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.