasance in office, or any other reasons the Town Council deems proper. Section 2.26.050 - Vacancy Vacancies on the Arts Board shall occur whenever a member of the Arts Board is removed by the Town Council, dies, becomes incapacitated and unable to perform his or her duties for a period of sixty (60) days, resigns, ceases to meet the qualifications for Arts Board members, or is convicted of a felony. Vacancies shall be filled by a majority vote at the Town Council. Section 2.26.060 -Officers - Meetinas -Rules The Arts Board shall elect a Chairman from among the members and shall fill such other offices as they may determine. The Chairman shall not be a member of the Town Council, the Design Review Board, or the Planning and Environmental Commission. The term of the Chairman shall be for one (1) year, with eligibility for re-election for one (1) additional term. The Arts Board shall meet as it determines to be necessary, and its meetings shall be in accordance with Roberts Rules of Procedure unless it adopts other rules for the transaction of business. The Board shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, findings, and determinations. Section 2.26.070 -Function of the Arts Board The Arts Board's functions shall include without limitation: a) To promote and encourage the development and public awareness of any interest in the fine and performing arts in the Town of Vail; b) To advise the Town Council in connection with all matters relating to the artistic and cultural development of the Town; c) To perform such other functions associated with the arts as the Town Council may, from time to time, direct; d) To assist in the preparation of applications for grants or other sources of funding for arts programs for the Town; e) To administer the Town arts program, its policies and guidelines. 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, 2 I ~ ~ sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 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. 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. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 7th day of April, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 21st day of April, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 21st day of April, 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk C:\ORD92.7 3 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8 Series of 1992 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28, CHRISTIANIA AT VAIL; ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vait Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, application has been made for Special Development District approval for a certain parcel of property within the Town, legally described as Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P-3, Block 5-A, Vail Village Fifth Filing; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed SDD, and has submitted a recommendation for approval 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 Vail Municipal Code. 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 for Special Development Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied. Section 2 The Town Council finds that the development plan for Special Development District No. 28 meets each of the standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail or demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. In accordance with Section 18.40.040, the development plan for Special Development District No. 28 is approved. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh Architects, and consists of the following documents: `1 i 1. Sheet No. A1, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (site plan). 2. Sheet Nos. A2-A5, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (first, second, third and fourth floor plans). 3. Sheet No. A6, dated January 27, 1992 (roof plan). 4. Sheet Nos. A7-A9, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (North, South, East and West elevations). 5. Sheet No. L1, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 6 and March 16, 1992 (landscape plan). 6. Parking Plan for Lot P-3, dated February 8, 1992 and revised February 18, 1992 and March 16, 1992. 7. North elevation of lobby, dated April 22, 1991. Section 3 The Town Council finds that any deviation of the development standards from the underlying zone district provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. The development standards for Special Development District No. 28 are approved by the Town Council as a part of the approved development plan as follows: A. SETBACKS: Setbacks shall be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance. B. HEIGHT: Building height, for a sloping roof, shall not exceed 48 feet from existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive; or for a flat or mansard roof, shall not exceed 45 feet from existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. C. DENSITY: Development in SDD No. 28 shall be limited to a maximum of 3 dwelling units and 21 accommodation units, as designated on the floor plans set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance, and as follows: 1. The Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) shall be limited to a maximum of 14,117 sq. ft., of which 7,335 sq. ft shall be dedicated to accommodation units, 5,041 sq. ft. shall be dedicated to dwelling units and 1,741 sq. ft. 2 r ~I shall be dedicated to excess common area. It should also be noted that the provision for an additional 425 sq. ft. of GRFA, which is applicable to certain zone districts, does not apply to this Special Development District. 2. The applicant or his successors in interest agree to permanently restrict one off-site dwelling unit, (the secondary unit in a primary/secondary residence located at 1184 Cabin Circle/Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Valley First Filing, for use by employees of the Upper Eagle Valley (employee housing unit) in the following manner: a. The employee housing unit shall be provided with a full kitchen (refrigerator, stove, sink, oven/microwave) and 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 successors in interest shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions with the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure the restrictions set forth herein shall run with the land. Said declaration 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 be issued for the redevelopment of this Special Development District No. 28 until said declaration of covenants and restrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 3. The applicant or his successors in interest agree to permanently restrict one on-site dwelling unit, (the third floor dwelling unit in the Christiania Lodge) located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, according to Section 17.26.075 -Condominium Conversion, of 3 the Town of Vail Zoning Code. The applicant or his successors in interest shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions with the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure the restrictions set forth herein shall run with the land. Said declaration 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 be issued for the redevelopment of this Special Development District No. 28 until said declaration of covenants and restrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. D. SITE COVERAGE: The maximum allowable site coverage for Lot D shall not exceed 39% of the buildable lot size and shall be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance. E. LANDSCAPING: At least thirty-two percent (32%) of Lot D shall be landscaped and shall be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance. F. PARKING: Parking for SDD No. 28 shall be met as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance. Section 4 The applicant or his successors in interest agrees to perform the following: 1. The applicant or his successors in interest shall obtain a revocable right-of-way permit from the Town in order to add the proposed landscaping at the entrance to the Lot P-3 parking area, as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance. ' 2. The applicant or his successors in interest has agreed to financially participate in the construction of a sidewalk along the west side of the Mill Creek Court Chute, 4 from Hanson Ranch Road to West Gore Creek Drive, as designated in the Town's adopted Streetscape Master Plan. Such financial contribution shall not exceed one third of the total cost of the sidewalk. 3. The applicant or his successors in interest has agreed that should any of the relocated evergreens not survive two growing seasons, such tree shall be replaced with an 8-10' evergreen on a one-to-one ratio. Section 5 Amendments to the approved development plan may be granted pursuant to Section 18.40 of the Municipal code of the Town of Vail. Section 6 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 7 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 8 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, 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. 5 ,x Section 9 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1992. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1992, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk 6 v ~ MEMORANDUM 7 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the • Christiania at Vail, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot P-3, Block 5-A, Vail Village Fifth Filing. Applicant: Paul Johnston • Planner: Mike Mollica i""!,S I. INTRODUCTION Paul Johnston, owner and operator of the Christiania at Vail, has filed a request for the establishment of a Special Development District, for his property located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road. The purpose for this SDD establishment is to allow for the expansion and redevelopment of the existing Christiania Lodge. The Christiania at Vail has an existing, Town approved development plan. This development plan was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission on April 8, 1991. This approval granted a setback variance in order to allow for the expansion of the Christiania Lodge's lobby and a 44 sq. ft. expansion of GRFA (on the proposed fourth floor), into the setback. This setback variance is valid until April 8, 1992. Subsequent to this PEC approval of the variance, the Design Review Board, on June 5, 1991, unanimously approved the final design for the Christiania redevelopment. This redevelopment included the expansion of the _ existing lobby, the addition of mechanical space beneath the lobby, and the addition of a new fourth floor, which included two new dwelling units. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant's redevelopment proposal generally includes the upgrade and renovation of the existing Christiania Lodge, as follows: The addition of a new fourth floor on the existing structure, which would consist • of two dwelling units. • A general reconfiguration of the existing first, second and third floors of the Lodge, by reconfiguring accommodation units, adding dwelling units as well as common area. A total of 21 accommodation units and 3 dwelling units, . comprising 14,117 sq. ft. of GRFA, is proposed. • The expansion of the existing Sarah's Bar, from 774 sq. ft. to 1,171 sq. ft. in ' size (an increase of 397 sq. ft.). • The construction of a garage which would provide two on-site covered parking spaces. The garage would be located at the southwest corner of the building. Additional GRFA would be located over the garage area, on floors two, three and four. 1 The construction of 19 valet (surface) parking spaces, to be located on the , ' adjacent Parcel P-3, to the north. This parking area would be surfaced with asphalt, and would be landscaped around its perimeter. • The restriction of one of the three dwelling units, according to the Condominium Conversion section of the zoning code. • The provision of one off-site, permanently restricted employee housing unit. • The construction of a walking path, along the east side of Mill Creek (this will require approval from Vail Associates, owner of the tract). The existing split rail fence, located adjacent to Mill Creek, would be removed, as would the approximately 550 sq. ft. of asphalt area, currently used for parking and the trash dumpster. The relocation and enclosure of the trash dumpster, to the northwest corner of the Christiania property. • Additional landscaping would be added on,and adjacent to the Mill Creek stream tract (which is owned by Vail Associates) and adjacent to the recreation path. • The screen fence located around the swimming pool would be relocated onto the Christiania Lodge's property, (it is currently on the stream tract). • Of the seven proposed fireplaces, six are proposed to be gas. The existing woodburning fireplace located in Sarah's Bar will remain woodburning. III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY A. May 11, 1987 -the Planning and Environmental Commission voted to approve density and setback variances in order to allow for the construction of additions to the Christiania Lodge. Subsequent to the 1987 PEC approval of the variance request, no construction has occurred. B. March 6, 1991 - a redevelopment proposal which did not require any variance/PEC approvals was reviewed and approved by the Design Review . Board (DRB). Under this redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposed to add a new fourth floor to the existing structure to accommodate 2 new dwelling units, to remodel the structure's interior, to construct a walking path along Mill Creek, to screen the existing dumpster, to pave and landscape the eastern half of the northern parking lot (when ownership and rights to this lot are resolved), and to remove a portion of an existing asphalted area adjacent to the proposed Mill Creek walking path. C. April 8, 1991 -the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved a setback variance fQt' the Christiania Lodge in order to allow for the expansion of the Lodge's lobby and a 44 sq. ft. expansion of GRFA (on the proposed fourth floor), into the front setback area. D. June 5, 1991 -the Design Review Board unanimously granted final design approval for the redevelopment of the Christiania Lodge, as approved by the PEC on April 8, 1991. 2 - IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zone District: Public Accommodation Site Area: 0.380 acres or 16,553 sq. ft. . The following zoning analysis highlights the SDD's departures, from the PA zone district, by the use of bold type: Underlying Zoning LAS Existing Prolect 1991 Approval 1992 SDD A. Density (25 DUs per 9 DUs 2 DUs and 25 AUs 2 DUs and 14 AUs 3 DUs and 21 AUs .13.5 buildable acre: 1 DU . 2 = 14.5 DUs = 9 DUs DUs AUs) B. AU GRFA' N/A 6,720 sq. ft. 7,850 sq. ft. 7,335 sq. ft. DU GRFA' N/A 1,082 sq. ft. 4,453 sq. ft. 5,041 sq. ft. Excess Common N/A 145 sq. ft. 1,021 sq. ft. 1,741 sq. ft. C. Total GRFA' (80% of 13,242 sq. ft. 7,802 sq. ft. 13,324 sq. ft. 14,117 sq. ft. the buildable site area) (80%) (47%) (80%) (85%) D. Common Area (35% of 4,635 sq. ft. 4,780 sq. ft. 5,656 sq. ft. 6,376 sq. ft. the allowable GRFA) (35%) (36%) (43%) ~ (48%) E. Accessory (10% of 1,324 sq. ft. 774 sq. ft. 774 sq. ft. 1,171 sq. ft. constructed GRFA) (10%) (10%) (6%) (8%) F. Office N/A 72 sq. ft. (approved 197 sq. ft. 197 sq. ft. by conditional use in (approved by 1989) conditional use in 1989) G. Gross Area'• N/A 13,428 sq. ft. 18,930 sq. ft. 20,574 sq. ft. H. Setbacks 20 ft. all sides North/Front 15'-0" 15'-0" 15'-0" East Side ~ 0'-0" ~ 0'-0" 0'-0" - West Side 17'-0" 17'-0" 10'-0" South/Rear 8'-6" (deck) 8'-6" 8'-6" I. Site Coverage (55% of 9,104 sq. ft. 5,235 sq. ft. 5,738 sq. ft. 6,450 sq. ft. site area) (55%) (32%) (35%) (39%) J. Landscaping (30% of 4,966 sq. ft. 7,490 sq. ft. 5,943 sq. ft. 5,356 sq. ft. site area) (30%) (45%) (36%) {32%) K. Height 48 ft. sloping roof/ 36 ft. sloping 43 ft. flat 44 ft. flat 45 ft. flat roof L. Parking Spaces Required N/A 36 34 41 Spaces Required/ N/A 33 33 33 Non-Conforming"' Spaces Provided N/A 3 3 25 ' For comparison purposes, all GRFA calculations were completed using the Town's 1992 definition of GRFA. Gross area calculations include AU GRFA, DU GRFA, common, accessory, office and garage areas. Spaces required/non-conforming are the "grandfathered" parking spaces as discussed in Section V,G of this memo. 3 ' I V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual Integrity and orientation. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed redevelopment of the Christiania Lodge will be compatible with the existing land uses surrounding the project. We believe that the proposed mass and bulk for this structure is acceptable, given the existing footprint of the Christiania Lodge, and the adjacent Chateau Condominiums. The project would have a maximum height of 44 feet, which is just slightly under the maximum allowable height of the PA zone district. Additionally, the proposed height would also be within the acceptable limits as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan, which recommends that this property have a maximum height range of 3-4 stories in height (27-36 feet, excluding roof). This project has been analyzed according to the proposed Frivolous Sals View Corridor. This view corridor was approved by the Town Council on first reading, on May 7, 1991, with the stipulation that any oreviously aporoved projects could be built, even though they may encroach into the view corridor. At the time of first reading, it was anticipated that the Christiania redevelopment would encroach into this view corridor. Since the 1991 approval of the Christiania redevelopment, there have been _ . some slight design modifications which would affect the proposed Frivolous~Sals View Corridor. Changes to the roof configuration on the northwest corner of the Christiania Lodge would create an additional encroachment into the corridor. However, the northernmost portion of the building would be pulled out of the proposed view corridor. Overall, the staff believes the applicant's proposal is reasonable, given the fact that the - Frivolous Sals View Corridor has not been formally adopted upon second reading. Although the proposed SDD would exceed the maximum allowable GRFA by 875 sq. ft., it should be noted that 1,741 sq. ft. of GRFA is directly attributable to "excess" common area. The common areas in the Lodge include the mechanical areas, the hallways, stairs, storage areas, lobby and hotel offices. It should also be noted that the residential part of the GRFA, which constitutes 12,376 sq. ft., is actually under the maximum allowable GRFA, as designated in the PA zone district. Please refer to Exhibit A for a detailed breakdown of the proposed GRFA. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Under the proposed redevelopment scenario, the applicant will be reducing the overall density of the proposed project by one dwelling unit. This is in contrast with the existing project, which has a total of 14.5 dwelling units. In summary, a total of three 4 7 ~ dwelling units and twenty-one accommodation units are proposed with this SDD. As indicated in Section IV(D) of this memorandum, the Vail Village Master Plan encourages the provision of short term, overnight hotel rooms (accommodation units). The proposed Christiania SDD is in compliance with the definition of "Lodge", in which "the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units." As further indicated in the attached Exhibit A, the GRFA devoted to accommodation units exceeds 59% of the total GRFA for the project. Because this SDD request exceeds the maximum allowable density for the PA zone district, the applicant has agreed to restrict the third floor dwelling unit according to Section 17.26.075 -Condominium Conversion, of the Town's zoning code. This section of the•code includes rental restrictions and generally provides that condominium units shall be included in the short term rental market for certain periods of time. Staff believes placing the rental restriction on only one of the three dwelling - ~ units is acceptable because the applicant is reducing the overall density of the project by one dwelling unit (versus the existing project), and the fact that the GRFA . exceedance is due to the overage of common areas. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to provide one off-site, permanently restricted employee dwelling unit. This unit . would be the secondary unit in a primary/secondary residence owned by the applicant. The restricted employee unit will be located at 1184 Cabin Circle/Lot 2, Block 2, Vail . Valley First Filing. Although this SDD proposal would provide four less accommodation units then the existing project (21 versus 25), staff believes that when the Christiania Special Development 'District is reviewed in its entirety, the project meets the SDD criteria. _ . There are public benefits, such as the employee restricted dwelling unit, the Mill Creek walking path, additional landscaping, two enclosed parking spaces, a paved parking area, etc., which should be considered. We believe the project provides a workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity as described above. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. ,This SDD proposal calls for the addition of a two-car garage, (to be located in the southwest corner of the proposed addition), two surface parking spaces to be provided immediately north of the garage, and two surface parking spaces north of the lobby (on-site). Additionally, the applicant is proposing 19 valet (surface) parking spaces on the adjacent Lot, P-3, north of Hanson Ranch Road (please see the attached site plan). The proposed parking area on Lot P-3 would be surfaced with asphalt, would include landscaping around its perimeter, and a retaining wall on the west side of the lot. With this SDD, the total number of proposed parking spaces would be 25. 5 Existing 1992 SDD Use # Spaces Reauired # Spaces Required Accommodation Units: (25 AUs) = 16.4 (21 AUs) = 15.6 Dwelling Units: (2 DUs)= 4.0 (3 DUs) = 7.0 Accessory (Sarah's Lounge): 6.0 8.5 Realty Office: 0.3 0.8 Christian Chateau Townhomes: 9.0 9.0 Sub-Total 35.7 40.9 Grandfathered Spaces -32.7 -32.7 Grand Total 3.0~ 8.2.9.0 *The Town of Vail recognizes that the Christiania Lodge has 3 existing parking spaces. These three parking spaces are located on the Christiania Lodge site and are considered legal, nonconforming spaces due to their location within the required front setback. In summary, this SDD requires that a total of 6 new parking spaces be provided on- . site. The applicant is proposing a total of 25 parking spaces for the project, 22 of which are new. However, the proposed parking plan deviates from the parking requirements of the PA zone district as follows: 1. The parking is not provided entirely on-site. 2. 75% of the required parking is not located within the main building or. buildings and hidden from public view. 3. The on-site surface parking spaces would be located within the front . setback area, The Christiania is technically 32.7 parking spaces short, as required per the zoning code. However, the proposed SDD will meet the incremental increase of required parking with the P-3 parking lot, the on-site valet parking and the proposed garage. Historically, the Christiania has parked on portions of the property to the north (Lot J), however, this arrangement has not been officially recognized by the Town. Given the siting of the existing Christiania Lodge, and the fact that the applicant has a perpetual easement to park on the adjacent Lot P-3, staff believes the applicant's proposed parking scheme is acceptable, and will be an improvement over the existing parking configuration. Also, according to Section 18.52.060 of the Town's Zoning Code, "the Town Council may permit off-site or jointly used parking facilities if located within three hundred feet of the use served". This provision only applies to unenclosed parking spaces. The staff believes it is appropriate to recognize that the P-3 parking is formally associated with the project. 6 Loading: The existing Christiania Lodge has a requirement for one loading berth. No loading berths are currently provided for the Lodge, and the loading requirement is considered "grandfathered". The proposed redevelopment of the Lodge does not increase the loading non-conformity, as the new proposal also has a requirement for one loading berth. The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot P-3, does require that the entry to the parking area be relocated approximately 25 feet to the east. This relocated entry does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P-3, and also allows for the safer passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill Creek Court "chute". However, this relocated entry would remove one of the existing public loading and delivery spaces along Hanson Ranch Road. The loss of one public loading/delivery space in the Village Core is not a positive change and it is a major concern to the staff, however, we acknowledge that the applicant does have a right to safely access Lot P-3. To mitigate the loss of the one loading/delivery space, the applicant will provide a loading/delivery berth on-site (adjacent to the dumpster), for use by the Christiania. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. It is staff's opinion that the proposed redevelopment meets the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Master Plan emphasizes the upgrading of lodges, the improvement of the pedestrian experience, as well as the enhancement of open . space. This proposal supports the Master Plan's objectives by the addition of 7 new accommodation units (versus the 1991 approval) and by improving and expanding the existing lobby and bar areas, while generally complying with the Town's site development standards, except as noted in the memo. Additionally, the proposed Mill Creek pedestrian path will enhance open space for use by the public. The following is a list of the Vail Village Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies which relate to this project: GOAL #1 - ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 7 1.3.1 Obiective: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. GOAL #2 - TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE ' YEAR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: 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. 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. 2.6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. GOAL #3 - TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 8 3.4 Objectives: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. GOAL #4 - TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES. The Vail Village Master Plan sub-area concepts which directly relates to this - redevelopment proposal are Concepts No. 3-8, Mill Creek Streamwalk, and Concept No. 7-1, ChristianiaNA Study Area: #3-8 Mill Creek Streamwalk A walking only path along Mill Creek between Pirate Ship Park and Gore Creek, further completing the pedestrian network and providing public access to the creek. Specific design and location shall be sensitive to adjacent uses and the creek environment. #7-1 ChristianiaNA Studv Area Presently zoned for lodging, this parcel currently provides parking for the Christiania Lodge and Vail Associates. Issues to be addressed in the development of this property include covenants restricting the use of this property to parking, accommodation of existing parking as well as demand created by new development and a formally adopted view - corridor, looking toward the Gore Range. Public purpose uses that may be appropriate for this site include park/open space and/or a-central ` loading and delivery facility for the Village core. The staff believes that the applicant's proposal to utilize Lot P-3 for surface parking will not prohibit the potential future use of the Lot P-3 as discussed above in the Master Plan: The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan addresses this proposal through Sub-Area Concept No. 8: "Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive." The Vail Village Master Plan and The Urban Design Guide Plan both call for the construction of a pedestrian path connection between the bike path and Hanson Ranch - - Road. The addition of a foot path would be a positive improvement to the pedestrian experience in the Village area. Even though the Urban Design Guide Plan calls for the path to be located on the west side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east side provides a more attractive walking experience. The west side of the creek has a trash room for Cyrano's, as well as several utility boxes, which make it an unpleasant area to walk through. 9 In further support of the above sub-area concepts, the applicant has committed to remove approximately 550 sq. ft. of asphalt area adjacent to Mill Creek. This paved area, which is currently used by the Christiania for parking and dumpster storage, is located on Vail Associates and Christiania owned property. This proposal was reviewed according to the recently adopted Streetscape Master Plan. There are no specific streetscape concepts which apply to this site, however, the Plan does propose a sidewalk on the west side of the Mill Creek Court Chute. It is the staff's position that the installation of this sidewalk should not be a requirement of the Christiania redevelopment as we believe the SDD will not directly impact the pedestrian movements in this area. 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. The project is also located ou_t of the established 100-year floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the . community. The existing front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the northwest corner of the Lodge. Currently, the west side setback is 17 feet due to an encroachment of the southwest comer of the building into the 20-foot setback. The existing rear setback is 8'-6", as the existing Sarah's deck projects 11'-6" into the 20-foot rear setback (see . attached site plan). An existing legal, non-conforming east side setback of zero feet results from the Christiania's connection to the Chateau condominiums. By adding a new fourth floor, 44 square feet of additional GRFA will be added into the side setback. At the tightest point, the west setback will be reduced from the existing 17 feet, down to 10'-0", with the addition of the two-car garage. The second and third floors (GRFA) would encroach 4'-6" into the setback and the fourth floor (GRFA) would encroach 2'- 9" into the setback. Because the zoning code and the Vail Village Master Plan both encourage the construction of covered parking, and the fact that this portion of the site is very heavily screened from adjacent properties, staff is able to support the applicant's request to further encroach into the required 20-foot setback. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The proposed Christiania redevelopment will have a minimal impact on the existing vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems adjacent to the Christiania Lodge property. The proposed parking scheme, on the adjacent Lot P-3, does require that the entry to the parking area be relocated approximately 25 feet to the east. This relocated entry does provide for safer ingress and egress out of Lot P-3, and also 10 allows for the safer passage of vehicles utilizing the Mill Creek Court "chute". However, this relocated entry would remove one of the existing loading and delivery spaces along Hanson Ranch Road. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. As indicated on the attached site plan, there are some existing large, mature evergreens located very close to the existing Lodge. The redevelopment proposal calls for the removal, and relocation, of nine of these large evergreen trees. The applicant has proposed to add nine new aspens (3" caliper) adjacent to the Mill Creek stream tract (to screen the on-site parking) and near the recreation path. Six new aspens (3" caliper) will be added adjacent to the front, or north, entry to the Lodge. To further open up the Mill Creek stream tract, the applicant has agreed to remove the existing split rail fence which is located upon the Vail Associates' owned stream tract. The wood screen fence around the swimming pool will be relocated upon the Lodge's property, as it is currently located upon the stream tract {Tract E). The staff feels that the landscaping design is positive because of the applicant's proposal to relocate all nine of the large evergreens and to add the 15 new aspens on site. The relocated evergreens would be placed in the adjacent stream tract, and this relocation effort would be coordinated with the Town Landscape Architect and Vail Associates. Should these relocated evergreens not survive two growing seasons, the applicant has agreed to replace any dead or dying tree with an 8-10' evergreen. Additional off-site landscaping will be added around the perimeter of Lot P-3. This landscaping would consist of 17 new evergreens (6-8' in height}, and 10 Potentilla shrubs along the base of the proposed retaining wall (on the Mill Creek Court Chute). (According to the zoning code, the off-site landscaping can not be included in the required landscaping.) I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relat(onship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant has proposed that the SDD redevelopment plan for the Christiania Lodge be completed at one time. No phasing plan is proposed. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION We believe that the Christiania redevelopment meets the criteria for the establishment of a SDD, as discussed above. The staff recommendation for the proposed establishment of a Special Development District for the Christiania Lodge is for approval. The applicant has incorporated the following elements into the proposed development plan: 11 1. The proposed dwelling unit, to be focafed on the third floor of the Lodge, will be , restricted according to Section 17.26.075 -Condominium Conversion, of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. ' 2. One employee dwelling unit, which shall be provided with a full kitchen (refrigerator, stove, sink, oven or microwave), will be permanently restricted as an employee dwelling unit, per Section 18.13.080(B)(10)(b-d) of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for this redevelopment. 3. The applicant will obtain a revocable right-of-way permit from the~Town in order to add the proposed landscaping at the entrance to the Lot P-3 parking area. 4. Prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for this redevelopment, the Town Engineer must grant final approval for the P-3 parking design. The Town Engineer is concerned with the design of the proposed retaining wall adjacent to the Mill Creek Court "Chute". A curb and gutter section may be necessary to accommodate drainage in this area. 5. The applicant has agreed that should any of the relocated evergreens not survive two growing seasons, such tree shall be replaced with an 8-10' evergreen on a one-to-one ratio. 12 Exhibit A GRFA and Parking Required GRFA Parking 1. First Level 6 AUs _ 1,932 sq. ft. = 4.332 Office (197 sq. ft./250) = 0.788 2. Second Level ' . 7 AUs = .2,431 sq. ft. = 5.173 Sarah's Bar (1,020/15/8) = 8.5 3. Third Level 8 AUs = 2,972 sq. ft. = 6.146 1 DU = 551 sq. ft. = 2.0 4. Fourth Level 2 DUs = 4,490 sq. ft. = 5.000 5. Christian Chateau Townhomes = 9.000 Total GRFA: 12,376 sq. ft. = 40.939 - 32.70 (Graridfathered spaces) 8.239 = 9 Required spaces Total GRFA: 12,376 sq. ft. Excess Common Area: + 1,741 sg. ft. Grand Total: 14,117 sq. ft: r Total Density: 21 AUs and 3 DUs AU GRFA = 7,335 sq. ft., or 59% of the total GRFA DU GRFA = 5,041 sq. ft., or 41% of the total GRFA 13 Exhibit B Common Area First Level ~ 3,104 sq. ft. Second Level = 1,785 sq. ft. Third Level = 727 sq. ft. Fourth Level = 760 s4. ft Total: 6,376 sq. ft. Allowable GRFA = 13;242 sq. ft. x .35 (35%) 4,635 sq. ft. 6,376 sq. ft. - 4,635 so. ft. 1,741 sq. ft. -excess common (added to GRFA) v 14 1 . ~ ~ !J.iC WILLIAM Y. MORTOI~T Apri13, 1992 - ~ Ms. Kristan Pritz _ 75 South Frontage Road Road Vail, CO 81657 ~ ~ - Dear Ms. Pritz: - ~ I wish to convey to you my concerns regarding the application for a Special Development District by the' Christiania at Vail. As an adjacent property owner, with a residential condominium in the Mill Creek Court Building, I am directly impacted by the Christiania proposal. The close proximity of the remodel project to my residence will have I a significant impact. I would ask that you consider my concerns during the public hearing on this matter. They are as follows: } 1. Setback Encroachments: The proposed expansion, exclusive of balconies, intrudes into the required setback on different floors from 2'-6" to 4'-6". The encroachments will intrude into the views from my apartment. As you know, our neighborhood is not protected by view corridors and, therefore, I must rely on the enforcement of the setback in order to insure that my views and open spaces are protected. I would ask that you deny the setback - ' . ~ ~ encroachments on the upper floors of the building. - ~ ~ - - . ~ 2. Garage Encroachment/Garbage Dumpster: The existence of garbage dumpsters and sheds throughout the community is unsightly and, in many cases, unsanitary. . ~ ~ ~ ~ The proposal for the handling of refuse from the Chrisitania has just not been thought out thoroughly or in _ 4 what would be the best interest of the pedestrians and all - - j of us in the surrounding community. Since one of the i stated purposes of the remodeling project is to upgrade - ~ the property, I would suggest that enclosing the dumpster within the structure of the building should be considered. . ~ It's easy to recognize that existing or proposed Ms. Kristan Pritz Apri13, 1992 - . ~ Page 2 landscaping would not sufficiently obscure the trash dumpster from public view. I would suggest the setback for the garage be denied unless the dumpster could be - _ ~ . ~ incorporated with the building. 3. Streetscape Improvements: I have read about the Streetscape plan recently adopted by the Town Council. As such, there are opportunities for the applicant to incorporate into the development plan some or all of these ideas that would certainly enhance the project. This would include upgrading street edges using brick or . - ~ - ; concrete block pavers, improving landscaping, a stone planter replacing the tie-timber planter on Hanson Ranch . - ~ Road, decorative street lights, and facing the retaining wall on the P-3 site with native stone, curbs and gutters. - 4. Special Development District: After reading the - ~ rules and regulations about SDD, I would suggest the use of that for the Christiania project is inappropriate. My - - interpretation would be the intention of SDD is for new development, and this certainly is not. Further, most categories where the proposal exceeds standard zoning : requirements, would not be permitted by the limitations - ~ placed upon the expansion of non-conforming uses or ` variances. My feeling is the SDD is being used as a _ - means to avoid the limitations placed upon the expansion of existing non-conforming uses and, therefore, this request for SDD should be denied. . ~ It is not my intent to attempt to deny the owners of Christiania at Vail their legitimate property development rights. I have no opposition to the approval that was granted in 1991. However, I cannot support a building . - expansion that gives special privileges and~benefits to the Christiania at the expense of my rights as well as those of other adjacent property owners. Ms. Kristan Pritz Apri13, 1992 Page 3 . . I wish that I could be there to personally present my . views. Instead, I hope you will accept this letter and its ~ ~ intent ' our consideration. - - er y, William Morton cc: Paul Johnston . i i i i r - ~ ~ I ~:~I i V T. V V. .7 G U "i' • "S :,y a ova i V f1i V Y A v v n i f i -d[ i w - v v r v . - f~_%EIVEQ APR 6 1992 1709) s~a.s3oo R08ERt W. G~,LVIN ' R~y,~/~ IJ03 G8T ALOONOUIN ROAD ~ ~ : SCHAUMBURd, ILLIN01990198-IO6B T~ Aprh 6. 1992 Mayor and Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Acar Mayor Osterfoss and Town Council Members: I wish to bring to yotu attention, on behalf of the members of the bast Village Homeowners Association. our concerns with regard to the Special Development District being proposed by the Christiania at Va11. 1t is the general perspective of the Homeowners Association that the Christiania proposal is an inappropriate application of the Special Development District pro- vision of the Town of Vall zoning code. We are concerned that if the application is approved that there will be a setting of a precedent that will blur and confuse the purpose of the SDD provision. The members of the Board of Directors and myself have reviewed the Special De- velopment District provision and the Christiania application. Ii is our position - that the purpose of the Special Development District ie for new development or for the substantial tear down of an existing building and the redevelopment of the site. It Is our contention that the Christiania does not conform to the stated pur- pose of the SDD provision. We do not believe it is appropriate that the Special Development District provision • can be used as a means of circumventing the requirements of its underlying zone district. Speclflcally, at a minimum all zoning standard$ must be rnet before a Special Development District can be considered. It is inappropriate, we believe, to use the Special Development District as a means of avoiding prohibitions found in the nonconforming and variance provisions of the zoning code. We find that the degree and number of the requested categories that exceed standard zoning requirements would suggest a grant of special privi- lege. It is our contention that the existing SDD provision allows for the continued ex- pansion of the Christiania beyond and®rlying zoning limitation. The provision allows for staff approved minor amendments and major amendments that remove substantial protections for adjacent property Owners guaranteed by standard zone districts. We are greatly troubled by the broad latitude described by this provi- sion, ~ • w:d To: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Date: March 9, 1992 RE: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail. The East Village Homeowners Association, Inc. is in receipt of public notices, application documents, and Department of Community Development memoranda associated with the request to establish a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail. On behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association, our review of the documentation provided to date indicates the following: I. There is insufficient justification for the . establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail. 1. There are insufficient improvements in the public interest to warrant the degree of variance being requested from established zoning development standards. a. The providing of one off-site employee dwelling unit and one on'-site short term restricted dwelling unit are not sufficient public improvements to warrant increasing the density and congestion that currently exists in the East Village neighborhood. . b. The removal of asphalt, relocation of a fence aff of public property, and the construction of a pedestrian walking path on stream tract land are not a sufficient public improvement to offset the imposition of increased density and setback incursions. c. The application increases the violation of underlying zoning standards rather than bring the building into greater compliance with zoning standards. The proposal is a grant of special privilege that is not generally available to other property owners in the same zone district or neighborhood. 2. The analysis of review criteria provided by the Development of Community Development staff is incomplete, and insufficient. There is a lack of documented evidence by the applicant or the town staff of project impacts and that the proposed improvements will directly offset the impacts created by the proposal. To: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Date: March 9, 1992 RE: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail. Page Two a. "Grandfathering" of parking, loading, and setback incursions is an inappropriate justification for the continuation of practices that, by allowing increases in allowed density, aggravates known ,problems of function and congestion. b. The evaluation of the Special Development District criteria is incomplete. Neither the staff report nor the application specifically addresses the proposal's compatibility and sensitivity to the "neighborhood and adjacent properties," according to the established criteria of architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. c. The justification of GRFA increases over allowed underlying zoning limits based upon changes in definition of GRFA is inappropriate. d. The justification of GRFA and Common Area over allowed underlying zoning limits based upon excessive increases in proposed common area is inappropriate. e. The justification for the manner in which conformance with parking requirements are achieve is not compatible with underlying zoning requirements and provisions of the Vail Village Master Plan. Goals and policies do not provide for off-site parking. f. The justification for the proposal based upon a recitation of selected coals and objectives from the Vail Village Master Plan is incomplete. The site is not designated as an in-fill site. g. The justification that the proposal conforms to other planning and design policies is incomplete. Portions of the Streetscape Plan apply. h. The evidence to justify that one off-site employee housinc unit is an adequate incentive to allow several major incursions of underlying zoning is insufficient. i. The evidence to justify that one on-site short term restrict dwelling unit is an adequate incentive to allow several major incursions of underlying zoning is . insufficient. . To: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Date: March 9, 1992 RE: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District at the Christiania at Vail. Page Three j. The evidence to justify setback incursions is insufficient. k. The evidence that existing traffic congestion on public streets will be improved by the proposal is insufficient. Traffic congestion is a major problem at the intersection of Hanson Ranch Road and the Mill Creek Chute. Summary: Due to the incompleteness of the evidence and documentation, please note that our comments and criticism are not necessarily limited to subjects that are addressed in this memorandum. The Board of Directors of the East Village Homeowners Association, Inc. requests that sufficient documentation and evidence be provided so that an adequate evaluation of the impacts of this project can be completed. At this time, there is insufficient justification for the creation of a Special Development District for the ' Christiania at Vail. The Board of Directors of the East Village Homeowners Association, Inc. objects to the project as proposed and does not support the projects as proposed. It is requested that the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission deny the application as proposed. ~ ~ ~ ~`2a cam, X5-1-. , ~ i SC-• v ~ ~ . ~ - !~s> ti ~ C C~ ~i~ a G ~ , . C'' ch ~ , 1~1a~ '~l i . 1'51 i k~.. s'~l 011 i C G~ a ~r~ - - - - .1 0 ~ 1 . Lf . ~ G.i 1 ~ 0 i~1~ 31ut1 ~ 11..' ~~,r, ~1 v ~ I~IL~I T- ~C ~1 i`~'?112.t~~ - ....~0,;,1 ~ C O-- -~~~5~ - - - - .~`G~~ 1~S11~C~ - - _ c~~~cz C;~C~~ct ~m~ ~C~~- i ~ G~G~` ct~-~c,J ~'~~c, \ . - - - ~n~. -:~~cr.vti-5~.. ~ ~ ~~-c,,h1i~11 c~t .'S~~ cti~fc~4 . ~r~ c.~~Pmz,~`~"" - - - - ~ C.-}- - - ~ - L ~ . C.1~ ~ i ~ 1 C~,(l 1 c~ G+ V ~,1 ~ , ~ ~ ~ H G. n 56 ~1 _ 2cvnc h....'vZ_ o c,.c~ ~ -t- c _ - - - - - ~'1 cam. 1~_~~--~---- ~ - -h c..J ~ c,,t 0 h~- d . .m o _ ~ . 1- o ~J r1_. _=_.ct~-~.~.~pm`cn-~--- ~~!-r..c-_- _4M.~ G,{ 5 , --C~, cF ~ ~v~,~o ~ __.,_.c~o~._endot~~ ..`1-ham . ~c~~+- _ ~~4.?..i.~c~c~~ ~-G-st~ °c o.w fl~i : ~ - _ - ~__C\-~ o L~ ~ u 1 G~ v_t-; ~ .i.-t-~,~ - ----b~t'~ v~ ~Ihti. .c~A,l p.S ~i~ V.n.~tis`~_.__ ~_G~.~___b~.ci~m2S.__..50-_o_S`G.Cby i 1.~ _~h~ -----C1V c~-'--1~----- .--~-,:op~._...~~..-_~t _.1c,n~~~nC1.___~c~_~s~i-5~i ~t~._-_c~n.Cti__-1 oZ..J[Z----- ---~-C~ ~ ~ ~>>1----'~-~~'c't1G~,~;1 ----CD_G~'~_~._zG~~____~f `-l~h~ Y-c~~.) t) __C~f_--- _-,-;oP~, 'S ~ c,.c~ + _-_.1>GC - s-~- GI-~ i. <<~S~~ny 5 --c;~ ci ----h2_.i c~~r4-.---- - --.:.:C~~-~-c'? c~-t-, ~ 5 -moo _ o ~ ~ . ~ c~ ~sy-,r, _~..~c~,l tc.t.~ c~ ~5. - ..o - - - - - - _--_.~~s\c~_~~~--~-----------------...--------------__-------_ - 31 I ~~~ilo ~~11 ~,SSOC1atCS~ 111C• Creators and Operarors of Vail and Beaver Creeks Resorts March 5, 1992 . Jill Kammerer, Senior Planner Town .of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Your file - Christiania Lodge, Special Development District Dear Jill: This letter is written in response to a request from Jay Peterson, attorney for Christiania Lodge. Specifically, Vail Associates, Inc. ("VA") has been requested to provide written confirmation that Christiania may continue to use property owned by VA for Christiania parking. Although VA is not prepared to commit to provide any additional parking required by the Christiania Special Development District plan, VA is agreeable to Christiania's parking on VA's property to the extent VA is legally obligated under the terms of that certain Warranty Deed dated July 8, 1963, recorded in Book 177 at Page 127 and that certain Agreement by and among Vail Associates, Inc., Christiania-at-Vail, Inc. and Town of Vail dated March 15, 1978, recorded in Book 212 at Page 877 (the "Agreement"). However, please be advised that it appears to us, based on an improvements location map prepared by Eagle Valley Surveying dated (revised) January 18, 1991, Christiania is not currently parking in the location specified in the Agreement, but instead is using other VA property and a portion of platted roadway dedicated to the Town of Vail. VA hereby acknowledges and is agreement with such current parking location until the foregoing issues, presently being studied, are resolved among~VA, Christiania and Town of Vail. Although VA has no objection to Christiania's continuing through the Town of Vail Special Development District review process, VA specifically retains the right to review the Christiania Special Development District plan and express any concerns and/or objections we may have regarding the project. Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • USA - (303) 476-5601 f r4 . Jill Kammarer March 5, 1992 Page 2 If you have any questions or concerns regarding the position of VA relating to the application for the Christiania Lodge's Special Development District, please feel free to contact the Legal Department at 479-3100. Very truly yours, VAIL ~SOCIATES, INC. Larry E Lichl' er Executive Vice President cc: Paul Johnson Jay Peterson A A o, ru„/ 7U ORO g 9Z To: Town of Vail, Town Council /h Ai fieiA4, From: Jim Lamont, planning consultant Date: April 21, 1992 RE: East Village Homeowners Association On behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association, please consider the attached as an addendum to the materials previously submitted by the Association regarding the pending application of the Christiania Special Development District. Attached are copies of appropriate sections of the Town of Vail, Streetscape Master Plan as it affects the Christiania and P-3 sites. It is requested that the sections be taken into consideration during your review of the Special Development District application. cc: Bob Galvin _ Below Ground Utilities Construction of right-of--way improvements and sub-surface utility improvements are disruptive to the streetscape environment. Disruption would be lessened if all , streetscape and utility upgrade projects were coordinated together. It is recommended that the Town and the utility companies work together to complete any underground work prior to constructing streetscape improvements. This level of cooperation is even more critical since Vail's construction season is very short. For example, the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District has plans to upgrade water service soon, primarily in the Village Core. The Town of Vail also needs to upgrade or install storm sewer lines in the same area. The timing of these projects will have a substantial effect on the timing of the streetscape improvements. The Town should plan the streetscape improvements and storm sewer work to coincide with the utility work. The impact of construction will be lessened as will the cost of both utility and streetscape work Friuate Development As private property in Vail is being redeveloped andlor upgraded, an opportunity exists for many of the proposed Master Plan improvements to be done in conjunction with or entirely by private property owners. For example, the improvements in the Gore Creek Promenade were funded in this manner. There is no way to predict which property will be redeveloped, therefore, each application for redevelopment will need to be reviewed to determine what streetscape improvements can be completed as part of the private construction. Achieving the Greatest Impact Elements of the Streetscape Plan that are more visible and create the greatest impact should have the highest priority. Some elements that fit in this category are: - The focal point areas: • The Children's Fountain • Seibert Circle • The intersection of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive • The intersection of Willow Bridge Road and East Meadow Drive . The Ski Museum pocket park • Slifer Square. These key areas have been designed in the Master Plan to stand as independent units and therefore can be improved in advance of the rema- ~n;ng streetscape work Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan Page 122 Cif ;,e..-.I AItJ~ I,I.,Ix..u..h U.1':I'I'EfC+ W' ~ - b . sP.\n.~c GOvEREO galoGE ;r 9UILOING ~ . CfI•;CN[7Z VHR 1•A\T7L7 U':~ {I •v: Vf \',\IL Iv I!'Kh;{ 1'.WA I GI' cfA~Q~:AL iUTT`IG 90.1G'1(PA\i\G :KSIDE ~QfAW7tSfAS _ - GFII'cRY ® ncClnu^ous TTtLL' 9VIlDIrJG~T~ - r.•rxcNEC+Tnsn ~ d ` . GA$'T}'IOF ,L CO~tY.!?E l-~fT f•A\-ENS •7711 aNLIr.R . t - r' Y ~ ~ i• GRar.ISH.v.fM_R GLCrK TC'.NcR CIII~iLi[ f:tK:l ~+i ' ~ 3UILDIrIG ~oar~~s• 1 Z~l:! ~ I- . -T• 7" ~ ~ _ ytlLL CIICC'J( YANK Tf .~.^+I~. ..~scc«... ..1 _ _ f VC STAGES ~ t~l,' ~ _ I SE0.LKE A.~b DElll'CN'1 PANK!- ,zj:.," - _ V;,It aOLV ffOMES . - \tlx ' 41~ . ~ I D oUflD ?~;o, ~e. 'rte.. sLAW~u sEATL~i ~ - _ - P • LAZIER - CASINO 3UILDfNG ~ -i~ _L~ ~ r ~t... - ~ t~: .r - j ~ RVCKSAGK !FfiLL GRE • BUILDING il::-~ . ~R7 i:.' ,t~, i - '~~:r"' 'i - -i1 i~: - YLT FAU~AI~ .:Y - F\" RED LION INN ~ ~ . _ CONDOrAIxfUt.tS , LODGE ` , ~ . - ~ ' - ~ Y :,1" t }JI f~ ' L.~ NIIJ CNS. F.K PA711 _ • ~ . GYRC.ra(JS . aU+101'yG HALL BuwDIr+G CNE VAIL PIJ+GE cv..•cx>TE L:.n PA\ EK \Pl 111 .Y.4lgl,h euILDING ~ PIA~TEN 1"'1711 L/Ih':~TTr - GOLD`cf+ ,=F~ Nips: VILLAGE G O R E - VAII VILLAGE ~ETSG'+PE 1 fhAPROVEMENT ~-AN t f f . f f C . ~ . There is a need for additional seating opportunities along the pedestrian system in the East Village area. Roger Staub Park, on East Gore Creek Drive, is an existing amenity and potential destination in this sub-area. This is an excellent example of a pocket park It is under used due to a lack of signage to direct people to the park and because the park appears to be private property. LANDSCAPING ~ The East Village is well-landscaped with mature trees and landscape planters. The major problems are the use of railroad ties for planters in parking lots, and parking lots on Vail Valley Drive that have little or no setback or screen landscaping. Landscape treatments, that might be proposed as a part of the Master Plan, will only address those areas where landscaping infill is needed L1'11L1'1~12:S Since the streets will not receive specialty paving, there should be no conflict between utility lines and improvements that will be proposed by the Master Plan. Above-ground utility pedestals, light poles, etc., at the edge of the right-of--way will have to be incorporated within the proposed pedestrian walkways. Lighting The "Town and Country" light fixture is used in the East Village area, primarily at intersections. The spacing of the lights averages 300' apart. however, there are some sections, such as Vail Valley Drive south of Manor Vail, that have no lights at all. While there were only a few public comments regarding inadequate lighting in the East Village area, it is safe to assume that some additional lighting will be required PUBLIC COlVIIVfENT Residents of the East Village sub-area had a wide range of opinions on the types ' of atreetscape improvements desired in the area. Moat of the comments received focused on the Blue Cow Chute to Mill Creek Circle portion of Vail Valley Drive. The primary areas of concern were: Town of Vail Streetacape Master Plan Page 82 Streetscape Improvement Plan East Village The Streetscape Improvement Plan (Figure 18) for the East Village focuses on the pedestrian corridors adjacent to the asphalt roadway. The primary goals are to create a safe environment for the pedestrian along Vail Valley Drive while accommodating the heavy vehicular traffic, and directing pedestrians to key destination points, such as the Gold Peak ski base facility, the Children's Center, Ford Park and the Ford Amphitheater and the Village Core. For Hanson Ranch Road and East Gore Creek Drive the goal is to maintain the present character but to also improve such elements as lighting, landscaping and roadway edge treatments. No major changes to the vehicular circulation system or the roadway are proposed as a part of the Plan for this sub-area. PRELIlVfINARY CONCEPTS Of all the sub-areas covered in this Master Plan, the East Village has remained the most consistent with the concepts that were originally proposed for the area. The concept of creating separate pedestrian corridors that are adjacent to the roadway was proposed, and adopted, very early on in the design process. Some of the other ideas and concepts that were suggested and discussed during this planr,;ng process included: • Removing both the east and west-bound bus stops near the intersection of Vail Valley Drive and Weat Gore Creek Drive. Some of the suggestions for implementing this concept included moving the stops to the east portal of the Village parking structure and/or to the intersection Mill Creek Circle and Vail Valley Drive. The idea of moving the westbound bus stop to the parking structure was discarded because the Town's Transit Departrnent felt it would be too close to the bus stop at Slifer Square. Moving the eastbound bus stop to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan p~ 85 r t i Due to the scale of this sub-area and the straight forward nature of the ' improvements; the Plan for the East Village (Figure 18) is diagrammatic. A detail of the Blue. Cow Chute to Mill Creek Circle portion of Vail Valley Drive (Figure 19) is provided to better illustrate the proposed irprovements for this sub-area. Ttae Design Concept There was clear public consensus that asphalt roadways with wide sidewalks, separated from the street by curb and gutter, were appropriate on Vail Valley Drive. There was also general agreement that where there was only room for a wide sidewalk on one side of the street, the west and south sides would be best suited. Pedestrian ways on the west and south sides provide good access to the major destinations in the area -the Village Core, Gold Peak and the Children's Center. The proposed improvements are also intended to highlight and improve access to Ford Park and the Nature Center. Improving vehicular circulation, by removing pedestrians from the street will be an additional benefit of these proposed changes. For Hanson Ranch Road and East Gore Creek Drive, the concept of the pedestrians and vehicles sharing the same roadway was generally endorsed as a workable solution, given the very narrow right-of-way and lower traffic volume. Throughout this area, more landscaping is necessary to soften the building facades and to screen surface parking lots. Pedestrian Circulation The proposed streetscape improvements for the East Village sub-area are as follows: • Vail Valley Drive (from Blue Cow Chute to the entry to Manor Vail) West and South Sides: Concrete unit paver walkway, 8' - 10' wide East and North Sides: Concrete unit paves sidewalk, 5' - 6' wide At this time, the primary pedestrian path is proposed to go on the south side of Vail Valley Drive, adjacent to Vail Associates' Day Lot. Having parked cars immediately adjacent to a major walkway is less than desirable, however, the path is proposed in this location with the intent that, as the site redevelops, allowances will be made for pedestrians. Town of Vail Streetacape Master Plan Page 87 • Vail Valley Drive (from Manor Van's north entry to the soccer field) South Side: Concrete unit paver walkway, 8' - 10' wide - Retaining walls will be needed in some areas due to an inadequate right-of--way and a hillside being immediately adjacent to the roadway_ - There is no sidewalk proposed for the north side of the street due - to the tight physical constraints along the northerly right-of-way line. - A sidewalk crosswalk solution will be necessary to provide safe pedestrian access through the Golden Peak bus turnaround area. • The existing Vista Bahn/Gold Peak recreational trail and the pedestrian connection to Ford Park through Manor Vail, will be used as a part of this sub-area's pedestrian system Manor Vail's entry to Ford Park should include additional signing or an entry statement. Additional minor pedestrian paths, either concrete or asphalt, are proposed as follows: - An east west connection between Vail Valley Drive and the existing recreational trail west of the Tivoli. - A path north of the tennis courts to the north entry of the Gold . Peak ski base facility. • The existing shared use of the street, by pedestrians and vehicles on Hanson Ranch Road and East Gore Creek Drive will continue. Brick or concrete unit paver bands should be added at the edge of the asphalt to better define the roadway. • Consider eliminating the winter-time parking use on Chalet Road. Closure of the dead-end road and development of a pocket park/open space area should be pursued. Town of Vail Streetacepe Master Plan Page ~ f _ ` Additional landscaping is needed around the existing parking lot between Hanson , Ranch Road and East Gore Creek Drive. Roger Staub Park also provides an excellent seating opportunity, however better signage and lighting is needed to direct pedestrians to the park. Removal of a portion of the existing fence along East Gore Creek Drive is recommended and, overall, a "public park" image should be attained. Additional picrsc tables should be added. Lighting and utilities will be covered in the Guidelines for Paving, Public Art, Site Furnishings and Lighting section of this report. Implementing the Concept Figure 19 is a detail of Vail Valley Drive from the bridge over Gore Creek south to Mill Creek Circle. The detail illustrates: • The major and minor pedestrian paths on each side of the street; • The integration of a bus atop into the Garden of the Gods' site; Additional landscaping and the proposed focal points; ° Reconfiguring the parking at the Vorlaufer to provide for a pedestrian walkway on the west side of Vail Valley Drive. Of the 12 existing spaces, two "guest" parking spaces for the Vorlaufer may need to be relocated to the east side of Vail Valley Drive. The final design shall ensure that there is no net loss of parking spaces for the Vorlaufer, Relocation of parking and planters on the east side of Vail Valley Drive; and • Widening the Vail Valley Drive bridge over Gore Creek to better accommodate the proposed pedestrian walkways, Adding a neck down at the east end of Hanson Ranch Road (at Vail Valley Drive). This narrowing of the roadway discourages unnecessary traffic and provides an opportunity for additional landscaping. Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan Page ~ removed to allow for subgrade repairs and can be replaced immediately after the work is finished. The primary paving unit for the Master Plan area is recommended to be the 4" x 8" x 3 1/2" rectangular paver (the dimensions may vary with manufacturer). The pavers are typically set on a sand/gravel base. The design for the sub-base will vary with soils type and the type of vehicle that will be using the roadway. Detailed soils testing and roadway engineering will be necessary to determine the appropriate roadway section for each area as it is improved. Streets that will be handling bus or truck traffic on a continuous basis will require, at a minimum, a geotextile under a high capacity gravel sub-base or a concrete slab as a sub-base. Once again, the final design for this type of roadway will depend on the existing soils. The paving pattern for the pedestrian streets in the Village Core and for East 1' Z_ ~ ~ Z L ~ ~ Meadow Drive will be as shown in Figure 15. The primary field will be a basic ; ~ ~ ~ herringbone design with a double soldier course at the edges of the right-of-way, I ~ .Y,w„t and regular, perpendicular bands along the length of the street. The bands and soldier course will allow for paving to be phased by creating potential beginning/end for the paving system. The soldier course will also serve to separate the public right-of--way paving from the range of materials allowed on private ~ property. At times, the distinction between public and private land should not be ~"Y'1 ~ ~ delineated if good design is better served by blending the boundary. Please see the comments relating to pa deli in the Vill e Core sub-area. ~ ~ ~ During the public review of the proposed streetscape options, there was consensus that the paving treatments in the Village area should be simple rather than intricate. Therefore, a simple paving pattern is proposed, one which would not compete with Vail's unique architecture and that can be constructed in Ahases. PROPOSED COLOR RANGE Recommendations for a specified color mix are being made to establish a starting point for the final detailed design. The actual color mix may change once a final design is submitted and reviewed. The range of tints for concrete unit pavers is almost unlimited. Given the scale of this project, special "Vail Blends" could be produced specifically for the Town. This would give the Town complete flexibility to develop a Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan p~ 97 The lighting along East Meadow Drive certainly does not reflect its position , as one of Vail's primary retail commercial areas. The lighting design is not only inappropriate but along the west half of the area, the light levels are , also inadequate. There is essentially no lighting along the south side of the street. The orange tinted, cube fixtures found along the west half of West Meadow Drive should be replaced by the "Village" fixture. The intersection of Willow Bridge Road and East Meadow Drive is also seriously underlit. Existing pole and building mounted accent lights that shine directly down on pedestrians should also be replaced. A framework of streetlighting using the "Village" fixture is needed throughout the corridor. For areas where there are commercial uses fronting on the street, a mixture of light sources should be encouraged. Window displays should also be included as a part of the overall lighting scheme. Private property owners should be encouraged to install subtle lighting for landscaped areas along with bollard lights and building illumination. These supplemental light sources should be used to round- out the framework established by the Town's right-of-way lighting. The intersection of Willow Bridge Road and East Meadow Drive should have a higher lighting level than other sections of the street. On the east half of Meadow Drive, additional lighting is needed, especially along the area adjacent to the Village parking structure. ° The Village Core (Figure 25) The nightlighting for the Village Core should be varied and carefully planned. By far, the best approach is have one integrated lighting plan. While some areas such as the Gore Creek Promenade and upper Bridge Street are adequately lit, other areas such as Gore Creek Drive along the Lodge at Vail, need additional lighting. It is recommended that the Town provide a basic framework of "Village" fixtures and that the private property owners be encouraged to supplement the Town's lighting with their own accent lighting. In time, this system would achieve the proper level of lighting throughout the Village Core and still provide the range of varied light sources that provide the best lighting scheme. Lighting plans Town of Vail Streetscapc Master Plan Page 114 for each proposed upgrade will need to be carefully evaluated and • compared to the existing conditions. Figure 25 shows one possible approach to creating the appropriate level of - lighting for the Village Core area using a variety of light sources. • East Village (Figure 18) The lighting needs for the East Village are similar to West Meadow Drive. A good framework of "Town and Country" lights is already in place and it will only be necessary to add lights where there are gaps in the coverage. For this sub-area the "Town and Country" fixture will be appropriate for the foreseeable future. Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan Page llb a:N~ ~+e,, ti'>' .kid" ~ _ ~1 ~'t~ _ 3 m• 1 - - ~.t~:~,-„ iv 1 ~ _ 1 _ _ s. - i ~ _ L~ 1 , a . - y . << t _ - c 'I 4 - . i " t ~ 'mil 0. .r e ~ ~g~ , ` per.; ~ ~ ...c .,;a,,... a ~ - f - ~ ~ x: r ~:'ct', ,1 _ 751'.r a p ~ ..,(~.r.:: ~ y `Yir. ~ ;;ij~. _ , t - a.- y.. r ~ .r~ _ ,r _ v 0" ~ Via; ~ 7'~P~•~:~ ~ ~ i Gam. .~1 a 4 'v' I` - o m,,.~... e x„ _ J _ g~a~ _ y. w Figure 25 TREE GRATES AND GUARDS Tree grates are recommended for street trees when they are used in an urban . setting, such as the Village Core. A number of manufacturers produce this site amenity so the Town is not limited to the product shown below. The intent is to allow additional opportunities to bring a beautiful design accent into the streetscape. ~~r ~~~n lJ1 c~~ ~i z~• TREE GRATES TREE GUARD , WALLS Retaining walls and planter walls can make a significant contribution to the character of a streetscape. For the most part, Vail has seen great success in this area with the extensive use of stone-faced and boulder walls. The following guidelines are intended to build on that success. • Walls should integrate into planters or be used for retaining earth. Freestanding walls are discouraged. • The use of caps on walls should be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. If caps are to be used, then the cap should maintain a natural finish to the wall. Town of Vail Slrectacape Maslcr 1'lun Page 107 • Only durable materials should be used with a preference for locally obtained stone. Railroad tie walls are not recommended. • WaIIs higher than 3 feet should be terraced. • Large boulders should punctuate walls when possible to soften the linear appearance of a wall. • Boulder walls are strongly encouraged, as this type of design is very compatible with Vail's natural setting. • Walls should not be geometric, but should gently undulate. r MISCELLANEOUS ELEMEN'T'S A number of miscellaneous site elements would typically be included in a streetscape plan such as decorative bollards, fencing, phone booths, bulletin boards, kiosks, etc. At this time, most of these elements have not been identified as being needed in the study area. • Utility boxes and pedestals, when possible, should be placed in below grade vaults or, at a minimum, should be screened by landscaping. o o ~ c~'"~'' 4 ~ -..~.f sa.ow-c.$o~nvn os scaEErrxv u~rII.rrr$s Town of Vail 8treetscape Muster Plan Pages 108 r. f._.. MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ~ AUGUST 7, 1990 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 7, 1990, 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 Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: None ~ TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk There was no Citizen Participation, the first item on the agenda. Next was a public hearing on the 1990-91 parking policies. Stan Berryman gave an introduction to the hearing stating the Parking and Transportation Advisory Committee had met several times to discuss recommendations for these policies. Arnold Ullevig then gave an in-depth presentation regarding the proposed policies and the reasoning for the changes from the current practices. He then held a question and answer session with Council and the public. Trevor Bradway felt the policies were discriminatory against Village workers and those who had paid into the parking fund for parking spaces in the Village Transportation Center. Josef Staufer commented that making employees (who get off work at 2:00 a.m.) park in Ford Park was unfair. There was some discussion regarding employees getting off at late hours, and why coupons worked well before and some people hated to get rid of them. Much discussion by the public and Council ensued regarding pros and cons. Rob Levine made a motion to table the item and send it back to the Advisory Committee for further review. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Jim Gibson stated he wanted to pass the program with the following conditions: lift restrictions on the Village parking structure parking; parking free at Ford Park; and other modifications to be made as the program went along. Ne felt this was a step in the right direction. Mayor Rose explained why he felt it should go back to the committee. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2, with Lynn Fritzlen and Jim Gibson opposed. Ron Phillips asked Council to specifically name the items they felt the Advisory Committee should review. Lynn Fritzlen felt the added stress on employees because of the parking and housing situations was bad, and the plan could help by providing a pass specifically targeted to Village employees. Rob Levine thought the Village Transportation Center could be shared by a first come, first served basis by access or price; include the coupons at a reasonable rate; and there be one pass with no restrictions for $750, that the person could come and go as he pleased. Mayor Rose remarked since the audience felt the blue parking passes would promote more cars in the Village than the coupons, he felt a combined window sticker and coupon program was good and would work. He added he did not think there should be any summer charges for the Village parking structure, and was not sure differential rates on everything in the.Village structure was proper. Jim Gibson thought a blue pass should have "a number of times used" and not "number of days." Peggy Osterfoss commented the audience wanted to have the ability to do what they wanted and parking where they wanted, and paying more was not an issue. The third item was a Consent Agenda of the following items: A. Approval of Minutes of July 3 and 17, 1990 Meetings Q. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance modifying Section 18.13.080(A) of the Municipal Code of the TOV regarding density control for the primary%secondary zone district (Applicant: Town of Vail) C. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail general fund, capital projects fund, Communities for Drug-Free Eagle Ualley fund, special parking assessment fund, Vail marketing fund and the real estate transfer tax fund, of the 1990 budget and the financial plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein. 0. Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending the plan document of the Town of Vail employees' pension plan; and setting forth details in regard thereto. E. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending the Town's Police and Fire pension plan document subject to approval by sixty-five percent (65%) of the Town's Police and Firemen; and setting forth details in regard thereto. F. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending the trust agreement pursuant to the Town of Vail employees' pension plan; and setting forth details in regard thereto. G. Resolution No. 18, Series of 1990, a resolution authorizing certain Town employees and officers to sign checks drawing on an operating account to be opened by the Town at the FirstBank of Vail and further authorizing certain employees of the Town to make deposits in said account. H. Resolution No. 19, Series of 1990, a resolution authorizing the Town of Vail to rent a safe deposit vault at the FirstBank of Vail and authorizing certain officers to sign a lease therefor, to terminate the lease, to surrender the box, return the keys, and release the Bank from any liability in connection therewith. Merv Lapin made a motion. to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. There was no discussion by Council or the public. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Lynn Fritzlen was out of the room at the moment. Next was Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1990, second reading,~an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 23, the Vail National Bank Building, and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance. Mike Mollica stated the only change made since first reading was under Section 4.E.' A new paragraph had been added. Larry Eskwith then discussed Vail Associates' waiver of right of reverter clause which Jim Gibson had questioned at the first reading. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, gave background information regarding the parking situation, and did not feel the ordinance's new paragraph 4.E. was fair. After some discussion by Council and Jay, a motion to approve the ordinance on second reading with the additional language was made by Merv Lapin. A second came from Rob Levine. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2, with Tom Steinberg and Lynn Fritzlen opposed. Fifth on the agenda was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending SDD No. 7, gommonly referred to as the Marriott Mark Resort, and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto (714 West Lionshead Circle, Lots 4, 7, C, D, Block 2, Vail-Lionshead 3rd Filing) (Applicant: M-K Corporation - Kaiser Morcus and Marriott Corporation). The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Jim Gibson made a motion to table this item until the September 4 evening meeting, per the applicant's request.'~~Rob Levine seconded~~the motion. Kristan Pritz explained what rezoning the applicant was trying to change to and why. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Next was Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of Section 18.04.035 Brew Pub;~and amending Section 18.28.030 of the Municipal Code to add Brew Pub as a permitted use in the Commercial Service Center zone district; amending Chapter 18.28.040 of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of Brew Pubs that sell beer wholesale and Brew Pubs which sell fifteen percent of the manufactured beer or ale for off-site consumption as conditional uses to the Commercial Service Center zone district; amending Chapter 18.28 of the Vail Municipal Code to provide certain restrictions in the operation of a Brew Pub; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Andy Knudtsen gave brief background information on the request. He stated three changes to the Code which had to happen regarding this request for a brew pub: 1) it had to be defined; 2) Council had to make a brew pub a use by right; and 3) they had to state specific _2_ items for conditional use. After some discussion, Andy then answered questions of Council. Merv Lapin then made a motion to approve the ordinance, which Jim Gibson seconded. Larry Eskwith suggested combining the two conditional uses shown in the ordinance into only one. Merv then amended his motion to approve the ordinance and to combine both conditional uses into one, and Jim amended his second. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Seventh on the agenda was an appeal,of.',the PEC decision to approve requests for an exterior alteration and landscape variance in order to construct an addition to the Lancelot Restaurant at the Bell Tower Building located at 201 Gore Creek Drive (Part of Tract A, Block 56, Vail Village 1st Filing) (Applicant: Hermann Staufer, Lancelot Restaurant). Kristan Pritz gave background information on the exterior alteration request and explained why staff recommended approval with two conditions: 1. The applicant must remove railings surrounding the patio from November 1 to May 1 of each year. 2. The applicant must participate in a project involving the property owners and the Town's Public Works Department in an effort to resolve drainage problems adjacent to the Bell Tower Building. These drainage problems are a result of the undirected drainage off of the building. Staff does not feel that the applicant should be required to provide the solution individually. However, staff feels it is fair to require him, as a property owner in the building, to participate and pay for his fair share as deemed by the building association. Any drainage improvements necessitated by the deck enclosure shall be addressed by the applicant in the Design Review Board submittal and building permit plans. Kristan then reviewed the landscape variance request and explained the reasoning for the request. She stated the staff recommended approval of the variance, and reviewed the Planning and Environmental Commission's vote for approval of 5-2. Kristan answered questions of Council. Peggy Osterfoss felt these were good ideas for the area. Tom Steinberg commented there should be an agreement with the applicant that he pay a parking fee, and if Council amends the ordinance and increases stated fees sometime during the next year, he would be increased as well. Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to uphold the PEC's decision to approve an exterior addition to the Bell Tower Building, finding that the granting of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, and was substantiated by the Vail Village Master Plan which encourages a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas, and including the conditions required in the staff memorandum dated July 23, 1990. The motion was seconded by Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Peggy Osterfoss then made a motion to uphold the PEC's decision to approve a variance request to reduce the landscaping to increase the Lancelot's deck. She stated the granting of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, and was in compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan, and including the conditions that the landscaping be added between the two buildings, and bench/possible boulder/Aspen tree be added to the Gore Creek Promenade greenspace as mitigation far the reduction of the landscaped area. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Next was an appeal of DRB approval ;of the proposed residence at 3010 Booth Creek Drive (Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing) (Owner: George P. Caulkins, Jr.). Shelly Mello gave background information regarding the request. Eliot Goss, an architect representing the Caulkins, presented the Council with drawings of the building in question. Kristan and Shelly then answered questions of Council. Werner Kaplan presented to Council for their review photographs of residences in the neighborhood, stating reasons why he was opposed to the building of the new home next door. Harry Frampton, a neighbor, requested Council overturn the DRB decision because he felt the Swiss style chalet in a contemporary neighborhood was totally out of place, plus the house needed a garage. August Grassis and Byron Rose, neighbors, supported Mr. Frampton's statements. 'Pepi Gramshammer felt the house was fine and should be approved, that everyone should have the right to build his/her own home. George Caulkins read aloud a letter he received from Rod Slifer in support of the chalet style as far as real estate price was concerned. After much discussion by Council, staff, and the public, Merv Lapin made a mr~ion to unhnls~ the - • DRB_dec i s i on with the conditions the shutters _ be done ,i n. a _sol.i d._col or; ~ a - 1_andscapin plan by incorporated_on_the_open_area, and a two car garage be put on e r.o~z- Rob~LeVine secon mo ion. a Gwathmey stated-how-t~ie DRB had 'come to its decision. A vote was taken an th motion passed 4-3, with Mayor Rose, Tom Steinberg, and Lynn Fritzlen opposed. Mi a Cacioppo gave reasons why he was against the Council's decision. ~ W~ ~a,l-ter ol,v~-~e-~~' ~ ~~n -I~ (~bca~ avg.. o~- ~e~$ ~ a--. C.a~a.~ Y'~ U -3- j At this time, Council decided to take the last two items out of order to expedite , the last item a member of the public was waiting to address.. Therefore, action on proposed lease between the TOV and the Eagle County School District for a playground at the Red Sandstone Elementary School site at 551 North Frontage Road was next. There was no discussion by Council or the public, except to delete the staff recommendation that the lease be conditioned on the School District renewing the Town's lease on the elementary school gym. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the lease agreement, which was seconded by Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Discussion regarding an appeal~;of a DRB~decision'on the Wittemyer residence 'which included a new detached garage and gondola building and a revised front entry (338 Rockledge Road; Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing) (Applicant: Mr. Wittemyer) was next. Mike Mollica'remarked this item, which had been approved by the DRB, had been called up by the Council. He presented drawings of the plans and a scale model of the detached garage and house. Mike added it had been a unanimous decision to approve the plans by the DRB. Ned Gwathmey, Chairman of the DRB, gave additional information regarding the plans and DRB's reasoning for the decision made. John Wittemyer also added background information. Ned then answered questions of Council. Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to uphold the DRB decision,. which Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1, with Merv Lapin opposed. There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ J Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: ~ . Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -4- r ~ Project Application • Date ~ ~ ~ ~ Project Name: /,l,l .l ~ (~~t 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~"1 l ~ Project Description: 1~P"' " r ~ 4 ~ ~ ` ~ i, {t Contact Person and Phone r t %t ~ ~~C Owner, Address and Phone: j Architect, Address and Phone: ~ - I j ~ 1 ' f~~'_I~':' ' ~ Filin V ~ I ~C'~ Zone 1 Legal Description: Lot .Block ~ 9 - I ~`'t ~ ~ G 4 Comments: f ~ ' / , Design Review Board I Date Motion by: Seconded by: . - . ~ /ATrPROVAL DISAPF.tROVAL _ ` ~ t. A'-' - . - ~ - a r (0 ' t7 ~ t1~t ,(Q :i"1 ~ Gt ' 1.., 1 ~ ~ - , ' ~1~ ~ G~ ,L~~-~C G~ Summ y J t~ t ~ I ~ (1 t'r1-1 I 4 P"Y1 O Y n t.~ t~; V' L~ I ~ 111 _ ~ ~ , 1 1 ? Staff Approval 1 own Planner D Date: ~ I y ~'fl¢ . - 0 • ~ a ~ RESOLUTION NO. 8 SERIES 1992 A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING "JUNE IS RECYCLING MONTH" ' , WHEREAS, recycling is a proven method of conserving valuable resources of oil, water, trees, electricity, and landfill space; and ' WHEREAS, Coloradans have displayed an exemplary willingness to recycle, • so much so that the state exceeds the national per capita average in the amount of recycled materials; and ~ ~ WHEREAS, it is appropriate to encourage continued interest in recycling, to assist in the betterment of communities; and ' • " WHEREAS, it is admirable public' policy to recognize and support the . common good which results from recycling; ~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the honorable elected members of the Vail Town Council, join with Colorado Recycles and Eagle County We Recycle, in recognizing ~ "JUNE IS RECYCLING MONTH," ~ ' • ~ with the knowledge that continued success in recycling programs is of certain ~1 • benefit to the citizens of the Town of Vail. 4~ ~ ' INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of April, 1992. , , • ' ~ ' ~ Margaret A. ,Osterfoss, Mayor ~ ~ ' ~ ATTEST: ~ ' ~ \ ~ ~ Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk ~ ~ c:wESO~us2.e ~ _ p~. . - / E,' 1 4 ~ . . - - gym. moo. ~ . .a~? ~ ~ ~ WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP Apri 1 17, 1992 a~ 6ac,~/~ro~~ Page 1 of 3 s~ /f ~ TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1991 . 05/07 SALES TAX COLLECTION LARRY/STEVE: Research remedies to change this to Draft ordinance forwarded to Forest Service and VA for (request: Gibson/Lapin) a mandatory TOV tax collection. review. Forest Service response unclear. ' Communication between all parties will continue. 11/19 NEWSPAPER VENDING LARRYIANDY/MIKE M.. What can be done to make Discussions have begun with vendors. Voluntary MACHINES these uniform and locations less prolific? agreement still being pursued. 1992 01/21 EVENING PARKING MIKE ROSEISTEVE B.: Evaluate financial Mike Rose has put together raw data which is being STRUCTURE FEES ramifications of eliminating parking structure fees analyzed by the Finance Department. To Council (request: Lapin) after 6.:00 p.m. each night. Further review summer 4121/92. free parking, generating numbers to show revenue and expenses if some nominal fee were to be charged. 01/21 BEAVER POND KRISTAN: Check with FEMA experts and Interfleuve, Three reports received from Interfleuve, Hydrosphere, REVITALIZATION Hydrosphere, and Wetland Aquatics to see what solution and Wetland Aquatics will be analyzed by Community what might be appropriate to revitalize this pond Development and Todd 0., and then presented to (i.e., dredging or other means). Council at 5/19/92 work session. 02/04 HERITAGE CABLEVISION CAROLINE:- Prepare new letter of protest for Mayor's Will do upon return of Merv. FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS signature. XC: Newspapers, Dillon, Minturn, etc. (request: Lapin) 02/11 HORSEDRAWN CARRIAGE KEN/LARRY: Prepare extension to agreement, Advisory Committee to help draft standards of AGREEMENT including possible provisions for hobbling, dragging operations and other criteria. Draft contract weights, and other options. to be presented to Council at 4128192 work session prior to signing. Dave Sloan, Carriage Rides, Inc., is currently not doing business. { WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP April 17, 1992 Page 2 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS i 02/17 EXTERIOR LIGHTING KRISTAN/ANDY: Draft ordinance. Input received and joint discussions will continue including all interested parties. 03110 AFFORDABLE HOUSING KRISTAN/LARRY: Draft ordinance. Draft Ord. No. 9, Series of 1992, to Council at 4128192 PROVISIONS ORDINANCE work session. 03/10 LIONSHEAD SALES TAX FIGURE STEVE B./STEVE T.: Packy Walker, on behalf of the Will investigate. Staff time now being spent on special (request: Osterfoss, Levine, LH Merchants Assn., is requesting an accounting of events/daily sales tax reporting program. Staff will Gibson, Steinberg) sales tax taken from a square footage basis, standard attempt to meet these other concerns after completion number (such as Dow Jones) of businesses reporting, to of the special events program. offer a comparative analysis. 03/17 GOAL SHARING SESSION COUNCIL: Carl Neu will be facilitating agoal-sharing Those attending are as follows: Peggy, Merv, Tom, session to include the Avon Town Council, Eagle Count Rob, Jim S., Bob, Ron, and Pam. Commissioners, and Vail Town Council previously scheduled on Monday, 4!27/92, That date unacceptable to Avon. New dates proposed are 5/26192 and 6122/92, with proposed hours either 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m, or 2;00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 04/07 REVIEW RETT LARRY: Schedule for Council review. Draft Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1992 to Council at 4/21!92 work session, 04/07 USE TAX ON CONSTRUCTION LARRY: Prepare ordinance for implementation January Scheduled for 4128/92 work session. MATERIALS 1, 1993. 04107 FORD & DONOVAN PARK TREES TODD 0.: Tom has counted 27 dead spruce in Ford Will do. (request: Steinberg) Park, and although they shouldn't necessarily be removed, they should be checked for disease. ' WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP April 17, 1992 Page 3 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS i 04/14 AMPHITHEATER BUILDING LARRY/GARYIRON: Review and make recommendatio A meeting has been set with Rod Slifer to discuss PERMIT FEES within two weeks (4128192). further. 04/14 SPRING VACATION COUNCIL: At your earliest convenience, please let SCHEDULES either dd or Pam know of any vacation plans that will take you away from regularly scheduled meetings. We ask for this at this time of year to ensure a quorum for scheduled items. 04/14 CML SUMMER COUNCIL: The annual conference is scheduled for Those already signed up are as follows: Tom, Rob, CONFERENCE the week of 6/16-20 in Fort Collins. Please let Peggy, Jim S., and Ron. Ron know as soon as possible if you will be attending all, or a part, of this conference. 04116 SKI MUSEUM CAROLINE: Put together the "Anything But Bob" POCKET PARK park naming contest.