Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-18 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session I It VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, January 18, 2000 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA (5mins.) Item A: Approval of meeting minutes from December 7 & 21, 1999. Item B: Resolution No. 1, Series 2000, allowing the Town to move its Dana investments to Charles Schwab. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: As discussed with the Council in December, fees at Charles Schwab are estimated to be $1,000-$1500/year lower than at our current custody account. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve resolution. 3. Wayfinding Planning Schedule (30 mins.) Suzanne Silverthorn Action Requested of Council: Review and approve or modify wayfinding phasing and implementation schedule with authorization to proceed with phase one. Background Rationale: In July 1999, the Vail Town Council authorized development of a plan to improve directional signage for motorists and pedestrians from 1-70 to the commercial core villages. In August 1999, Corbin Design of Traverse City, Michigan, was awarded a contract to update the town's wayfinding system. Program concepts were presented to the Vail Town Council on Nov. 16, 1999. At that time, the Council directed staff to return with a detailed phasing schedule and cost estimate for implementation which is the subject of this latest presentation. The 2000 capital budget provides $250,000 for recommended wayfinding improvements. 4. First reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000, an ordinance amending Brent Wilson the Official Zoning Map for the Town of Vail in accordance with Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 5, Zoning Map; rezoning Part of Tract B, Vail Village Seventh Filing (Ski Club Vail) from Agriculture and Open Space (A) District to Ski Base Recreation (SBR) District. (30 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with conditions, or deny Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000 on first reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On December 14th, the Town Council reviewed the approved development plan and rezoning request for Ski Club Vail's new facility. At that time, Council (and the PEC) advised staff to pursue an agreement with Ski Club Vail regarding contributions for streetscape improvements. Ski Club Vail's construction estimator evaluated the cost of the Town's proposed streetscape improvements along Vail Valley Drive and staff has reviewed the numbers for accuracy. Ski Club Vail proposes to contribute $14,450 in the form of landscaping, grading and irrigation along Vail Valley Drive. This amount is equal to 39% of the total cost for streetscaping along the Ski Club Vail parcel (or 11.2% of the total cost for streetscaping between the Golden Peak bus stop and the Pinos del Norte property). A complete review of the rezoning request and estimates for streetscape improvements has been included in the staff memorandum. STAFF/BOARD RECOMMENDATION: At its December 131h, 1999 meeting, the Town's Planning and Environmental Commission recommended that the Vail Town Council approve the applicant's request for a rezoning from "Agriculture and Open Space" to "Ski Base Recreation." The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000 on first reading, subject to the following finding: 1. That the proposed zone district is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and appropriate for the area. S. An appeal of the Design Review Board's approval of Potato Dominic Mauriello Patch Club- Additional parking along feeder road/parking/landscaping and extension of road, 950 Red Sandstone Road/Potato Patch Club Condominiums. (1 hr.) Applicant: Potato Patch Club Condominium Assoc., represented by Thomas Gargan Appellants' Representative: Arthur Abplanalp ACTION REQUESTED OF VAIL TOWN COUNCIL: Uphold/Overturn/Modify the December 15, 1999 Design Review Board approval of the proposed paving and landscaping at the Potato Patch Club Condominiums. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: See attached memo. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council uphold the Design Review Board's approval with conditions of the proposed improvements for Potato Patch Club Condominiums subject to the following findings: 1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) have been met. 2. That the conditions imposed on the approval are adequate to protect the interest of the Appellants and the Potato Patch Club Condominium Association. 6. Second reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, an George Ruther ordinance amending and re-establishing the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (45 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with conditions, or deny Ordinance #1, Series of 2000, on first reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On November 23, 1999, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing for the final review and recommendation of a major SDD amendment and conditional use permit request to allow for the redevelopment of Phase IV, Vail Village Inn, Special Development District No. 6. Upon review and consideration of the request the Planning & Environmental Commission unanimously recommended approval of the redevelopment proposal to the Vail Town Council, with conditions. On December 7, 14, & 21, 1999, the Vail Town Council held work sessions to discuss the numerous aspects of the redevelopment proposal. Following _ discussions and providing input to the applicant, the Vail Town Council directed staff to draft an ordinance for review and consideration on January 4, 2000. On January 4, 2000, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, (5-2 Donovan, Foley). Since first reading Condition No. 23, Section 5, has been amended to take into consideration requests of the Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, on second reading. 7. Town Manager's Report. (5 mins.) Bob McLaurin 8. Adjournment (10:05 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/11/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/18/00, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/18/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. CAAGENDA.TC u - ~y TOWN OF PAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 MEMORANDUM 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 TO: Vail Town Council FR: Ludwig Kurz RE: Timber Hauling DT: January 14, 2000 I have participated in all of the meetings with the USFS, EPA, Vail Associates and the affected property owners. We have been able to develop a plan that will minimize the impacts to the adjacent property owners and the town. Attached to this memo is a draft letter that I have had prepared regarding the proposed Timber Hauling through the Town. Please review this letter and let me know if you have any objections to it. Unless the Council objects, it is my intention to sign this and submit it the Forest Service on Tuesday. Please call me if you have questions or need additional information. RECYCLED PAPER u ~y TOWN 0 VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 January 18, 2000 Ms. Linda Riddle White River National Forest Post Office Box 190 Minturn, CO 81645 Re: Timber Removal through the Town of Vail Dear Ms. Riddel The Town of Vail appreciates the opportunity to review this proposal and the strong working relationship that exists between our community and Holy Cross Ranger District. The Town of Vail has reviewed the proposed hauling proposal for removing timber from Blue Sky Basin. After participating in several meetings with Vail residents and lodge owners it has become apparent that previous timber hauling operations associated with Category III have impacted Vail businesses. However, many of the affected businesses have not complained about associated noise, dust, and visual impacts of the logging trucks because of an interest to work cooperatively with the ski resort and the Forest Service. Concerns have also been expressed about how the logging trucks would affect the safety and comfort of bikers and hikers on Vail which are important activities for our summer economy. Vail residents have expressed the most concern about moving lumber through the Town of Vail in the summer months (June through August). The Town recognizes that Blue Sky. Basin will help improve the ski economy of the Town of Vail and that it has already demonstrated. to be a wonderful ski product. The Town of Vail also recognizes the USFS must comply with the EPA order and that any solution must work within the parameters of that order. In the spirit of cooperation, the Vail Town Council would request that the U.S. Forest Service not move timber through the Town of Vail until September, after the Labor Day weekend. In September, timber trucks could move through Town during weekdays at a frequency of 10 truck per day. In October the timber trucks could move through the Town of Vail 7 days a week at a frequency of 10 trucks per day. We would not permit any temporary parking or staging of trucks within the Town limit. Also under no circumstances should the trucks use their jake brakes in the RECYCLEDPAPER Town or as they come off the mountain into Town. This would result in a violation of our noise ordinance. We would request that a traffic management plan be prepared to address safety, noise, and dust issues associated with the trucking of the logs. This plan should specifically address how to reduce safety risks associated with recreational activities on Vail Mountain. We would very much appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this plan before logging removal commences. In short, the proposal presented by Vail Associates at the January 13th meeting would be acceptable with the additional considerations mentioned above. Logging traffic in the Town of Vail represents a significant and potentially negative impact to our resort community. We believe if the Forest Service accepts the above-mentioned request, that those impacts could be minimized. We very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed action. We would respectively request to have the opportunity to comment on the logging operations in the fall of 2000, and to recommend changes in the plan for future summers if deemed necessary. If you have any questions regarding our comments please contact Bob McLaurin at 479-2106 or myself at 845-5973. Sincerely, Ludwig Kurz Mayor cc. Town Council Bob McLaurin Tom Moorhead Russell Forrest MEMORANDUM - - TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department _ w DATE: January 18, 2000 SUBJECT: A discussion on the use of public right-of-way for an already constructed - garage located at 285 Forest Rd./ Lot 21, Vail Village 1 st 'Applicant: Steve & Linda Waterhouse,, represented by Neill Wurmlinger Planner: Allison Ochs 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND A front setback variance was granted by the Planning and Environmental Commission-in April of 1999 to allow for the construction of a garage in the front setback. The garage was approved with a 3.5 ft. setback. The request was called up by Council on April 20, 1999 and the Town Council upheld the variance request. A building permit was issued on July 21, 1999. - When the Improvement Location Certificate was submitted to the Community Development. Department on December 13, 1999, the survey indicated that the garage had been built over the front property lihe and into the public right-of-way due to surveyor error at construction. The applicant has applied for another variance, to allow the garage to remain. However, as property owners of the right-of=way, the Town Council must approve the use of the right-of-way prior to the hearing on the variance. - The Planning and Environmental Commission memo and minutes on the original variance request have been attached for reference. The application has been schedule for the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on January 24th for the variance hearing. Staff will continue to recommend denial on the variance request. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Comm uni'ty9Development Department recommends denial of the use of the public right-of-way fi for this private use for the following reasons: . 9 Other requests for use of the public right-of-way for private purposes prior to construction have been denied. ® The integrity of the right-of-way is compromised. Future road projects and, snow removal are potentially complicated. • According to the plans, the garage was supposed to be 3.5 ft. from the property line. Staff believes that it is possible to relocate the garage without compromising the existing vegetation. ® Presents a potential traffic hazard. ® Fails to meet the Development Standard requiring 24 ft. from the door of the garage to the edge of pavement. 1 41 SE - - i- S+ } A S. Y' z CSC' r7A. ? r, h4. c= ~ R y. i i- i y . _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - " i a, I~ 1'. -r: . - _ - - _ _ c T - Y" 0:,. . _ . - - - 6 1 9 - V: - - , t _ - , - , , . ~ . ,00; ni"', Q- t k AR-AK : „ i. - . 3 _ _ _ - - v, - t - i ` 2 ` 7~' T. , y ' 3_ a 9 ~ ' Z~ .},-'~-".,'0 i ? - 'i ' tE' k : i i ;~,f Ys Y a-,I r s ; r 1 9 r - 'l ° „1 xC C ''y2' L z. _ _ 't t, 7,~\inN 4 ` i,,. " - _ _ - - y.. Ct ry , _ _ ' 'C~ , r - _ f- u:i z 4 - -;,x: °'fi:= ,'..•^e ~ ,i_"S T•5 r '=r, -^'a .t, 'y^~, ~,r , - t}?; - - si ~a- .y ' wr 1 s - fr r:. x_, "-fir- t i-" % k i ti - 's'' yF~r- r;'Y . _ - _'f a 'iC '.t+ s iF °i`=' _Y = ..5: _ _ .1:ir. fa.."-' 3 _ -C..f.. -Lt3 i:t2•z :,!•.`--s- .C ~TT4 - ::.1. „Y. -.1`~yr ; -+L" .'„ice ..JL"`,.:~ ,d , `x? F 8'r f.. f i t~: _ §sF,-. J- f!';( '.T.M ;iii a3x- mS. _Fv rti` x,j -,f,. z:,m,ul ~:Srv' t i~'I..•G• , * - , ` - c',~ ,t - .d MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 12, 1999, SUBJECT: A request for a variance to the front setback, to allow a new garage, located at 285 Forest Road/Lot, 20, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Steve & Linda Waterhouse, represented by Steven Riden Planner: Jeff Hunt 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to the front setback requirement. The proposal involves building a new two-car garage to replace the existing one-car-garage. The existing garage is about 297 sq. ft. and the new garage would be about 485 sq.ft. The lot is subject to the following setback requirements: front 20'; sides and rear 15'. The existing garage has a front setback of about 3.25' and a side setback of about 13.5'; see photo, below. The new garage would be constructed with a front setback of about 3.25' and a side setback of:15'. A copy of the plan is attached for review. A separation request was approved in 1989 to allow the garage to be separated from the dwelling. The approval was based on the site constraints presented by the existing dwelling. A variance was then approved in 1990 to allow the garage to be within 3' of the front property line. The approval was based on other garages in the area being within the front setback, minimizing disturbance to the hillside and saving a mature evergreen tree. Subsequent to this approval, the Town adopted development standards that provide for a 24' clearance between garage doors and the edge of pavement. Because of the subsequent development standard and because the new garage would be larger than the existing garage, staff required the applicant to obtain approval of a variance. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on this memo, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the variance'. This recommendation is subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental,to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or-improvements in the vicinity. 2. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will not result in Oit;1 OF VAILI% practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning Regulations. III. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Size: Parcel A: 6.865 sq. ft. Standard Allowed/Required Existinq Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20' 3.5' 3.5' Side: 15' 13.5' 15' i.. v.rF': fx.x'• ::ii4:i: }r~Q;::~%:at•:: r....+}::?^. l•:Fr.ri:Y..+.•rff... v: ../Y: lfri: {ii??i<S% ^ `j:^}'F....... )i:4 v:..... ..%}.:ti•?:iv:i;i}}?: «rf.:::: :«.;r}?rr'. .F::: r: ~'f,.?{}•}:i}:+::.v}- -Y.-^•::.i•}}}::{{?•}ii:{%}:{::-:~:: ii::.. ;5}i: .:Y::. ...r. }}f?r . r F F.... r.. •x' r•Y }N.r. • -rr- '-.v: .:v: ~r:. {{-?}:y: •Fv+::}r '}Y;+}i}~: f...... FFirv. +~iY.~:?ri}iii:;-.v:::; :f. r :v / Ff:•?f ff ~ f /xG ;}+.r'i: F+. F{?:•: f^: ~{.vCl+~ >q:{~ U }iiF}Y '-~:?-}::4})}}}}}i}}:?.}:}}}}}:........... .;:%.i~:$ is%:i+:iii}•I:ii ii::;::i:i:i:..:i ii vh•}: ~ ::+r}} :':'iii~}r>:i:«y:''y.{•. };Y, r:: r:.: -},;y:..:. ~ X: K* .'i; " o-}: %'.'i'.. ..c •Y}>>}Y:•}iii:: i•.'.2°•ii}:.}a ..a ,•.,SYC}}y.:.Y: ::z-:-x . :.:.•.•t{i::;:};i:;::iii:?i:in•i: ix;; ~ i:::. h. ?~Y:•i}:•x•}:{.iii}iiiii S.:: '%'+}:•i n'': ~ ~ ' -:!iiiii:• " {:•t}::Yi i::% iiiii:' " j;jx:L-}:-:f^xb:j_: •:r::•Y.-:•'r~rii: is?:i%'~' ii:.::%:%::::::. 4:..%... n•r r ''?#i:}%},•}> ` : `cif ` ' - } irAyoo~eavf rD*'.~:;:: _ :O'S'::.:9f':ri,6:~+YY~~!k~Y•iYCli6:~A0Cb}JW. lid: l } Y. •Y::::::::i::::::::iiiii:....iiiii::i::i:?: `i i: %.....%iii.. ..•,`.+r+ ...7:•;:::: ::•::-:%ii:%:.%?-iiiii iii::%iiiii}ii:%iiiii%: : X' i %Yi~~??}:{ }hf.•}.......... :}};?•i ?.viiiii iiii iii}ii} r.......:.v.v:4..-Y}G%: . t.4}:4}::iv.:•iX~$'F.J: Ir~i• :4G}:•... ? }.::•$i:{•}: :.r... 2 \ IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS " A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed garage would be about 3.5' from the front property line and 15' from the side line. This would be an improvement of the existing garage side setback which is-about 13.5'. There are no nearby buildings on this side. The front of the existing garage is about 15' long. The new garage would have a front of about 22'. The new garage would have about 7, or 46% more "frontage along the road. Structures are setback from, roads for several reasons, one of which is to reduce the likelihood of collision. Having a larger garage about 35 from the road would increase the likelihood of collisions. Also, a larger garage about 3.5' from the property line would be more visually'obtrusive to neighbors than a smaller garage. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is.necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives- of'this.title without a grant of special privilege. Other property owners are required to place new garages in compliance with development standards, unless there are unusual circumstances. Staff believes there are no unusual circumstances in this instance and that the garage could be placed on the property in compliance with development standards. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and. utilities, and public safety. This is the main concern with the proposal. The development standard that provides for a clearance of 24' between the garage doors and the edge of pavement is intended to insure safe and efficient transportation. The setback allows for most vehicles to be parked completely off the asphalt reducing the potential for collisions, providing for better vision clearance and allowing for street maintenance including plowing. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The Town staff including the Public Works Department believes there are no. legitimate reasons for the new garage to not meet standards. The slope of the property is less than 30%, which is the threshold to allow garages within front-setbacks. The slope does not preclude construction. As proposed, the north wall of the new garage. would extend 4' closer to the mature evergreen tree and the roof would extend about 6' closer to the tree than the existing garage. The foundation would extend to the ground, rather than be canilevered as is the existing garage; see photo, below. Due to this, the tree would likely not survive for long, thus eliminating the basis of the original variance. It appears that the chief reason for the request is protection of the view from the east facing windows of the residence, which is understandable, but does not justify the granting of a variance to a development standard that others are required to meet. Also, there is the option of retaining the existing garage. XO: 2'fiSh ^+ec5cyfo;Y;dz~4.W ~ qP r ;;:..<:NM aJ fit s ~~&6Ge9~:!~:'-4~'.~!':-•:.:: ..........a.....n:ib':il'~:'SC??~~4?~jS~?~'':''. B. Necessarv Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall 4 make the following findings before granting a variance: - 1. That the granting.of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V... OTHER: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission decide to approve the variance, staff recommends: That the Commission makes the following findings: t 1. That the granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the, same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public"health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations. 4. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. And that the approval be subject to the following condition of approval: 1. The north wall and roof line of the new garage do not extend any closer to the 5 r mature evergreen tree than the existing garage's wall and roofline, unless approved by a professional arborist. F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\99\WATERHOU r r ~ 6 a - Approved April 26, 1999 _ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 12, 1999 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: John Schofield Greg Moffet. Dominic Mauriello Galen Aasland Brian Doyon George Ruther Diane Golden Ann Bishop Jeff Hunt Tom Weber Judy Rodriguez Public Hearing, 2:00 p.m. John Schofield called the meeting to order at 2.00 p.m. 1. A request for an amendment to a previously approved final plat for the Tail Pines Subdivision, located at 2239 Chamonix Lane / Lots 1 & 2; Tall Pines Subdivision. Applicant: Chamonix. Development Group, LLC & Paintbrush-Tall Pines, GP Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had any comments. Kurt Davis, one of the two owners, said there were a number of studies done with Art Mears. He thought it ok to swell over the envelope lines, as they did own the property, and that no view corridors would be affected. He said the supports would be 7' high. John Schofield asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Discussion ensued. Tom Weber made a motion for approval iri accordance with the staff memo. Galen Aasland seconded the motion,. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6H-8, Town of Vail Municipal Code, to:allow for gross residential floor area (GRFA) in excess of the allowable maximum, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive #8 / Lot 8, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: P. Anthony & Constance Ridder, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects 1 - Planning and Environmental Commission " { Minutes TO SYAOF VA IL April 12, 1999 Approved April 26, 1999 - Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. Andy Blumetti, from Gwathmey Pratt Schultz, representing the owner, stated that 2 of the other lots were over the 60% site area of allowable GRFA, and this was determining density. He said y lot 12 was at 91 % of the site area. John Schofield asked for any Commissioner comments. Tom Weber asked why the adjoining owners were over in GRFA and if they were built before the overriding zoning. George Ruther said they were built under Eagle. County regulations. He said that while there was a non-conforming condition on the sites, there was an opportunity to add 250 sq. ft. Tom Weber thought it would be a grant of special privilege. Galen Aasland had no comments. , Diane Golden thought it would be a grant of special privilege. Andy Blumetti said that they were just trying to catch up with the existing owners. Tom Weber said the project was developed under County zoning„codes, not under the Town of Vail code. _ John Schofield said he saw no hardship and therefore a grant of special privilege. Andy Blumentti said the hardship was trying to catch 'up with the other owners. Galen Aasland made a motion for denial, in accordance with. the staff memo. i r c ' Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion to deny passed by a vote of 4-0. 3. A r'e'quest for a variance to the front'setback, to allow a new garage, located at 285 Forest Road/Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village V.' s a Applicant: Steve & Linda Waterhouse, represented by Steven Riden Planner: Jeff Hunt - Jeff Hunt gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add.- 2 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 13. 1999 Approved April 26, 1999 Steve Riden representing the applicant, said he compromised and reduced the length of the garage to 20', with a 19' inside space. He said lengthening the retaining wall was included in the proposal to protect a mature tree and that the situation was being improved by moving the garage further away from the side setback. Galen Aasland asked if there would be space above the garage. Steve Riden, said no. John Schofield asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. Tom Weber said he was in favor of this and suggested that the new outside parking space be cantilevered, as he thought the tree would be lost with a foundation. Galen Aasland agreed with Tom. He said it needed.to be cantilevered, so as not to change the water table and the garage needed to be limited to 1 story. Diane Golden said she was in favor of granting this, as the applicant had made a concerted effort, and so she agreed with her fellow commissioners. John Schofield said the tree warranted a hardship and that there were other garages- in the front setback in that neighborhood, but the lighting on the existing lot would need to be brought into compliance as part of this approval. He suggested using one or more of the. existing piers and cantilevering the north portion. Steve Riden said he could cantilever 5'. Tom Weber made a motion for approval with 5 conditions: , 1. That the north wall and roof line of the new garage do not-extend any closer-to the mature evergreen tree than the existing garage's wall and roofline, unless approved by a professional arborist. 2. `That the site lighting be brought into compliance with the Town regulations. 3. That the pier & beam garage foundation & parking space be cantilevered to minimize the site disturbance. 4. That the plate height of the garage roof be determined by a reasonable 8' garage door. 5. That the garage roof eave does not *extend over the front property line into the public right-of- way. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 4. A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to Special Development District #30 (VAC), to allow for an additional dwelling unit and reduction of accommodation units, located at the Vail Athletic Club, 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A & B, Vail Village First Filing. 3 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 12; 1999 Approved April 26, 1999 Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins Planner: Dominic Mauriello/Brent Wilson Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. Stan Cope and John Perkins, representing the Vail Athletic Club, introduced themselves and Stan Cope stated that they were looking for fewer high-end hotel rooms with an increase of more than doubling the AU square footage. He said they were trying not to have controversial redevelopment and that only one dormer on the south side increased the mass of the building, with all the redevelopment being down on_the third floor. He said they would like to try and change the AU zoning, since they were an'SDD and would like to have 46-48 keys in the ordinance for a little more flexibility. Dominic Mauriello said there were other SDD's out there that have flexibility created in the ordinance. Discussion ensued with issues being raised on the size of the EHU's, the large size of the new DU and concerns over the separate application for a new dormer, etc. t~ No action was taken'. John Schofield stated for the record that there was no public present to comment. 5. A request for a minor amendment to a previously approved development plan,-to allow for the construction of a skier tunnel at the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive /:Tract B, Vail Village 7ih Piling:. Applicant: Vail Associates Planner: Jeff Hunt STAFF APPROVED 6. ; A request for a modificationkto a platted building envelope;tlocated at,-1047 Riva Glen/ Lot 6, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Franco D'Agostino, represented by Robert Mach 4 Planner: Allison Ochs b 's c - b TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26, 1999 7. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, to allow for a building encroachment into a rear setback, located at 2657 Arosa Drive / Lot 8, Block D, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 4 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 12; 1999 - Approved April 26, 1999 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26, 1999 8. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26, 1999 Diane Golden made a. motion. to table items #6, #7 and #8.. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 9. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus, to amend Section 6 of Ordinance #12, Series of 1997 to clarify a condition of the Ordinance, located at 242 E. -Meadow Drive/ Part of Tract-C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN - 10.' A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to-allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 11. A request for a conditional use permit,,to allow fo'r outdoor patio seating at Special,. Development District #35, located at 242 East Meadow Drive / Austria Haus Club & Hotel. ` Applicant: Johannes Fae`ssler ' Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 12. Information Update e Timberfalls letter (in packet) J Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 12, 1999 Approved April 26, 1999 Russ Forrest asked if the PEC would like to be involved in the Orientation process of the new PEC members. 13. Approval of March 22; 1999 minutes. Tom Weber made a motion for approval of the amended minutes. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 3-0 (Diane Golden abstained). Diane Golden made a motion to adjourn. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed- by a vote of 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. 6 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes a April 12. 1999 Memorandum To: Vail.Town Council From: George Ruther, Senior Special Projects Planner Date: January 18, 2000 Re: Off-site Improvements Construction Obligations and Staff Recommendation i The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the off-site improvement obligations of the Developer of the Vail Plaza Hotel and to provide the Council with the recommendation of the staff for the design, construction and financial responsibilities of the improvements. Off-site Improvements E There are certain off-site improvements that are required to be provided as a result of the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. These improvements are required either because of the design and operational aspects of the hotel or because of the requirements of the various Town planning documents such as the Streetscape Master Plan and Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The required improvements areddentified on the Off-site Improvements Plan that is part of the Approved Development Plan for the Vail Plaza Hotel. The requirement for off-site improvements will be further clarified in a Developer Improvement Agreement that shall be executed between the Town of Vail and the Developer prior to the issuance of a building permit for the hotel. The recommended list of required off-site improvements should include: 1. A heated, six-foot and eight-foot wide, concrete paver sidewalk and all associated improvements (site furnishings, trash containers, etc.) pursuant to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. 2. The completion of the bus stop on the north'side of East Meadow Drive. 3. The installation of "Village" street lights along East Meadow Drive the entire length of the Special D evel opment; D i s trict. 4. A -new unheated, eight-foot wide, concrete sidewalk along the South Frontage Road from the eastern boundary of the Special Development'District to the intersection of Vail Center Road and the South Frontage Road. 5. The installation of "Village" street lights along the southside of the South Frontage`Road from the Main Vail Roundabout to Village Center Road. 6. The construction and landscaping and all associated improvements for a median in the South Frontage Road east of the Main Vail Roundabout to the driveway entrance to the Vail Village Inn, Phase III, Condominium Building. 7. The removal and subsequent re-landscaping of the existing loading/delivery lane along the south side of the South Frontage Road, in the right-of-way, in front of the Phase III Condominium Building. 8. The construction of a landscape island designed to screen the loading/delivery access drive and entrance from the South Frontage Road: 9. The design and construction of a potential left-turn lane on Vail Road. The requirement shall include all associated costs to complete the improvements. . 10. The design and construction of all required storm sewer and drainage improvements resulting from the construction of the hotel. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Developer be held responsible for all costs associated with the construction of the off-site improvements listed above. For the purpose of this requirement, all associated costs shall include, but not be limited to, design, civil engineering;. materials, labor, construction, fees, inspections, installation, etc. The Town of Vail shall be responsible for the cost of the construction of any-required engineering associated with the construction of the portion of unheated, concrete sidewalk from the eastern boundary of the Special Development District to Village Center Road. To ensure that the construction obligations and financial responsibilities are met, staff would recommend that a Developer Improvement Agreement be executed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the hotel. r TOWN OF VAIL WORLD Office of the Town Attorney CHAMPIONSHIPS 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 1999 -VA I L-BEAVER CREEK 970-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157 TM Memorandum To: Town Council Members From: Tom Moorhead Re: Berry Creek Fifth Request for Proposals Date: January 14, 2000 Attached you will see a draft request for proposals for the housing site on Berry Creek Fifth. You will see that this is the second iteration and is being presented to you in highlight and strikeout so you are able to see the changes that have been made. This draft is a result of two meetings between the Town and County staff. The Commissioners reviewed the first iteration and their suggestions have been taken into account to arrive at the second draft. Thank you. RECYCLED PAPER 11/22/99 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 01/14/00 Request for Proposals Design er/Builder/Manager of Affordable Housing Units located in Eagle County 1. Introduction Eagle County and the Town of Vail are interested in building affordable housing units on a 16-acre site in Edwards, Colorado. The County recently purchased a 105-acre parcel fi om the Eagle County Recreation Authority. In an Intergovernmentmental-Agreement with the school district a16-acre site has been specifically set aside for rental and for-sale affordable housing.Gn., 7n.~c~~~~~ yl~~lt rte-T . . L de~e}e N ;r~ god bl'. ...~r 'w~~ sv 2'lte lanx 6., W the Wavy pWool. rn e~rd~r r~?' ez~ ~ur~ trfj~nr ctezt~~E the g a i a. ~?c ~ l,rtbl lic s1~t Zevelrap~nen th:< t e.a . min f for sale an € rental ut r€s t det x: 14011 by the d v Toper The developer pr;,Yosam will need to determine what the best use of the site would be as well as what mix provides the greatest benefit to the community at large. H. Objectives The goal of Eagle County and the Town of Vail is to ensure affordable housing for people working within the County. Tti su ===tl c long terra. affQr- iAla V1.0 f these €tty~ts 'Ize they wl be died xestncted: et> Tho r ~ I1 Meta a requ rernent for c~W_ € cupahcy on the for-Sale s atttl long-te m ental X x p pie Qrk dull t x e u a yeah round basis. The for sale gzlits v aJ_S. hczv met a si~n -V e Plate tW en.p. 'eto I t cr r~rdabrli : p a ax e9 L r s 1 . r''''ea''aa1 The goa As.::. oe a r ~r of or'`ki a cl e z d ~rnl s ~ttxt arm ~ al pyesr~,ro-Ct rest fiexlnciully ournc~ from a e~~vdae~° s perstive also lie rppr4?edaFa fh 0~un revarQecrsr3~xj The MKT ..........V best use a`te'e ap€ afrtabllty The sizes of the units should be varied to provide as The many options as possible- i s c . proposer needs to include a management plan for the rental units. Eagle County and the Town of Vail will find prequalified purchasers for the for-sale units. III. The Site i The site consists of 16-acres immediately south of 1-70, just east of the Edwards exit. It is part of a 105-acre parcel known as Berry Creek 51h Filing. The housing site is located just to the east of the Equestrian Center and to the west of the Berry Creek Middle School. East of the middle school is the future home of an elementary school. The land to the south will be maintained as recreational space. (See attached map) i Berrv Creek Affordable Housing Page 1 of 7 i Request For Proposals 11/22/99 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 01/14/00 The school district also has 12 acres set aside for housing. They do not have definitive plans to move forward at this time, but it may be beneficial to speak with them about their intentions and time line. There are no utilities on the site. Miller Ranch Road, the road leading to the site, has not been constructed. It may be useful to create a utility plan before the road is in place. There may be an opportunity to get the utilities in place before road construction. A coordinated effort with the School District will again be useful. IV. Material to be Provided in Proposal A. Cover Letter 1. Identify team members 2. State roles of each member 3. Highlight strengths of team B. Qualifications and Experience 1. Describe team's expertise as it pertains to the delivery of affordable housing. Emphasize residential construction projects of this scale. Discuss team member's experience in mountain communities. Describe the team's existing working relationships with subcontractors who will be available to work on this site and keep the project on schedule. 2. Provide examples of previous developments 3. Provide examples of rental management experience of the size proposed C. Schedule Identify dates to which the team can commit for the following steps: 1. Development team review of the site and current designs with modifications as appropriate 2. Conceptual review of design by the appropriate County boards and the Vail Town Council It is recognized that creating a specific timeline based on the amount of time needed for the review process is difficult. For the next items it would be satisfactory to estimate the amount of time necessary to prepare the required documents rather than specific dates. 3. Final review by boards and Council 4. Building permit application 5. Building permit issuance 6. Start of construction 7. Completion Berry Creek Affordable Housing Page 2 of 7 Request For Proposals 11/22/99 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 01/14/00 D. Project Budget The project budget should be broken down into three main categories: total project, per unit and per square foot. The proposed budget must include at a minimum the following costs that should be broken out: Architectural fees Engineering fees Tap fees B10ld1 :V-1; ! y e Excavation Utilities Concrete Framing Interior finishes Paving Landscaping Off-site work Retainage Contingency Fin n ing costs a c osts z........ cs:~. ;tne ers envirignmek Ail MR.: Iness. (Additional detail is appreciated) Prospective developers are asked to provide sufficient information to evaluate the proposal. The information provided is intended to serve multiple functions. 9 To understand the program and site plan proposed; s The value placed on the land as provided to the development; ? To provide an opportunity to the prospective developers to present background information regarding your firm's prior experience, the principal participants, and j financial strengths; i l e To evidence the total benefits to the community to be derived from the proposed development scheme. V. Financial Analysis The objective of this housing is to provide long-term affordable housing options for e to ees within Ea le Count.;..: mP.....Y ..................................g.....................Y::...................................:: An 194 U , ..f f......:.::::...:.:.:.......::.::::......:...:':.:.:.........:.................:......::::::::::::::::::::::`;" "`isQ!i'l i:.;:.::::::.ii is iisi: i 22isi: :i ._r'.....i: i ;i;:' „::i''2i G1 { e .<.::.:<:.;:::... n~ .~l~rru e eci a t xx 21 y ale a dabi l cct em ..lo: E t tar re* l 'rt r f Jr l~in':.. int 0' b~c x~rip unr s s r t -d :r be.' t s t> an ! 15f:f11 iaz~ W. 1. ca:urt>srruli....ze.te..tan . r . .......::.:::::::::.::::::::::::::::.:.::::::::::::.::::::::.P::::. 4.::.: . ~a..e Fs#ie :l~asei :oxz>1 f t;i cl: i r '1 rt X. t ES l~cr l :bE: i< to : o: . xrE'.orclald~hQveig, r1 lcrnro}ceCs<etl. Please note that in the recent Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment garages were ranked as one of the most valuable amenities a home could have, and people considered them an amenity worth extra cost. Berry Creek Affordable Housing Page 3 of 7 Request For Proposals I r F < C'f 11/22/99 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 01/14/00 Z .L b0 1. of he court arinl t 1e Tf~~vrt i ttr:xncx ritair; Ize afcrrcv lity.f~ ies' atS;: e11 'tlre D rnuirtatnf rdurxtoftr fferert rrECharrsns brlitrjuie her2 ttsedblz>rr ntities Both deed-re,. trictions rt td ex IaPtd tr lcsr X3atre been' thought of d:c~,Irs to et2atare long terra uffvrdulr li If t re rVpcrst ht c th x s rccc s ytxl M. e.d : a ~srns "or;;: 732f 1?tlt?31dn~ llflUYtdubfifty the.G©rr~t W.U. l k 7« V M. ate ~valltng to dascu Fez Describe your proposed financing, including sources and uses. The submittal should include a development budget detailing hard and soft costs with developer fees and financing costs delineated. The package should also include an operating pro forma on the project covering at least five years. All rental rates and for-sale prices are to be shown based on unit size. Include vacancy rate estimates. Operating costs are to be sufficiently itemized to show all management fees and maintenance budgets. Also, allocate money to pay for a portion of Miller Ranch Road construction. It is also important to demonstrate the proposer's understanding of the current area market and market analysis done to create the financial costs and package being proposed. The proposer will need to demonstrate the market demand for the product mix being proposed. Expertise in providing permanent financing packages to the prospective purchasers is also an important part of the services being sought. EI. nce Watfz €r ran ~ ~ ri'^ of ordalZle housing developzMnts reve led that x~~a y buyers ire d program . . cater to entry Tavel buvrsujth ltnited resraurGes #1VlA project approvalanre 1~ o be a critical c 6xterit of the sales s it rnakes lF.a ;r a: .:lix..... .e package . . range at loans available to the buyer, w thous he cent of additional you fis s z 1 €s at . hig errates. The County and the, Town will consider other types ;>.ofper~nan l packages that P-Dab le the target market of catry level buyers to close lc~azt~ ~exillcl' include FNTVLA, FDMC, F1IA, private portfolio placement or internal l3eern ~ma r ortgage c11mpany. ~F:e r efer epee is v {x~zi praieet crpp o al thair ru l es t/ Tno g ges gel hle on the secondai-v market.' pother consrderafiorr far p o jest ap ~avtil:: :i o # t rental cle elopnzent and the for-suit" do.-yew at.rrl Wv I b~:vuckagt cl tt2 ~?zstt+c-VrQfe.. aprra}a1 fr».t F~... czr rznotre etztr` The development team must also provide all the necessary services to transfer the ownership of the constructed units to the future homeowners. The cost for these services must be provided and included in the purchase price. It is expected that these services 0 not exceed 2% of the rice of the homes. an : P l? 3' . _........_....h _ _ wzll 1ial?e.esxa il-iis tl 0: rweduul fled pulz. rsers o h zr ilist of r~tc;k r eft} aser mill be er fit r~ _ Becawe. l ie pr¢j ~d sales c~s ark s~gxZ}r<aril rket rrtce rt i r a epa: e i :y at;th~:Pd * c;r will: a~tx~ct: ~yex s ....x .....gn~i~~dx W.64. t'et:r~ cffvr ts; . Eagle County' and file ofar.31 ctausrder ;tote Vas~rbrltty ~f rrtc~~tt~mg fr eeqn IV rants tCj cr~f .set the c<?a'tS of lirerdablislrzat: If`tlt~per card tleinortstrtttlia?e c ffordcrhle housing do ti elctplrtez2z teat tcts >rl t bexrcfits frat 2 sire rzcl{ siQrz of flee mai ti nt.r 1/ crse include biz ie c;F szgn us efl trrie fit an al ah:a vsts su o nag h Berry Creek Affordable Housing Page 4 of 7 Request For Proposals 11/22/99 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 01/114/0~0y j y ~y t yyv y AIVIQ I hl rity rcrcr rrc J i a....:: :::,'rG.Yi:ii":..: a....;v.... ~ '`'Y>n i+n n1'li~.~ c.twl oi~fa~frrot c Yr ,yr nlts 4n nl.i~n non n otvr~t4C~ K'44- -Z" . n i 3 *A. :'%7Y>j1~c~Y i!?. : `4f: ~n it'>•:.'~. ` %"iK:r'i~?i:'i:: » VI. Criteria for Selection ? Quality and successful implementation of comparably sized developments. Affordable residential development experience of a similar nature and scope will be viewed favorably, and the commitment to quality as evidenced by previous developments and their aesthetics will be considered. i ? Review and discussions of the proposed development plan (s), including project scale and land use interrelationships. Quality of site planning and treatment of parking and open space, and livability for residents. Imagination and creativity in land planning as evidenced by plans for the Berry Creek site and in previous work, an ability to meet the quality expectations of the Town and the County, and design as evidenced by previous projects will be evaluated. Price and terms disclosed by the developer. The total offer, the structure of that offer, and the financial capability of the developer team to carry out the proposed site development will be carefully considered. Additionally, the ability to secure financing, and to complete all negotiations in a timely and expeditious manner will be considered. Discussion of the approach to managing the proposed development. The County and the Town seek to ensure that the development will remain affordable within the guidelines proposed. Willingness to join in participatory process involving officials and staff, and neighborhood or community groups as required. i ? Ability to ensure ongoing management of the proposed development and to maintain the development in an aesthetic manner, and to continue to house the targeted population will be evaluated. The extent to which the proposal meets the community's need for housing. Site planning concepts will be evaluated on whether they address the long-term needs of residents. For example, family units must be designed to be livable with appropriate amenities and open spaces. Pedestrian/bicycle access through the site should be sensitive to the residents and the larger needs of the community. These and other community benefits will be considered in the review process. Berry Creek Affordable Housing Page $ of 7 Request For Proposals L. 11/22/99 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 01/14/00 ? Cit'~ttEVft zr~ cr c trrr nr~mer s "z::icy; . ? ::ba are i yc ut and aff= ES . . . :lliOii~i O. ucOes~f:a€l:de?:e:Ir~ menr::avill:::be:::tn:>shcwin ~:::ereatvroa:>rau o ....................Y........................................... . diNfi V., t VII. Deadline and Contacts Proposals must be received by' 2!00 PA4 o DeeenAwf l! ' `tel. 3F,...........:..:..:....:..:.......:..:..:. Proposals should be submitted to: Mr. Jack Ingstad Eagle County Administrator 500 Broadway Post Office Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Please include 8 copies of the proposal At Eagle County please contact David Carter, Housing Director at 970/328-8876. At the Town of Vail please contact Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator at 970/479- 2144 or by e-mail at nti =(a ci.vail.co.us. If necessary, interviews will be conducted the week of Janu -4e 11'4-2004. t,E Both Eagle County and Town of Vail staff will conduct reviews of submittals. VIII. Other Fair Housing Act Standards Proposers should be aware of the requirements for accessibility, per the Fair Housing Act of 1988 (FHA) and its amendments. Determining which units must comply with all seven items and which units are exempt will be the responsibility of the development team. The general areas of compliance are: 1. Accessible entrances 2. Accessible common areas 3. Usable doors 4. Accessible routes through units 5. Light switches and other controls in accessible locations 6. Reinforced bathroom walls for grab bars 7. Usable kitchens and bathrooms IX. General Conditions Berry Creek Affordable Housing Page 6 of 7 Request For Proposals ,r 11/22/99 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 01/14/00 Limitations and Award: This RFP does not commit Eagle County or the Town of Vail to award or contract, nor to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of qualifications in anticipation of a contract. Eagle County and the Town of Vail reserve the right to accept or reject all or any submittal received as a result of this request, to negotiate with all qualified sources, or to cancel all or part of the RFP. After a priority listing of the final firms is established the Town and the County will negotiate a contract with the first priority firm. If negotiations cannot be successfully completed with the first priority firm, negotiations will be formally terminated and will be initiated with the second most qualified firm and, likewise, with the remaining firms. % Eaual Emnlovment Onnortunity: The selected consultant will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. X. Attachments ? Map of Berry Creek 5 h Filing ? Soils Surveys ? Survey of Site ? Schedule of Eagle County Board meetings ? Copy of the 1999 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment ? Eagle County Development Standards Berry Creek Affordable Housing Page 7 of 7 Request For Proposals RESOLUTION NO. 1 Series of 2000 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CHARLES SCHWAB AND COMPANY, INC. AS A CUSTODIAL ACCOUNT AND SCHWAB MONEY MARKET FUND AS A MONEY MARKET ACCOUNT FOR THE FUNDS OF THE TOWN AS PERMITTED BY THE CHARTER OF THE TOWN, ITS ORDINANCES, AND THE STATUTES OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Town has the power to designate banks or financial institutions and money market accounts for funds of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to designate accounts for funds of the Town managed by Dana Investment Advisors, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, as follows: 1. Charles Schwab and Company, Inc., and Schwab Money Market Fund are hereby designated as a custodial account and money market account, respectively, for the funds of the Town of Vail managed by Dana Investment Advisors. 2. Steve Thompson, the Finance Director of the Town of Vail, or his successor, and Christine B. Stouder, Finance and Budget Manager of the Town of Vail, or her successor, and Judy Popeck, Accounting Technician of the Town of Vail, or her successor, are hereby authorized to open a Charles Schwab and Company, Inc. custodial account and money market account in the name of the Town of Vail. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of January 2000. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk z To: Vail Town Council From: Suzanne Silverthorn Greg Hall Dominic Mauriello Todd Oppenheimer Larry Pardee Date: January 14, 2000 Subject: Town of Vail Wayfinding Attached is a recommended multi-year phasing schedule, plus estimated costs, to implement suggested wayfinding improvements throughout Vail. Jeffry Corbin, president of Corbin Design, will be available at the Jan. 18 evening meeting to answer your questions and make adjustments to the program accordingly. Corbin Design was hired by the Vail Town Council in August 1999 to assess Vail's current sign program, established in 1989. Today's recommend improvements are meant to build upon the existing system and to address various stages of "sign erosion". As proposed, Vail's wayfinding system would be improved through a comprehensive identification program that assigns names and colors to six geographic areas: East Vail, Golden Peak, Vail Village, LionsHead Village, Cascade Village and West Vail. This information has already been incorporated in Vail Mountain's 1999-2000 trail map. Implementation is proposed to begin this winter with the addition of programming elements to improve wayfinding to the winter venues. This would include changing out the faces in the existing Main Vail roundabout signage, installing the new West Vail roundabout signage according to the new design, installing improved directional and informational signage related to the two parking structures, installing revised skier drop-off signs and installing new pedestrian directional signage throughout Vail Village and LionsHead. The estimated cost for this installation is $137,825. Following the winter installation, a list of projects for spring/summer 2000 is proposed, including park identification signs, recreation trail signs and bus stop signs. The 2000 capital budget provides $250,000 for these recommended wayfinding improvements. Proposed projects for 2001 include phase one of a gateway design at the Main Vail exit, installation of neighborhood entry/welcome signs as well as installation of new street signs and regulatory signs. The cost estimate for implementation in 2000 and 2001 is $510,000. In 2002, the proposal includes a $2 million project for completion of gateway entries at the three interchanges, freeway monuments as well as an 1-70 overpass parking information sign. In summary, the estimated cost for all four phases of the project is $2.6 million over a three year period. We look forward to reviewing the phases and estimated costs with you at the Jan. 18 evening meeting. 1 a Wayfinding and Signage Program for the Town of Vail, Colorado; Statement of Probable Cost, 1114100, Page 1 Wayfinding and Signage Program for the Town of Vail, Colorado Statement of Probable Cost January 14, 2000 2000 Budget ($250,000) Professional Fees, Implementation Phase 27,500 Expenses 5,000 Cost of Signs Qty Fabricatio Installation Winter 2000 Installation: New Vail Town Limit Signs 2 3,500 Installation by CDOT Pedestrian Directional Arrows 240 30,000 Signs for existing poles only; Installation by TOV 1/3 of Frontage Road Vehicular Signs 8 0 Wood Posts and Rails 3,200 Sign faces and Installation by CDOT Skier Drop-off Signs throughout the Villages 20 3,000 Posts not included; Installation by TOV Parking Structure Level/Exit Identification 40 27,500 Installation by TOV Parking Structure Internal Circulation 80 24,000 Installation by TOV Parking Structure Column Markings 125 8,125 Installation by TOV Replacement Faces, Main Vail Roundabout 18 6,000 West Vail Roundabout faces are by manufacturer as new Installation by TOV Subtotal 137,825 01 3 Wayfinding and Signage Program for the Town of Vail, Colorado; Statement of Probable Cost, 1114100, Page 2 2000 Budget ($250,000), continued Cost of Signs Qty Fabricatio Installation Spring/Summer 2000 Installation: Signs along 1-70 (by CDOT) Sign faces and installation by CDOT Parking Structure Identification (w/one-line LEDs 2 51,750 8,500 Park Signs 24 Paid for with $36, 000 from RETT: Installation by TOV Trail Signs (3 inserts per unit) 40 Paid for with $12,000 from RE TT,- Posts & installation/TOV Bus Stop Signs (within the Villages; 3 inserts per 11 1,925 Posts and installation by TOV Pedestrian Maps 16 36,500 21,000 Fees to Update and Annotate Maps 5,000 Pedestrian Directional Arrows (Completion) 60 7,500 Cost of New Poles 15 2,250 Signs for new poles; Poles and installation by TOV 1/3 of Frontage Road Vehicular Signs 8 0 Wood Posts and Rails 3,200 Sign faces and Installation by CDOT Existing TOV Sign Budget 10,000 Less Partnership Participation -35,000 Subtotal 83,125 29,500 Total, 2000 Implementation 220,950 29,5001 250,450 i Wayfinding and Signage Program for the Town of Vail, Colorado; Statement of Probable Cost, 1/14100, Page 3 S 2001 Budget ($250,000) Professional Fees, Implementation Phase 11,000 Expenses 3,500 Cost of Signs Qty Fabricatio Installation 1/3 of Frontage Road Vehicular Signs 8 Wood Posts and Rails 3,200 Sign faces and Installation by CDOT Gateway Sign/Monuments at Main Vail Exit 2 50,000 Costs include $5,000 in professional fees Street Signs in Villages (Smaller) 50 15,000 Street Signs outside Villages (Larger) 100 30,000 Neighborhood Entry/Welcome Signs 30 18,750 Installation by TOV Regulatory Signs 400 50,000 Installation by TOV Banner Poles and Banners 20 60,000 12,000 Other than those at exit ramps Existing TOV Sign Budget 6,000 Total, 2001 Implementation 247,450 12,000 259,450 Total Implementation Costs 2000 and 2001 509,900 2002 and Beyond Professional Fees, Design, Document, Implement 125,000 Expenses 5,000 Cost of Signs Qty Fabricatio Installation 1-70 Overpass Parking Information Sign 1 16,000 4,000 Gateways, Main Vail 2 1,000,000 Gateways, East and West Vail 4 570,000 Freeway Monuments 2 345,000 Does not include the cost of the sculpture(s) Total, 2002 and Beyond 2,061,000 4,000 2,065,000 Grand Total 2,574,900 Town of Vail l - { Vail, Colorado 6 Recognized as one of the world's Gs~d;Peak~ ' top resort destinations, this alpine community hosts as many as 18,000 skiers a day. The town has also succeeded in leveraging ~ r Y V"P.-W that winter tourism expertise to attract visitors year-round. 1 u" This influx of visitors, though, has created wayfinding challenges i _ throughout the Gore River Valle' 4 The Village Marques After a nationwide search, town = ;:FfK officials chose Corbin Desi n to g Vehicular Directional Signs redefine the way visitors navigate Vail. The resulting wayfinding Lei: system reflects Vail's European .r character, right down to the regulatory signs. Six villages were identified and assigned names . 6cld Peak? _ and unique colors to point them out from the Interstate highway that bisects the valley. "Mountain Portal" signage was developed to direct skiers who may take a lift Adaptation ct CDOT/USDOT Sicnage along 1-70 up one slope only to ski down another slope into a different 2ry=' i village later. = roundabout Signace The si na a is also tailored to support the town's unique i i Wsu° n ••~A ~'1a.A. pedestrian focus where visitors use a free public transit system to travel around town before 1;3W walking to their destinations. in 1;~ p the heart of each village. Pedestrian Directional Signs ~ Pedestrian Map ~oldenlPealfl Corbin Design also created the detailed photo illustrations, shown on the right to demonstrate how the signs would appear once installed. I; Town officials and residents embraced the plan, speeding up the original timetable for its ` ..'m ..use. - - - c~ implementation in order to have -i - _ newly-designed signs installed during the 1999 ski season. Helping people access 109 East Front 304 231 947-1236 voice mailQcorbindesign.com a places and information Traverse City, MI ».'c- 231 947-1477 tax vww~.corbindesign.com MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 18, 2000 t t SUBJECT: First reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000, an ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map for the Town of Vail in accordance with Title 12; Zoning Regulations, Chapter 5, Zoning Map; rezoning Part of Tract B, Vail Village Seventh Filing'(Ski Club Vail) from Agriculture and Open Space (A) District to Ski Base Recreation (SBR) District. Applicant: Ski Club Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This rezoning request is in conjunction with the redevelopment plan and conditional use permit applications that were approved by the Town's Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on December 13, 1999. The proposal involves the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a new 24,000 square foot facility. The rezoning is necessary for redevelopment given the existing site non-conformities under the current "Agriculture & Open Space" designation. On December 141h, the Town Council reviewed the approved development plan and rezoning request for Ski Club Vail's new facility. At that time, Council (and the PEC) # advised staff to pursue an agreement with Ski Club Vail regarding contributions for o streetscape improvements. The Town's Streetscape Masterplan and Vail Village Masterplan contain language requiring the completion of adjacent streetscape 1 improvements by private properties when they redevelop or expand. Ski Club Vail's construction estimator evaluated the cost of the Town"s proposed streetscape improvements along Vail Valley Drive and staff has reviewed the numbers for accuracy. . Ski Club Vail proposes to contribute $14,450 in the form of landscaping, grading and irrigation along Vail Valley Drive. This amount is equal to 39% of the total cost for streetscaping along the Ski Club Vail parcel (or 11.2% of the total cost for streetscaping between the Golden Peak bus stop and the Pinos del Norte property). A complete review of the rezoning request and estimates for streetscape improvements have been included in the staff memorandum. TOWN OF PAIL 1 II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION At its December 13, 1999 meeting, the Town's Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval of the applicant's request for a rezoning from "Agriculture and Open Space" (A) District to "Ski Base Recreation' (SBR) District to the Vail Town Council. Staff recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000 on-first reading, subject to the following finding: 1. That the proposed zone district is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and appropriate for the area. , III. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION - REZONING REQUEST The request for rezoning is necessary due to the existing non-conformities under the current "Agriculture & Open Space" designation. Ski Club Vail does not have the ability to expand under the current zoning. Additionally, due to the encroachment onto Vail Associates' property, it is necessary to apply a consistent zoning among the parcels. Vail Associates' Golden Peak property (Tracts F & B) is zoned "Ski Base Recreation." The PEC/Town Council shall make the following findings before granting approval of a zone change request: - 1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? Ski Club Vail's property is currently zoned "Agriculture and Open Space" ("A"). Staff believes the existing zoning is inconsistent with the established use of the property. Intended uses within the current "Agriculture and Open Space" zoning designation include agriculture, public parks, recreation areas, and open space. Staff believes Ski Club Vail's operation is more consistent with the intended uses outlined for the "Ski Base Recreation" district. These include ski racing facilities, ski school facilities, and private/quasi- public/public clubs. Adjacent land uses include the Golden Peak Ski Base (Ski Base Recreation), Manor Vail (High Density Multiple Family), Pinos del Norte/Northwoods (Special Development District #2/HDMF), and Ford Park (General Use). Staff believes the proposed zoning is consistent and suitable with adjacent properties. 2 2) Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives? Staff believes this proposal furthers municipal land use objectives through the redevelopment of a facility that no longer serves the needs'of Ski Club Vail. Many of the traffic congestion problems identified in this area of the East Village are attributable to, the current facility (among other properties). Staff believes this proposal presents a feasible, workable solution to the re-occurring traffic problems identified in this area and promotes a A much-improved relationship with adjacent properties. 3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? Staff believes this rezoning is necessary to facilitate redevelopment of the property in an orderly, viable fashion. Under the current zoning designation, Ski Club Vail is "non- conforming" and does not have the ability to expand. Given the fact that the facility now serves about 4 times the number of users it served in 1977, staff believes redevelopment/rezoning is the only feasible option at this time. The redevelopment proposal is consistent with applicable development limitations imposed under the proposed zone district. 4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use' Plan? The Vail Land Use Plan proposes a future land use designation on this property of "Ski Base." This land use category includes "ski trails, facilities related to a ski base and ski- related improvements." Staff believes the proposed zone district is consistent with this designation while the existing zoning is not. Staff believes the proposed Ski Club Vail rezoning/redevelopment plan would further the following goals/objectives identified in the Vail Land Use Plan: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance z r between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. c 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and-the Town function more efficiently. Staff does not believe this proposal conflicts with any of the goals, policies or objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan. A complete list of the plan's goals, policies and objectives is included as Appendix "A" for reference. 3 5 APPENDIX "A" VAIL LAND USE PLAN - GOALS/POLICIES 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.5 Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.8 Recreational and public facility development on National Forest lands may be permitted where no high hazards exist if: a) Community objectives are met as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. b) The parcel is adjacent to the Town boundaries, with good access. C) The affected neighborhood can be involved in the decision-making process. 1.9 National Forest land which is exchanged, sold or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain as open space and not be zoned for private development. ` 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.11 Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, long term leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). APPENDIX "A" 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 2. Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 2.2 The ski°,area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year- round tourism. 2.6 An additional golf course is needed. The Town should work with the down valley communities to develop a public golf course as well as other sports facilities to serve the regional demand for recreational facilities. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. 2.8 Day skiers need for parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions such as: a) Increased busing from out of town. b) Expanded points of access to the mountain by adding additional base portals. C) Continuing to provide temporary surface parking. d) , Addition of-structured parking. 3. Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. APPENDIX "A" 3.5 Entertainment oriented business and cultural activities should be encouraged in . the core areas to create diversity. More nighttime businesses, on-going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. 4. Village Core / Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved thorough implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of Vail Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 4.4 The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead should be enhanced through: a) Installation of a new type of people mover. b) Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk, alpine garden, and/or sculpture plaza. C) New development should be controlled to limit commercial uses. 5. Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.2 Quality time-share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions., 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded: Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. APPENDIX "A" 6.0 Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing - growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. J necei ved 99-Dec-29 03:4.ipm from CCITT G3 _ Ur~IGN WUKKSHUr pale Ei -29-99 WED 04:48 PM r Rx NO, P, 02 - 12/29/90 Snowden Hopkins Architects Attn: Pam Hopkins 201 Gore Crcck Drive Vail, CO 81657 Re: Ski Club Vail Ucar Pam: Per the schematic site plan dated Dececnber 7, 1999 by Dcsian Worksbop, I have propared a cost estimato for the strcetscapc work within the 15' set back of Vail Valley Drive. 1, Rolocato some of the existing trees - Allowance, concrete ctc. $10,000.00 2. Cut, remove, haul off existing asphalt paying $17,000.00 3. Extend storm drain - assumes 18" CMP, two-inlets, potholing and hand digging around existing utilities, 300. LF extended to center of drop off area (average cost of $83.00 per lineal foot), $25,000.00 4. Subgradc prep, curb and Sutter, and concrete pans $14,000.00 5. Subgrade prep and 6 foot wide 5" thick sidewalk $23,000.00 6, batch asphalt back to curb and pans $4,000.00 7. Four each strcot lanwrns, trenching, conduit, wiring, circuit, and concrotc bases $18,000.00 K. 'T'opsoil placed R" deep in balance of area. $3.000.00 TOTAL $114,000.00 This does not include irrigation, planting, and landscaping. Sincerely, . Craig runny' cc-. Punt Gnuladc lmr DESIGNWORKSHOP Memo Landscape Architecture Land Planning Urban Design Date: 29 December 1999 Tourism Planning To: Pam Hopkins Snowdon Hopkins Architects From: Pam Granade 953 S. Frontage Rd. W. Suite 102 Vail, Colorado 81657 Job 2391 x 970-476-8408 FAX 476-8409 Subject: Ski Club Vail Dear Pam: I have estimated the planting cost for the streetscape work (within 15' of the asphalt edge) along Vail Valley Drive. 1 have increased the number of evergreen and deciduous tress frori what is shown on the plan dated December 17, 1999 to include the following: 8 - 12' spruce @ $700 ea. $5,600 14 - 3"cal aspen @ $325 ea. 4,550 3800 SF of revegetation 500 Total planting l $10,650 The estimated cost for irrigation for the 15' wide area along Vail Valley Drive (approximat~wi 3800 SF) is $3,800. Sincerely, Pam Granade DESIGNWORKSHOP Vicinity Map . 1817 < , ,9 . . R" 3 „ 435 , CHIIDRENS rARK , / 1 530 FORD PARR TO'NT~'HCME K 463 I I - `A[1AV LHJWA 385 , 2 1 5 1 Ail SEASON$ • \ 380 N~~ RAM'S I CONDO _ C' HORN LODGE TIVOU COWN R1 386 7/B E A TRACT 11 fA[, \ \ p 01 4,5 0 Im I +n r\ TRACT F-, U ) a \ - OR VA1L \ 111 1 4 '1- - TRACT E a 0 8 C - 7C , I FORD AMPffHEATER 5&5 > \ i SAO FORD PARK / j I 303 19 OR vaL , l` \ 7 AB & C 6 302 '-'L' ..GOLDEN PEAK \ \ / 304 8 ` TRACT F 18 MANOR VAJI.`~ 392 I68 A. S & C. um 10 312 9 17 A 302 4` -I ~A1L5Y LA 375 8 CTA PINOS DEL 19 NORTE / 353 355 C I 9 i S90 RACE CTTY NORT}NYOODS ~ 600 TbLL'N DOUN:Jr ~ O - °..--..f ;i`C' \ „ 5 { F1 Ski C ub Vail I 598 Vail Valley D'rive Part Gf Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing N` VAIL RESORTS" - - - - sk-P ` 41 calvei L J 1999 September 24, 1999 Brent Wilson Planner II Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Wilson, This letter is to inform the Town of Vail that Vail Resorts Inc. intends to enter into an encroachment agreement with Ski Club Vail. This encroachment is necessary to ensure that their re-developed base facility meets the organization's infrastructure needs. Additionally, our organization will work with the Ski Club Vail and the Town of Vail planning staff to incorporate an improved skier pick-up and drop-off solution into the facility design. The Vail Resorts legal department will forward a copy of this encroachment agreement to you once it has been completed and signed by both parties. Kindly direct all questions regarding Vail Resort's involvement in this project to Jonathan Greene at 845-2629. Sincere dy Dal President ' r m~ Vail Resorts, Ine. • Post Office Box 7 Vail, Colorado 21658 13; Benchmark Road Avoii. Colorado 81.620 V A I L B E A V E R C R E E K" B R E C K E N R I D G E K E Y S T 0 N E ~ I ,rFr FAI111HF- Wmt Y'.v • •t.a cYN. PAH I r, 1 t ~r N ,F[t(J ~I.! y ~•V y4' ) D 1.. '~i 1 EXF11N6 '(pAN1 (+p -W r, / * A To 6r e( R F M~NUT1~ Rb k < + Y. - 4'e114L. I'AW v Y i N 1?Ay le !S; L,1 ~ ERT'b rRANSF OLMYF c. y LNIL riR EN"t ~ / - to F /.e ~ ~4~ ~ REt te0 / .~.~,`C y%'I;k\ it _LL~..JJ (I / N /MmC LAFp4l i " II IL ~ ¦RT'b +A ` _ - _ V/ II iIDIUL -i ~ f. 4LUR 'H 1 SIAL44 ' tVAH SM1IIKtS' y. IM DvRY',IIM1 LNLLF{VAf -IN.. sum&. • ~ 51 1 L LvA i 4 •v ~ I ..y, -I.4 I ~ r La NlwMlrJlvms I a` f K Y Bh.Y -TNT EXISTINI; 7 CUNIUIIRS it - - i -y- EXISTINGIO'CUNTUIIRS O I'ItUPUSEf)2'e:UN1UI1R5 Jl ;-1i 'c- PROPOSED IV CUNFOURS - tL L T, EXIS'11N000NIFERS ORF:MAIN I +1 y EXISTING CONIFERS TU HE REMOVED EXIS'T'ING ASPEN 10 REMAIN ' I +x; 14XISTIN(; ASPEN 10 BE: REMOVED { NEW UONIPERS_ NEW ASI'LN A41. M.ISTVhh47 lf4AS TD BE pEVf HATIo , \~.V// wIN NnpvF bMtt mIT~ I SuBv E'1 IHrD7.MATIDH VAIM LAHI$ VALteT F uR VEY ~.vil oAt:u Ir• 14•p~. , 01 F+'T D-Pv a+ IN rei.~A lloN rDe ooh BY ..+N 01 AIL CN la /1~~~ - - L-1 SKI CLUB VAIL ' SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN VAIL, COLORADO DESIGN~VUli K511UP 'nI NOVEMRF.R 17, 1" NGRM o is Do' .o b:c Fin AFh 7/ I~'1~ , i lit • n ~l-~vA'(ioN NolyTf? r%~F;VATioN I"~lo - ~ 1~~7101 J U. 0 _ C) F- 0 J do F- V _ J U J X<O 1J in . .~Il:I vG I'd will IN. IIsaw,92 I II l0~ I v/ a L r j gOUTII ~iI~VKflot'I W'~~ I%'LG^.~/~'~"IDI~oI ~ o I I ~i ~ 10~ A2 2 I.. U Q+ C ~N V N R pp 2G ~ •Lr : e vflV ~ ow- p '`k) LI o o e <a 9 0 0 0 J b ryt,,~ p on p op op p eo - ~ nr~ o ap f_ .~ppdr#ttJV , °~clo J"}~.~ ~ p71VD~Y1 t'?.7'Y-~,r{(/c,. t _ - . unit - ' - • ca^u} x E t Ui ° AWp-. f i0. 10 ` I tfl°U r ma`' ' y2b ~t,t ~ ' u pe X31' 21!~ e ~ - ~12 -t Eyppltb M7r ~ ~ t M1t' I ' ~r;12 ~ t ~l0 I o ly 'I ORDINANCE NO. 2 Series of 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 5, ZONING MAP; REZONING PART OF TRACT B, VAIL VILLAGE SEVENTH FILING (SKI CLUB VAIL) FROM AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE (A) DISTRICT TO SKI BASE RECREATION (SBR) DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that this zone designation is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, is consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, and is appropriate for the area; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this zoning map amendment at its December 141h, 1999, meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to amend the official Town of Vail Zoning Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail is hereby amended as follows: Part of Tract B, Vail Village Seventh Filing / 598 Vail Valley Drive shall be rezoned to Ski Base Recreation (SBR) District, in accordance with the attached map. - Section 2. If any*part, section, subsection, sentence., clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000 Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 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 ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 18St day of January, 2000 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 1" day of February, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 1" day of February, 2000. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000 m 0 V ici n'ity 61 w( , ~ L 3 21.1 1 CHILDRENS PARK 530 FORD PARK CK 11 H M \ 3 \ I VIII L JA 385 2 1 231 5 8 7 8 9 A1J. SEASONS \ 380GNF~ RAMS CONDO HORN LO 276 386 nVOLI CONDO 66 434 p-1 D DI E 46 TRACT I m 1 DI ` TRACTF•1 U F_2 MM oD YA1L TRACT E A, , d C FORD 585 1 I AMPITHEATER / I 1 540 FORD PARK / j / 303 MANOR VAIL 7 A.B&C 10 595 \ \ 8 302 395 GOLDEN PEAK 304 8 TRACT F MANOR VA11. 468 382 15 A H & C \ \ 385 J 685 10 8 342 17 382 488 All SAC CLUB 375 7RAGTa'. CTA I PINGS DEL 18~ NO RTE 15 15 ~ 385 ..______I / A_ I5 353 355 ` C 598 RACE CITY ` NORTHWOODS 5 4 un-. \3 Ski C ub Vail 598 Vail, Valley Drive Part of Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing, N 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 18, 2000 SUBJECT: An appeal of the Design Review Board's approval of additional parking along feeder road/parking/landscaping and extension of road, 950 Red Sandstone Road/Potato Patch Club Condominiums. Appellants: Dome Investment Group and George and Elizabeth Ireland, represented by Arthur A. Abplanalp, Jr. Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. SUBJECT PROPERTY The Potato Patch Club Condominiums located at 950 Red Sandstone Road. H. STANDING OF APPELLANT The Appellants are individual owners of Unit 11 (Dome Investment Group) and Unit 15 (Ireland) in the Potato Patch Club. The application which is being appealed was filed on behalf of the Potato Patch Club Condominium Association, of which both appellants are members. The Community Development Department does not believe that the Appellants have standing to file the appeal as they are in essence a party to the original application. Their dispute is an internal dispute with the Potato Patch Club Condominium Association which must be resolved among the parties concerned and not by the Town of Vail. Therefore, staff is recommending that the appeal be dismissed on the grounds of lack of standing of the parties to appeal. III. BACKGROUND List of attachments: - Exhibit #1- Appellant's appeal form - Exhibit #2 - Reductions of approved plans - Exhibit #3 - Letter from Potato Patch Club's legal counsel - Exhibit #4 - Potato Patch Club Resolution - Exhibit #5 - Potato Patch Club December 16, 1999 minutes The Redevelopment Proposal On November 10, 1999, the Potato patch Club Condominium Association, Inc. submitted a Design Review Application to construct additional pavement and landscaping along an existing driveway in the Potato Patch Club. The application includes widening the pavement to further reduce the nonconformity on-site. This would be accomplished by adding pavement along the edge of the access driveway. Additionally, pavement would be added to existing parking spaces . in order to prevent vehicles from obstructing the drive aisle. An extension to the driveway would 1 F be provided between units 10 and 11 in order to provide access to any future development on the "Carnie Parcel." The Design Review Board on December 15, 1999, following a visit to the site, issued an approval (vote of 4-0) of the proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide a separation between the drive aisle and parking at the entrance no less than exists today by either relocating mailboxes and adding pavement or adding compact parking stalls. 2. The pavement being added at the south end of the 9 parking space area should not be added to protect trees and either provide a compact parking stall or widen the drive aisle to the west. 3. Civil drawings be provided if necessary prior to obtaining a permit to add pavement. In the motion for approval, the Design Review Board stated that the application was appropriately submitted and that the Design Review Board was in concurrence with the staff interpretations on the project. V. TOWN RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL The Community Development Department has prepared the following analysis in an attempt to answer the appeal. The Appellants' representative has provided a letter dated December 22, 1999 which states the reasons for the appeal (attached). The following issues are addressed: 1. The Appellants contend that the President of the Potato Patch Club did not have the authority to submit a Design Review Application on behalf of the owners within the Condominium Association. i, The Town of Vail received an application signed by the President of the Condominium Association. The Zoning Regulations state that the application can be submitted by an owner or authorized agent. The President of the Condominium Association testified that he is an authorized agent and additionally we have received a legal opinion from the Association's counsel conferring that fact. Additionally, on December 16, 1999, the Board of Directors of the Potato Patch Club Condominium Association approved this application which is being appealed. 2. The Appellants contend that the application submitted was erroneous and misleading with regard to the absence of any identified landscaping between the parking lot and the tennis courts. The Design Review Board reviewed the application and found it to be complete. Additionally, the Board walked the entire site where improvements were to be located and was able to witness first hand any landscape issues presented by the driveway improvements proposed. The Design Review Board voted unanimously to approve the proposed 2 improvements. 3. The Appellants contend that the Town of Vail's calculation of required landscape area is in error due to the acreage figure used in the calculation. The original acreage figure utilized by staff was taken from the Condominium Plats for the Potato Patch Club. That acreage was calculated at 480,230 sq. ft. which results in a required minimum landscape area of 288,138 sq. ft. Due to Art Abplanalps's concern in November of 1999 over the accuracy of this figure, I asked the applicant to have a surveyor verify the acreage figure on this site before the Design Review Board hearing. Stan. Hogfeldt provided a letter indicating that the plats did not "close" and thus the calculated area for the Potato Patch Club is 11.02 acres or 480,031.2 sq. ft. This results in a lower acreage figure for the site by 198.8 sq. ft. Utilizing the corrected figure the total landscape area required on the property is 288,018.72 sq. ft. The amount of landscape area found on the property is 292,990 sq. ft. or 61.03% of the site, thus meeting the 60% code requirement (the code allows a 20% "hardscape" allowance in the landscape area for improvements not associated with parking or building footprint). 4. The Appellants contend that because the Community Development Department did not include the pavement associated with Red Sandstone Road and Potato Patch Drive in the calculation of landscape area, that the plan was approved in error. Red Sandstone Road and Potato Patch Drive cross the Potato Patch Club property without benefit of an easement or right-of-way. When this occurs and there are public improvements on private property, the Community Development Department has had the practice of not further burdening the private property owner by using those improvements against the landowner for the purpose of calculating landscape area. Staff documented this interpretation in a letter to the applicant on December 14, 1999. The Design Review Board, in its motion to approve the improvements, stated that the staff interpretations on this project had been appropriately applied. 5. The Appellants contend that the planned development of 5 dwelling units on land,to the west is driving the need additional paving and that none of these improvements would otherwise be required. The property is currently legal nonconforming with respect to driveway/feeder road requirements, as the Potato Patch Club was constructed prior to the Town's adoption of the development standards (which were adopted on September 21, 1999) and so the Appellants are correct that no improvements would be required by the Town. The Appellants suggestion, that without the-five units being constructed to the west that Potato Patch Club's driveway would conform with the development standards is false. Access to more than 11 dwelling units requires that the drive aisle be 22' on straight sections and 24' on corners and therefore the current development does not comply. 6. The Appellant contends that the developer and the Town have ignored a code requirement that states that there shall be a five foot separation between a parking space and the required drive aisle. The code was not ignored by either the applicant nor the Town of Vail. In the creation of the development standards, the Town staff anticipated that instances. would arise where strict compliance with the standards would be unreasonable. For that reason, a paragraph was included in the development standards to address this issue. The code states: 3 Nonconforming sites and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of adoption of the Development Standards may continue, subject to the limitations prescribed by Section 12-18, Zoning Regulations. To encourage redevelopment, there shall be some flexibility granted to existing nonconforming sites and structures. However, wherever possible, compliance with the Development Standards shall be achieved. The paving of existing legal nonconforming, i.e. unpaved, driveways shall be allowed without strict compliance with the Development Standards. However, a reasonable attempt shall be made to adhere as closely as possible to the Development Standards when paving existing driveways. A structure, which is substantially demolished or reconstructed, as defined by Demo/Rebuild in the Zoning Code, shall be required to adhere to the Development Standards. The Community Development Department as well as the Town Engineer made the interpretation that as long as the parking spaces were modified to 19' in depth as to prevent conflict with the drive aisle and since this was a nonconforming situation, the applicant had made a reasonable attempt to comply with the development standards. 7. The Appellants contend that no analysis was done to support the Design Review Board condition that compact parking spaces be pursued as an option to protect a tree on- site. The Design Review Board condition allowed the applicant to either pursue utilizing compact parking spaces or shifting the driveway to the west to avoid the tree. Any compact parking spaces created would have to comply with Town Code regulations which limit compact spaces to 25% of the total number of parking spaces. To-date the applicant has not indicated which option will be pursued. 8. The Appellant contends that there is no identification with respect to utility access with this application as it relates to the development of the "Carnie Parcel." The Appellants have filed a lawsuit with respect to the development issues on the "Carnie Parcel" and need not be addressed by this appeal. Issues relating to final utility location are generally left to plans submitted with a building permit. Utilities in the Town of Vail are required to be located below ground and therefore have little impact on neighboring uses. In this case, utility easements exist to allow the installation of utilities. VI. REQUIRED ACTION Uphold/Overturn/Modify the Design Review Board's approval with conditions of the proposed improvements to the Potato Patch Club. The Town Council is required to make findings of fact in accordance with the Town of Vail Municipal Code: The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this title (Zoning Regulations, Title 12) have or have not been met. 4 VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council uphold the Design Review Board's approval with conditions of the proposed improvements to the Potato Patch Club Condominiums subject to the following findings: 1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) have been met. 2. That the conditions imposed on the approval are adequate to protect the interest of the Appellants and the Potato Patch Club Condominium Association. 3. That the Appellants did not have standing to file the appeal. F ~ 5 ~i V OF PAIL APPEALS FORM REQUIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION .ACTION/DECISION BEING APPEALED: Approval of a project sometimes known as the Potato Patch Club Road Widening Project, by the Town of Vail Design Review Board on the 15th of December. 1999. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION: 15 December 1999 NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION: Town of Vail Desiqn Review Board NAME OF APPELLANT(S): Dome Investment Group George & Elisabeth Ireland c/o Paul Hoff Suite 3650 3800 East Long Road 1700 Lincoln Street MAILING ADDRESS: Littleton CO 80121-1914 Denver, CO 80203 Unit 11 Unit 16 Potato Patch Club Condos Potato Patch Club Condos P_H_ YSICALADDRESS IN VAIL: 950 Red Sandstone Rd. , VailP)40yTTS. 950 RedSandstoneRd. (303) 689-9800 (303) 830-2171Vail, CO LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL: Unit 16, Potato -Patch Club Unit 11, Potato Patch Condominiums Club Condominiums SIGNATURE(S): 01 ~ Page 1 of 2 6661 Z : _ _ -3A13039 F. Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? Yes If yes, please provide the following information: are you an adjacent property owner? Yes X no If no, give a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person." "Aggrieved or adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. Appellants are the owners of specific condominiums and the owners of undivided interests in the general common elements of the Potato Patch Club, which is property which was the subject of the action from which this appeal is being taken. The approval of the project, was undertaken without the approval of the owners of the property or their agents in association with a project not approved by the owners'or their agents, constitutes a public safety hazard endangering the property of the Appellants and would permit the development of the subject property without adequate review and consideration of the impacts on the property of the Appellants and the Potato Patch Elub in general. The approval would also permit the development based upon accessthrough. the Potato Patch Club for which no standards have been established and regarding which there has been neither consent by the appellants or the other owners of Potato Patch Club nor any analysis or review of the impact of,changes to the Potato Patch Club in association with that access. Further, the plans upon which the Design Review Board relied,.in association with approval are inaccurate, incomplete and do not accurately depict the impactof the proposed project or the conditions imposed upon the property of the Appellants and the Potato Patch Club as a whole. The detailed basis for this appeal is found in the letters and material which accompany this Appeals Form. G. Provide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all owners of property which are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including properties separated by a right-of-way, stream, or other intervening barriers). Also provide addressed and stamped envelopes for each property owner on the list. H. On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal.. Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed- FE E: S0.00 Page 2 of 2 LAW OFFICES DUNN, ABPLANALP & MAURIELLO, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JOHN W. DUNN WESTSTAR BANK BUILDING TELEPHONE: ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST (970) 476-0300 OIANE HERMAN MAURIELLO FACSIMILE: SUITE 300 (970) 476-4765 OF COUNSEL: VAIL, COLORADO 81657 - e-mail: vaillaw@vail.net JERRY W. HANNAH CERTIFIED LEGAL ASSISTANTS 22 December 1999 KAREN M. DUNN, CLAS JANICE K. SCOFIELD, CLA Town Council Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Re: Appeal from Vail Design Review Hearing - Potato Patch Club Proposal Members of the Council: This Firm represents Dome Investment Group (the owner of Condominium Unit 11, Potato Patch Club) and George and Elisabeth Ireland (the owners of Unit 16, Potato Patch Club). Each of our clients is also the owner of an undivided interest in the common elements of the Potato Patch Club. Our clients are, therefore, owners of the property which is the subject of this appeal. The purpose of this letter, together with the copy of the letter which is attached and which was provided to the, Design Review Board, is to supply the information requested through the Town's "Appeals Form" to which this letter is.attached. A copy of the application and the record of the decision of the Design Review Board, as well as the list of property owners and addressed, stamped envelopes accompany this letter. This appeal is being filed on the basis of the following issues: 1. The Zoning Code of the Vail Municipal Code, at 12-11-4.C.1., authorizes consideration of an application for design review approval only if the application is submitted by the owner or agent of the owner of the property which is the subject of the application. The application and the plans before the Town as part of the application have not been authorized by the owners of the property which is to be affected by the proposed activity, nor have critical parts of those plans been approved by the Board of Directors of the Potato Patch Club, which, in any event, is neither an owner or an agent of the owners. This proceeding is based upon an application signed by the President of the Association and included both a general.plan for road improvements and a more specific landscaping plan for a portion of the impacted area. The President of the Association based his action upon his assumption that he had implied _ 1 authority to do so, solely as the result of a resolution which Michael Lauterbach submitted to the Town in association with his application for approval of development of the Carnie parcel, to the east.. That resolution did not authorize the submittal of this application or the plans which are before Council, and that resolution is inconsistent with this application and those plans. Further, the Board of Directors met on Thursday; the 16th of December, the day after consideration of the application by the Design Review Board, in order to determine whether to approve either the application or the plans, or both. At that meeting a the Board of Directors approved a plan similar, but not identical to; one of the three maps considered by the Design Review Board. The Board of Directors did not see, consider, or approve the landscaping plan which is an integral part of the application before the Council on appeal. Further, even if the President of the Association had the authority of the Board of Directors to submit the application and or the plans before this Council, that does not satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Code, because the Association had no authority to submit either, because the Association does not have the broad powers established for more recently organized condominium associations, and Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any application for design review approval be submitted by the owner or agent of the owner of the property which is the subject of the application. The Potato Patch Club Condominium Association owns no related to the general common elements to be affected by the proposed project, and there exists no authority for it to act as agent of any owner in this circumstance. 2. The application package presented to the Town in association with the Design Review Board hearing was to be an accurate rendition of the plan, including both existing landscaping and that which was to be replaced and/or installed. Vail Municipal Code 12-11-4.C.Lf. The material which" was submitted was erroneous and misleading, including but not limited to the absence of any identified landscaping on the area of the Potato Patch Club between the driveway and the-tennis courts. An example of what should have been submitted with reference to the entire project is that limited landscaping plan submitted in association with the Lauterbach/Carne application (a different proceeding), and included in this submittal. The proposed plan did not address the impact on landscaping to the west of the intersection between the proposed access road and the existing driveway for Potato Patch Units 1 through 17. In fact, the maps submitted did not even identify the landscaping which exists between the driveway and tennis courts, virtually all of which will be impacted by the proposed widening of the paved area. .2 3. With respect to site coverage, the Zoning Code of the Vail Municipal Code requires that this site be 60% landscaped. Vail Municipal Code, 12-6E- 10. A review of the Town's historic analysis of the Potato Patch Club indicates that the actual size of the site is 454,330 square feet. The Town's analysis which was provided to the appellants prior to the hearing indicated that the Town relied, for purposes of this proceeding, upon a total area for the site of 480,230 square feet. When the lower figure upon which the Town had previously relied was pointed out, the Town of Vail obtained a report from a local surveyor who indicated that an old drawing of the Potato Patch Club indicates one acreage and a review of the various plats came up with a different acreage. The applicant submitted. no analysis of total acreage whatsoever. The application which was before the Town indicated that,' because of the additional paving involved in the proposal, there would exist 187,041 square feet of impervious area to be charged against the Potato Patch Club. Based upon this analysis, approval of the proposal would be illegal if the total area of the Potato Patch Club were less than 467,602 square feet. Additionally, the figure of 187,041 square feet appears to understate the coverage of the site because of a "recreational" credit of 10,245 square feet, for which there is no authority in the Zoning .Code. There exists no engineer's analysis for the actual size of the site, and, for some reason, the map which was submitted to the Town for the purpose of analyzing impervious area includes all required information except the actual size of the site. Without certainty regarding this information, an accurate analysis is impossible. If the figure historically used for site size (454,330 square feet) is used, the lot coverage under the current proposal would be substantially in excess of that permitted. Under such circumstances, approval by the DRB of a proposal which violates the Town's land use regulations, or regarding which the Town has not received authoritative information regarding compliance, should be reversed by this Council. 4. Again with respect to site coverage, even if the higher figure of 480,230 were used, a correct application of the Town's Zoning Code and Development Standards establishes that the current site coverage is significantly in excess of the permitted amount (approximately 5,429 square feet in excess) if the Town's formula is used. The difference in the calculation arises from the fact that the Town excludes portions of the site which are under the pavement of Red Sandstone Road and Potato Patch Drive. For some reason, the Town has analyzed this site without consideration for the fact that two paved roads exist on the site. Even that analysis, for which there is no basis, barely brings the total site 3 = coverage within the limit permitted by the Town's Zoning Code and. It is difficult, if not impossible, to characterize a paved public road as "landscaping." However, unless these roads are ignored, the existing landscaped area proposed for paving cannot be paved without violating the Town's land use regulations. Under the correct analysis of the Zoning Code, the Potato Patch Club is currently non-conforming, with respect to landscaping, and such a non-conforming site may not be modified in such a manner as to increase the degree of non-conformity with respect to landscaping. Vail Municipal Code, 12-18-5.C. 5. The driveway serving Potato Patch Units 1 through 17 currently is almost entirely just that, a driveway, even by Town Development Standards. However, with the. addition of five units entering between Units 10 and 11, the driveway becomes almost entirely a "Feeder Road" under the Town's Development Standards. The Town's Design standards require that parking places adjacent to Feeder Roads be set back five feet from the edge of the road. That has not occurred here, is not part of the plan, and for that reason the plan again violates the Town's Development Standards and should not be approved. It is worth noting that the developer who is attempting to create this access through Potato Patch was told at an early date that a 5-foot setback is required, but that requirement was more recently ignored by both the developer and the Town of Vail. If there is a logical basis for the 5-foot set back for parking on a feeder road with eleven units, and some consideration dictated its inclusion in the Development Standards, certainly it should apply here. The west leg of the current Potato Patch driveway will, if the Carnie parcel is developed, be serving twenty-two units. To permit parking on this road without the 54oot setback would create a safety hazard as well as violate the Town Development Standards. 6. With further reference to parking, the Design Review Board considered and imposed conditions relating to the conversion of several existing parking spaces without any analysis or consideration of the question of whether the existing parking at the Potato Patch Club was in compliance with the Zoning Code. If parking was not in compliance with the Zoning Code, the conversion of full size parking spaces to compact parking spaces would constitute an increase in the discrepancy between the existing and required parking spaces. Vail Municipal Code, 12-18-5.D. 7. At the hearing on the Carnie parcel, Mr. Lauterbach indicated that he intended to use this access as utility, as well as vehicular, access. There exists no identification of utility access nor any indication of the above- 4 = ground features which will be associated with such utility access, and the Potato Patch Club Association Board of Directors has taken no position on that issue. It should be noted that the Town's justification for failing to adhere to its Development Standards is apparently based upon a provision in the Development Standards (but not in the Zoning Code) relating to nonconformities. However, that analysis is found in the following context: To encourage redevelopment, there shall be some flexibility granted to existing nonconforming sites' and structures. This application is not, of course, about redevelopment. It is about permitting development on an adjoining tract of land where that development threatens to create or aggravate nonconformity in an existing project (i.e., the Potato Patch Club) which is neither being redeveloped or developed, but only impacted. The application was made to the Town of Vail without the authority of Dome Investment Group and Mr. and Mrs. Ireland, who are among the owners of the subject property. The entity which was to have authorized that application did not, in-fact, either authorize the plans or have the authority to do so. The plans submitted are incomplete and erroneous. Although inadequate and erroneous information may seem to justify the approval of the plan, inadequate and erroneous information should not even be considered in association with this process. Most important, the requested modifications of the Potato Patch Club simply may not occur without significant violations of the Zoning Code and of its Development Standards. It may be that the staff has some discretion to permit variances from the Development Standards. There exists no such authority for the violation of the Zoning Code. The approval of the proposed plan by the Vail Design Review Board should be reversed by this Council. Ve truly y rs UNN, ABP ALP MA LL , P C Arthur A. Abplanalp, Jr. xc: Dome Investment Group Mr. and Mrs. George Ireland a\c\v\Vailppc 5 = - - _ Question 'all the Planning Staff at 479-2128 7 99=03.3 t APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TOWN OF V GENERAL INtFORMATION This application is for any project requiring Design Rcvicw approval. Any project requiring design review must receive Design Review approval prior to submitting for a building permit. For specific information, see the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. The application cannot be accepted until all the required information is submitted. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board approval expires one year after final approval unless a building permit is issued and construction is started. A. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: ~i 65 o G •'•u f`• •s S 7 cz,o'o r o o o f 414 f , ' V e- A / Al- C-C- C- i 'c•._ a 0- o ~ W L L-1f:~ r --I Ota 4-0 e A- f -.0i "C- pl ~ z i jLt~ 2 0 0 0$ S. B. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LOT: BLOCK:- FILING: PHYSICAL ADDRESS: 95-0 2£6 S A-A/ 6 S To ti/E R o A-6 C. PARCEL t#: 210 / eql 3060 cf7 (Contact Eagle Co. Assessors Office at 970-328-8640 for parcel n) D. ZONING: P6 E. NAME0FOW'NTE R(S): PeTA7To -rc-,4 CLc, 6 C0f-16oeo A1~t,.,, ASSU.,1~1C. MAILING ADDRESS: t,(3 E•c s f O~• S L. L 3 9 7 t/tw C o PHONE: 47G • 21 F. ,SIGNATURE(S): % qr-;X-"'z' ~ '~-tA A5 5 o c , 4 r, o ni toR CS Z~ EVT G. NAME OF APPLICANT: T~+ • •-S A5 S ac - lore-i 'VetL•~- MAILING ADDRESS: ySo •t° S~ 38 C• PHONE: 4 7 9 83 3 i H. TYPE OF REVIEW AND FEE: ? New Construction - 5200 Construction of a new building. ? Addition - S50 Includes anv addition where square footage is added to any residential or corrunercial building. 2'N4inor Alteration - S20 Includes minor chan!-,es tolbuildings and site improvements, such as, reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and retaining walls, etc. DRB fees arc to be paid at the time of submittal. Later, when applying for a building permit, please identify the accurate valuation of the project. The Town of Vail hill adjust the fee according to the project valuation. PLEASE SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE FEE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPNI ENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657. For Office Use Onlv: Fee Paid: ;1 0 0 CK#: 4147 B_Y' r • i'ei ~c C-a ~a S S rt ,i Application Date: 1I ~d 99 DRB h4coting Date: /~5 /moo©O Pre-Application Mectine Date: ~ y DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, December 15, 1999 3:00 P.M. MEETING RESULTS PROJECT ORIENTATION Loh Community Development Department 12:00 pm C,ri?O MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Clark Brittain Bill Pierce Hans Woldrich Melissa Greenauer Galen Aasland ( PEC) SITE VISITS 2:00 pm 1. Billingsley - 1170 Ptarmigan Road 2. Darby Vail 11- 3847 Lupine Drive 3. Potato Patch Club - 950 Red Sandstone Road Driver: Allison PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 3:00 pm 1. Potato Patch Club - Additional parking along feeder road/parking/landscaping and Dominic Extension of road. 950 Red Sandstone Road/Potato Patch Club Condominiums. Applicant: Potato Patch Club Condominium Assoc., represented by Thomas Gargen MOTION: Bill Fierce SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 4-0 (Greenauer abstained) APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: 1. Provide a separation between the drive aisle and parking at the entrance no less than exists today by either relocating mailboxes and adding pavement or adding compact parking.stalls. 2. The pavement being added at the south end of the 9 parking space area should not be added to protect trees and either provide a compact parking stall or widen the drive aisle to the west. 3. Civil drawings be provided if necessary prior to obtaining a permit to add pavement. t TOWNN OF VAIL 1 Design Review Appeal - Potato Patch Club Condominium Association Application Property Owners and Addresses: Owner of the Subiect Property: Potato Patch Condominiums and general common elements (Send to condominium association pursuant to Section 12-3-3.C.3. of the Vail Municipal Code): Owners of Potato Patch Condominiums Potato Patch Condominium Association c/o Mr. Larry Barnes, Vail Home Rentals 143 East Meadow Drive - Suite 397 Vail CO 81657 Owners of Adiacent Property: Unplatted property to south and east: John A. Carnie and Joan T. Carnie 2920 Mann's Ranch Road Vail CO 81657 (believed to own fee title) Michael Lauterbach Post.Office Box 3451 Vail CO 81658 (believed to be under contract to purchase property) Tract C, Vail/Potato Patch Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail CO 81657 Tract D, Potato Patch Vail Corporation Post Office Box 7 Vail CO 81657 a Red Sandstone Creek Condominiums (Send to condominium association pursuant to Section 12-3-3.C.3. of the Vail Municipal Code): Red Sandstone Creek Association 75 South Frontage Road West Vail CO 81657 Unit A, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch Second Filing Betty Gulley 742 Sandy Lane -Unit A Vail CO 81657 = 1 Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch Second Filing Charles Paul and Geraldine Campisi Forest Drive Sand Point NY 11050 Unit A, Lot 4, Vail/Potato Patch Second Filing Mikell Holdings Co. LTD c/o Karl H. Fauland Post Office Box 4261 Vail CO 81658 Unit B, Lot 4, Vail/Potato Patch Second Filing Rican Investment Co. Ltd c/o Karl H. Fauland Post Office Box 4261 Vail CO 81658 Lot 5, Vail/Potato Patch Second Filing Eric C. Golting and The Doris Golting Irrevocable Trust 10700 East Bethany Drive - #200 Aurora CO 80014-2625 Parcel B and interest in Parcel A, Lot 6, Vail/Potato Patch Second Filing Roger S. Penske Trust U/T/A Dated November 17, 1973 c/o Penske Corporation 13400 Outer Drive West Detroit MI 48239-4001 Parcel C and interest in Parcel A, Lot 6, Vail/Potato Patch Second Filing William L. Hanlon and Marylyn E. Hanlon 225 Wall Street Vail CO 81657 Unplatted land United States Forest Service Post Office Box 190 Minturn CO 81645 domemailinglistppc 2 rho -r# 2- ELEC. MANHOLE @ WATFA VALVE FlRE HriTRPM 1¢0 . LIGHT POLE# / Da e7 MANHOLE RIIA ELEV. = 82PB.8' ~ Cr~11 S~~Q ns a ~ - . ~R 15.7 y~ • 1 { ROCX WALL I E Be ~ ~ S~~ area-S r~ W U . ElOS1iNC - MAILBOXES SCALE: 1 40' ~~JJ 00 DATE OF SURVEY: 2/8/95 QQ UPDATED: 11/15/99 Q W C. MANHOLE a r r 22 > { SHADED AREAS INDICATE AREA EXISTING EDGE . OF PROPODED ELEC. MANM AYEt1EN ENT YA004 ApEN MC G I OF ASPHALT " F IR' ~ 10- TENNIS COURT C EDGE OF ELEC. MANHOLE ~ AAREAS REA REASONS: ROAD OF PROPOSED _ PAVEMENT WIDENMG' ff A FENCE CTYPICAL)L. r ! TENNIS COURT r LCE TENNIS COURT R 80.0 CENTER LINE TWO PARALLEL J RSG.7 E OF a7X ! LAS RIVE uY ~71 n 7 PH PIED. ry~f R 75.0' M~ _ 6 OME_ , . -.t SEWER MANHOLE o.a 0.6 ANT~ ® Pm. ' 0.3' r HiDR p RIM ELEV. = 8274.1' 0.6 .F,. DEIGNED: MT PHONE PED MAN 0# fR <.I o DRAWN: MT 6' LB I \RWALL E LE aE sTLL . R 's°qJ I ° P C JOBS 15 / `CE LcE L7' 9 WALL 't. D 1f /75 L3E 7 LCE 0.6 AIS: 1-99 L.~. I I - 8 0.6' 11 SHLL i C2 ASPHALT WITHIN ROAD NOT CALCULATED I ~ POTATO PATCH DR I AI~ UNIT 40 - Q UNIT 42 UNIT 41 UNIT 38 / UNIT 22 ~JrjG UNIT 39 UNIT 36 UNIT UNIT 33 / W 34 L UNIT 37 UNIT 35 / W UNIT 21 UNIT 23 f' / m ~Q I UNIT 20 UNIT 24 a~ AOT9~o / W m 0 . i UNIT 25 PATCB CLUB UNIT 25 U 0 . < = 0 /0 Z) Q U I UNIT 19 UNIT 18 UNIT 27 UNR 28 0 (L J UNIT 31 UNIT 29 UNIT 30 UNIT 32 I W O ' SANDY. LANE Fa- POOL - 0 ASPHALT WITHIN UNIT 17 \ ROAD NOT CALCULATED T I \ . PROPOSED ENING TENNIS COURT WI \ WIDENING MAILBOX CLUB HOUSE TERNS COURT UNIT 18 TENNIS COURT UNIT 15 \ r TENNIS CENTER IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS REVISIONS: UNTT 14 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS: f TOTAL ASPHALT - 78,077 S.F. ~7 1 I TOTAL BIALDING MU - 64,367 S.F. `lo UNR 13 I (INCL ROOF OVERHANGS) TENNIS COURT TENNIS COURT TENNIS COURT TENNIS COURT + TENNIS COURTS - 51,229 S.F. LESS RECREATIONAL CREDIT- 10,24&8 S.F. (20x) SUBTOTAL IMPQMOUS - 183,427.2 S.F. AODL ASPHALT - 3,814 S.F. UNIT 12 f POTATO PATCH TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA - 157,041.2 S.F. CREEK PARCEL UNIT 1 v r ' PRIVATE DRIVE FOR POTATO PATCH CLUB UNIT 11 UNIT 2 _ I UNIT 10 DESIGNED: MAT / DRAWN: MAT N I UNIT 6 UNIT 8 UNIT 9 / REVIEWED: JE UNIT 7 / w o PLC JOBR: IS UNIT 3 UNIT 4 / - - - - - - - - DATE: 11129!99 UNIT 5 IN F=T - - - - / 1 Icm - a a SHEET NOTE APPROXIMATE AREAS FROM AERIAL MAPS 1 Of 1 NO TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WAS PERFORMED. OTTEN, JOHNSON, ROBINSON, NEFF & I?AGONETTI, P.G. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 950 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 1600 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 r RANDALLG. ALT TELEPHONE 303-825-8400 DIRECT DIAL (303) 575-7548 FAX 303-825-6525 RALTC OJRNR.CONI December 1, 1999 BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Robert Thomas Moorhead, Esq. Vail City Attorney Vail City Attorney's Office 75 South Frontage Road West - Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Interpretation of Condominium Declaration and Governing Documents Relating to The Potato Patch Club Condominiums/ Authority of Association Board to Grant Easements Dear Mr. Moorhead: I have been advised by Dr. Thomas J. Gargan, President of The. Potato Patch Club Condominium Association (the "Association"), that the Town of Vail has requested a letter from this firm, as counsel to the Association, describing and supporting our interpretation of the governing documents of the Association allowing the Association Board of Directors to grant and convey to Michael J. Lauterbach (or his affiliates and/or assigns) an easement for ingress and egress over certain general common elements located within the Potato Patch, condominium project subject to the terms and conditions set forth in that certain Joint Resolution Adopted by the Board of Directors and Members of The Potato Patch Club Condominium, Association, 'Inc. ` dated on or about July 2, 1999, a copy of which is attached hereto for your ease of reference. It is my understanding that certain members of the. Association are challenging the Association's authority to grant the proposed easement to Mr. Lauterbach. Apparently, some of these members are represented by Arthur A. Abplanalp, Esq. As more particularly described in a letter from Mr. Abplanalp to Messrs. Forrest, and Mauriello of the Vail Department of Community Development dated August 17, 1999, also attached for your review, Mr. Abplanalp's clients believe that the subject easement "may be granted only through an amendment to the Declaration and by conveyance of the easement by all owners, each of whom has an undivided interest in that property." Later in such correspondence, Mr. Abplanalp asserts on behalf of his clients that: "The PPC Association owns no part of the land which is proposed to be affected by the easement. In the opinion of a number of owners, the Association can grant no right to land which it does not own." The purpose of this correspondence is to provide you with our Robert Thomas Moorhead, Esq. December 1, 1999 Page 2 interpretation of the governing documents for the Association and to refute the claims made in Mr. Abplanalp's correspondence. The governing documents of the Association clearly provide the Association Board of Directors with the authority to sell or transfer all or any part of the common elements of the Association (including the power to grant easements over the common elements of the Association), as long as at least 67% of the first mortgagees (based upon one vote for each first mortgage owned) and 67% of the then owners of the condominium units within the Association have given- their prior approval for the granting of such easement, despite the fact that the Association is not the record owner of such common elements. While not intending to bore you, I feel that it is important to cite for you the specific provisions contained within the Declarations and the Bylaws of the Association which allow the Board of Directors thereof to grant easements, such as the one proposed to Mr. Lauterbach. The following paragraphs briefly summarize and discuss those sections of the applicable governing documents of the Association which are pertinent to this matter. Section 3.8 of the Declaration defines "general common elements"' to include yards, lawns, gardens and streets; such community amenities, designated as general- common elements on the .maps of the condominium; and all other parts of the condominium project necessary or convenient to its existence, maintenance and safety, or normally in common use. I believe that even Mr. Abplanalp will agree that the proposed easement crosses only areas of the subject property which are considered to be common elements. Sections 2.1, 7, - 8 and 9 of the Declaration provide that each owner of a condominium unit owns, as a tenant in common with all other owners, an undivided interest in all of the common elements, The ownership of such undivided interest in the common elements is appurtenant to the ownership of the condominium unit. As a result, all owners of condominium units are tenants in common, each with an undivided interest in and to their proportionate share of the common elements. In addition to the above, the Declaration subjects the Potato Patch Condominiums to the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-33-101, et s (the Potato Patch Condominiums, have not adopted CCIOA). Colorado's Condominium Ownership Act states in § 38-33-102 that all condominium ownership in Colorado is deemed to consist of a separate estate in an individual air space unit together with an undivided interest in the common elements of the condominium project, and further that the undivided interest in the common elements is appurtenant to the. individual air space unit. Thus, with respect to ownership interests in general common elements, the ownership of a Potato Patch Club condominium unit does not include any rights which are in excess of those granted to any other condominium owner in the State whose rights are governed by the same statute. Robert Thomas Moorhead, Esq. December 1, 1999 Page 3' Notwithstanding the common ownership of the general common elements, Sections 12.1 and 34 of the Declaration provide that the interests of all of the owners of the condominium units are governed by and subject to the Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the Association. These Sections also state that the terms and conditions set forth in the Declaration, the Association Articles of Incorporation, the Association Bylaws and the various Association rules and regulations are deemed to be accepted by all of the owners and mortgagees of such condominium units, and are declared to be binding upon each such person or entity without the necessity of inclusion of an express provision stating the same within the instrument 'of conveyance or encumbrance with respect to the condominium unit. As a result, all interests of all owners of each of the Potato Patch condominium units are governed by and subject to the Association's governing documents, including but not limited to all terms and conditions set forth in the Declaration. Therefore, despite the fact that each condominium owner is a tenant in common with all other owners with respect to ownership of the general common elements, such ownership interests are specifically subject. to the terms included within the Declaration and the governing documents of the Association, including each of the following provisions. Section 16 of the Declaration grants to the Association the responsibility for the operation of the common elements. Section 6.12 of the Bylaws of the Association delegates certain powers to the Board of Directors of the Association. These include, but are not limited to, the following: A. The power to administer and enforce the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, uses, limitations, obligations, and all other provisions set forth in the Declaration and the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act (§6.12.5);. B. The power to enter into contracts, to carry out the Association's duties and powers (§6.12.9); and C. The power to exercise for the Association all powers, duties, and authority vested in or delegated to the Association by the governing documents of the Association and the Colorado Non-Profit Corporation Act (§6.12.15). Section 26 of the Declaration provides the Association with the power to dispose of real and/or personal property by sale or otherwise. Finally, the dispositive provisions relating to this matter are set forth in Sections 18.3 and IS.' ).4 of the Declaration, which state as follows: Robert Thomas Moorhead, Esq. December 1, 1999 Page 4 18.3.. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Declaration to the contrary, unless at least 67 percent of the first mortgagees (based upon one vote for each first mortgage owned), and 67 percent of the Owners of the condominium units have given their prior written approval, the Association shall not: 18.3.4: by act or omission, abandon, partition, subdivide, encumber, sell, or transfer the common elements (the granting of easements for public utilities or for other public purposes consistent with the intended use of common elements by the Project shall not be deemed a transfer within the meaning of this clause). Based upon our review of the above-referenced terms and conditions set forth in the Declarations and Bylaws of the Association, and those terms and provisions set forth in the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act, we have advised the Board of Directors of the Association that they are_ vested with the power and the authority to act on behalf of all members of the Association as more particularly described in the Joint Resolution attached hereto. We believe that the Association, acting through its Board of Directors, has the authority to grant the . easement in question if the Board obtains the approval of at least 67% of the first mortgagees (based upon one vote for each first mortgage owned) and 67% of the current owners of the condominium units. We have advised the Board of Directors, for their protection, to obtain the above-referenced authority in writing from such mortgagees and owners. However, upon receipt of the requisite number of approvals, we have also advised the Board of Directors that the Association has the power and the authority to enter into this transaction subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the attached Joint Resolution. Simply put, the Board of Directors has the authority to grant the subject easement on behalf of the Association without obtaining the unanimous approval of all of the owners and all of the mortgagees. Further, I am not personally aware of aU condominium association in Colorado which would require all owners of undivided interests in the common elements to approve and execute an easement across such common elements. This simply is not how most condominium associations are set up; and the Potato Patch Club is no different. If you have any questions or comments concerning any of the matters discussed herein or any documentation enclosed herewith, please do not hesitate to give me a call at the direct dial number referenced above on the letterhead. I am hopeful that this correspondence adequately explains the position of the Association with respect to these issues. Should you Robert Thomas Moorhead, Esq. December 1, 1999 Page 5 require copies of the Association's Bylaws, Declaration or other governing documents, I will be happy to provide them upon your request. Sincerely, Randall G. Alt for OTTFN, JOHNSON, ROBINSON, NEFF & RAGONETTI, P.C. RGA/gm 442871.1 Enclosure - cc: Tom Gargan ~ J JOINT- RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MEMBERS OF THE POTATO PATCH CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. WHEREAS, the Potato Patch Club Condominium Association, Inc. (hereinafter, referred to as the "Association") is currently a party to certain litigation initiated by John A. Carrie and Joan T. Carrie (the "Carries") requesting the condemnation of a certain easement over property owned by the Association in order to obtain access to a landlocked parcel of land located adjacent to Association property and currently owned by the Carnies (the "Carrie Property") WHEREAS, the Association has been advised that the Camies may desire to sell their property to MJL Development Inc. and/or Michael J. Lauterbach and/or their assigns or affil iates,(hereinafter collectively referred to as the `'Potential Purchaser"). WHEREAS, initial discussions have taken place between authorized representatives of the Association and the Potential Purchaser concerning the purchase of the Carnie Property and the possible grant of an access easement over Association property by the Association to Potential Purchaser. WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Association have reached a general understanding with Potential Purchaser regarding the process by which Potential Purchaser could obtain an access easement from the Association at an agreed upon location if Potential Purchaser actually obtains title to the Carrie Property. WHEREAS, if Potential Purchaser obtains approval of the Town of Vail (and all other governmental entities with jurisdiction over the subject property) for Potential Purchaser's development plans and specifications (the "Plans and Specifications") with respect to the Carnie Property, the prospects of a transfer of title to the Carrie Property to the Potential Purchaser are greatly increased. i WHEREAS, in order to obtain approval of the Plans and Specifications for the development 'of the Carnie Property, Potential Purchaser has advised the Association that Potential Purchaser requires a letter of intent from the Association agreeing to grant to Potential Purchaser an easement for ingress and egress over Association property to the Carnie Property at the location specified in the Plans and Specifications. WHEREAS, if Potential Purchaser is able to acquire the Carnie Property and obtain from the Association the easement for ingress and egress more particularly described herein; the litigation filed by the Carnies with respect thereto could be dismissed and the Association could be released from the obligation to defend such action. WHEREAS, on June 4, 1999 the Board of Directors of the Association adopted a resolution (by a vote of six to two) recommending that the Board of Directors bring to the owners and members of the Association at the annual meeting; a resolution authorizing the Association to pursue the matters more particularly described herein. 417,496 1 RGALT U8.11'99'.~7 PM , - NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS, in accordance with Section 18.3.4 of the Condominium Declaration for Potato Patch Condominiums: 1. The Board of Directors of the Association is hereby authorized to grant an easement for ingress and egress to Potential Purchaser upon satisfaction of all of the terms and conditions therefor set forth in this Resolution. 2. The grant of the subject easement for ingress and egress (the "Easement") shall be subject'to •the satisfaction of each and every one of the following conditions by Potential Purchaser: (a) Acquisition of the Carnie Property by Potential Purchaser; (b) Final plat approval by the Town of Vail of the Plans and Specifications for development of the Carrie Property (the "Development"); (c) The Development shall contain no more than five (5) single family residences and shall not exceed 3,500 square feet GRFA, developed and built in accordance with toe site plan attached hereto; (d) A 30 foot setback from the Association's east property line shall be established in the Plans and- Specifications and maintained by Potential Purchaser; (e) The Easement shall not be more than 25 feet in width, and the turning radius of the Easement within the Association property must be approved by the Town of Vail Fire Department and the Association Board of Directors; (f) The written evidence of the Easement must provide that all costs of surveying, complying with Town of Vail planning requirements, all construction (including road construction), landscaping aiid rounding of the entrance, as well as the restoration of any Association property which is altered or damaged during construction, shall be borne solely by Potential Purchaser; (g) Potential Purchaser shall, upon execution of the formal documentation of the Easement, pay to the Association the sum of $250,000, which shall be allocated" by the Association as condemnation award damages as specified in Section 33.4 of the Condominium Declaration for Potato Patch Club Condominiums; (h) The written documentation of the Easement shall contain, or' coincide with other documentation executed by the Association and Potential Purchaser, a full settlement of the Carrie litigation with prejudice; (1) The Easement shall not be granted until such time as Potential Purchaser has obtained fee title to the Carrie Property; (j) Upon issuance of and in conjunction with the execution of a letter of intent to grant the Easement to Potential Purchaser by the Association, the Carnies must agree and stipulate to a reasonable continuance and vacation of the trial date and 417498 1 RGAIJ M2.'99 57 PM 2 ; abatement of all legal proceedings in the current condemnation litigation, pending completion of the Town of Vail planning process with respect to the Plans and Specifications of Potential Purchaser for the Development. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Association is hereby authorized to issue a non-binding letter of intent to the Potential Purchaser specifying the parameters and limitations with respect to the Easement set forth above and any other limitations and/or conditions required by the Board of Directors or counsel for the Association for the possible grant of the Easement to Potential Purchaser. Such letter of intent must contain an- acknowledgment by the Potential Purchaser that the issuance of the letter of intent and the execution of the Easement shall in no way be construed to.be an approval by the Association (or any of its members) of the Development or the Plans and Specifications, and that all members of the 'Association and the Association itself reserve all rights to participate in any Town of Vail planning process relating to the development of the Carnie Property. Potential Purchaser must further acknowledge that certain members of the Association may be opposed to the grant of the Easemert and may actively participate in such Town of Vail planning process. FURTHER RESOLVED, that within the limitations and parameters set forth above, the Board of Directors of the Association shall be and is hereby authorized; empowered and directed to negotiate, execute and, as necessary, record the above-described letter of intent and the final definitive written Easement in conjunction with counsel for the Association, and to negotiate a final settlement of the Carney litigation, with prejudice, as of the result of the grant of the Easement. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors is and shall be authorized, empowered and directed to explore the possibility of creating a sub-association with respect to . the final approved development of the Carnie Property for the purposes of. (a) sharing the cost of maintenance, repairs and snow removal for the ; Easement; (b) access to and appropriate cost sharing in the maintenance-, repair and capital improvements to the common elements of the Association, including the tennis courts, pool, spa and health club; and (c) to amend the Condominium Declaration for Potato Patch Club Condominiums to include the above-described provisions, subject to the approval of the owners and mortgagees of units within the Association as required by such Declaration; with such other terms and conditions contained therein as may be required by the Board of Directors and counsel for the Association as appropriate. 417499 1 RGALT 08;2!99? 57 PSI The undersigned, as President of the Association, hereby certifies that the Resolutions contained herein were duly adopted and approved by the Board of Directors and the members of the Association at the annual meeting of the Association conducted on July 2, 1999 and the subsequent Board of Directors meeting held immediately thereafter. Thomas J. Gargan, M.D., P2siden f the Association Approved and accepted this day of st. 999. Michael J. Laulerbach Y r a r s v 417499.1 RGALT 08/'2199'_'57 PJI 4 01/13/2000 06:38 FAX Q02 - ,~0 2AZ'Cy - ~xG11~f 5 Y . - ~ «itttJ~ • 0 COL6~i C/o Vail Home Rentals, Inc. 143 East Meadow Drive, Suite 397 Vail, Colorado 81657 303-476-2221 FAX 476-2684 MIN UTES POTATO PATCH CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS ME e- & ,r iG DECEMBER 16,1949 AT 10AM MOUNTAIN TTME Present were Cissy Swig, Hermann Staufer, Tom Crargan. Bob Scidelmart, Paul Hoff; Charlie Craft, Kevin Burke, David Kwok, Randy Alt, Association Attorney and Larry Barnes from Vail Home Rentals. Larry Barnes certified that the notice of the meeting had been sent according to the Bylaws. After a discussion of die current Town of Vail design review proceedings, Kevin Burke made a motion to ratify the actions of the President, Tom Gargan, in submitting, on behalf of the Association, an Application for Design Review Approval dated 10/11/99. a copy of which was included in the directors' meeting notice. After further lengthy discussion, Bob Seidelman seconded the motion. The motion carried with Paul Hoff opposing and all other directors present voting to approve. A motion was made by Kevin Burke to approve the map attached to the above-referenced Application for Design Review Approval without the erroneous "existing right of way" designation. The motion was duly seconded and carved. Paul Hoff abstained and all of the other directors present voted to approve. After discussion of title issues, Hermann Staufer made a motion to order from Land Title, litigation guarantees on the Porato Patch Club in the amount of $500,000. Randy Alt quoted the approximate price as $1,350 plus $15.00 per unit plus $75.00 per hour for roughly five hours of research. The motion was* ` seconded and carried unanimously- - During the various discussions Paul Hoff questioned whether the easement included utilities and other items. Everyone agreed that this issue should be clarified. ~r ~i Hermann taufer/ Secretary A ORDINANCE NO.1 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6, VAIL VILLAGE INN, PHASE IV, TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE VAIL PLAZA HOTEL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO: WHEREAS, In 1976, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, establishing Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn; and WHEREAS', Section 12-9A-10 of the Zoning Regulations permits major amendments to previously Approved Development Plans for Special Development Districts; and WHEREAS, Waldir Prado, dba Daymer Corporation, as owner of the Phase IV property, has submitted an application fora major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail T Village Inn, Phase IV; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to adopt an Approved Development Plan for the Vail Village Inn Special Development District, Phase IV to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel; and WHEREAS, the proposed major amendment to the Special Development District is in the best interest of the town.as it meets the Town's development objectives as identified in the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan;. and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Zoning Regulations, the Planning & Environmental Commission held a; public hearing on the major amendment application; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Environmental Commission has reviewed the prescribed criteria for a major amendment and has submitted its unanimous recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt and re-establish the Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: c , 1 Ordinance 1, Series of 2000 _ ' C - f A Section 1. Purpose of the Ordinance The purpose of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, is to adopt an Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel. The Approved Development Plans for Phases I, III & V remain approved and unchanged for the development of Special Development District No. 6 within the Town of Vail, unless they have otherwise expired. Only the Approved Development Plan for Phase IV., the Vail Plaza Hotel is hereby amended and adopted. Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled. Plannina Commission Report.The approval procedures described in Section 12-9A of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Vail Town Council has received the recommendation of the Planning & Environmental Commission for a major amendment to the Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel. Requests for amendments to the Approved Development Plan shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 12-9A of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 3. Special Development District No. 6 The Special Development District and'the Major Amendment to the Approved Development Plan for Phase IV are established to assure comprehensive development and use of the area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the goals, objectives and policies, of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. Special Development District No. 6 is regarded as being complementary to the Town of Vail by the Vail Town Council and the Planning & Environmental Commission, and has been established since there are significant aspects of the Special Development District that cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standard Public Accommodation zone district requirements. Section 4. Development Standards - Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel Development Plan-- The Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, Vail Plaza Hotel shall include the following plans and materials prepared by Zehren and Associates. Inc., dated November 23,' 1999 and stamped approved by the Town of Vail, dated January 18, 2000: 2 Ordinance t, Series of 2000 A. Site Illustrative Plan B. 'Site Vignettes Key Plan (noted "for illustration purposes only') C.. Site Vignettes D. Site Plan' E. Level Minus Two F. Level Minus One G. Level Zero H. Level One 1. Level Two J. Level Three K. Level Four r L. Level Five M. : Level Six N. Roof Plan 0. Roof Plan (Mechanical Equipment) P. Street Sections (Vail Road Elevation/North Frontage Road Elevation) Q. Plaza Sections (South Plaza Elevation/East Plaza Elevation) R. Building A Elevations S. Building A Sections T. Building B Elevations U. Building B Sections V. Building Height Plan 1 (Absolute Heights/Interpolated Contours) W. Building Height Plan 2 (Maximum Height Above Grade/Interpolated Contours) X. Pool Study (Pool Sections) Y. Vail Road Setback Study Z. Loading and Delivery plan AA. Street Entry Studies (Vail Road/South Frontage Road) BB. Sun Study CC. Landscape Improvements Plan DD. Off-site Improvements Plan 3 Ordinance 1, Series of 2000 I_ Permitted Uses-- The permitted uses in Phase IV of Special Development District No. 6 shall be as set forth in the development plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. Conditional Uses-- Conditional uses for Phase IV shall be set forth in Section 12-7A-3 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. All conditional uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as outlined in Chapter 12- 16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. Density-- Units per Acre - Dwelling Units, Accommodation Units, & Fractional Fee Club Units The number of units permitted in Phase IV shall not exceed the following: Dwelling Units - 1 Accommodation Units - 99 Fractional Fee Club Units - 48 Density-- Floor Area The gross residential floor area (GRFA), common area and commercial square footage permitted for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. Setbacks-- Required setbacks for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. Height-- The maximum building height for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. For the purposes of SDD No. 6, Phase IV, calculations of height, height shall mean the distance measured vertically from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive), at any given point to the top of a flat roof, or mansard roof, or to the highest ridge line of sloping roof unless otherwise specified in Approved Development Plans. Site Coverage-- The maximum allowable site coverage for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of, this ordinance. Landscaping-- The minimum landscape area requirement for Phase IV shall be as set forth in the Approved 4 Ordinance 1, Series of 2000 . Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this.ordinance. Parking and Loading-- The required number of off-street parking spaces and loading/delivery berths for Phase IV shall be provided as set forth in the Approved Development Plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. In no instance shall Vail Road or the South Frontage'Road be used for loading/delivery or guest drop-off/pick-up without the prior written approval of the Town of, Vail. The required parking space's shall not be individually sold, transferred, leased, conveyed, rented or restricted to any person other than a tenant, occupant or user of the.,building for which the space, spaces or area are required to be provided by the Zoning Regulations or ordinances of the Town. The foregoing language shall not prohibit the temporary use of the parking spaces for events or uses outside of the building, subject to the approval of the Town of Vail. Section 5. Approval Aqreements for Special Development District No. 6, Phase IV. Vail Plaza Hotel 1. That the Developer provide Type III Employee Housing Unit deed-restrictions , which comply with the~Town of Vail Employee Housing Requirements (Title 12, Chapter 13, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code) for a minimum of 38 employees, and that said deed-restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions be recorded at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotel. The Developer agrees that it shall make application to the Town of•Vail for placing the Type III Employee Housing Units within Phase IV of Special Development District No. 6 within 30 days of approval of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to place some or all of such employee housing units within Phase IV in such a way as to meet the objectives of the Town of Vail ordinances. Nothing contained herein shall obligate the Town to approve such application, nor shall the Developer be required to remove existing uses or density in order to construct the employee housing units within Phase IV. 2. That the Developer submits detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off-site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading, road improvements, etc.) as identified on the off-site improvements plan to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval, prior to application for a building permit. 3. That"the Developer submits a detailed final landscape plan and final architectural elevations :f 5 Ordinance 1, Series of 2000 c for review and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to application for a building permit; 4. The sdd approval time requirements and limitations of Section 12-9A-12 shall apply of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000. In addition, the phasing of the construction of the hotel shall not be permitted. 5. That the Developer submits the following plans to the Department of Community Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; C. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and e. A Traffic Control Plan. 6. That the Developer receives a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of Type III Employee Housing Units in Phase IV of the District, in accordance with Chapter 12-16, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to provide housing on-site, if the application.to amend Special Development District No. 6, pursuant to Condition of Approval #1 above, is approved by the Town of Vail. 7. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. 8. That the Developer meets with the Town staff to prepare a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off-site improvements, prior to second reading of an ordinance approving the major amendment. 9. That the Developer increases the proposed Vail Road setback to insure adequate distances are provided to meet the intended needs of the Town's right-of-way and the front setback or successfully demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Town that adequate areas for landscaping, streetscape improvements and snow storage are provided. The Town of Vail .Design Review Board shall participate in this decision-making process. 10. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans responding to each of the design concerns expressed by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works & Transportation, in his 6 Ordinance 1, Series of 2000 r memorandum to George Ruther, dated 12/13/99. The drawings shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to final Design Review Board approval. 11.. That the developer records a public pedestrian easement between the hotel and the Phase III Condominiums and between the Phase V Building property lines. The easement shall be prepared by the developer and submitted for review and approval of the Town Attorney. The easement shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 12. That the Developer record a deed-restriction, which the Town is a party to, on the Phase IV property prohibiting the public use of the spa facility in the hotel. Said restriction may be revoked if the Developer is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town that adequate provisions for vehicle parking have been made to accommodate the public use of the spa. 13. That the Developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall section and complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to making an application for a building permit. 14. That the Developer submits a comprehensive sign program proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a ' r Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 15. That the Developer submits a roof-top mechanical equipment plan for review and approval of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All roof-top mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the hotel and enclosed and screened from public view. 16. That the Developer posts a bond with the Town of Vail to provide financial security for the 125% of the total cost of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. 17. That the Developer installs bollards or similar safety devices at the intersection of the delivery access driveway and the sidewalk along the South Frontage Road to prevent conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, prior to the issuance of a TemporaryCertificate of Occupancy. 18. That the Developer studies and redesigns the entrance on the north side of the hotel across from the entrance to the Gateway Building to create a more inviting entrance or a design 7 Ordinance 1, Series of 2oo0 that redirects pedestrians to another entrance. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 19. That the Developer coordinate efforts with the'owners of the Gateway Building to create a below ground access for loading and delivery to the Gateway from the Vail Plaza Hotel to resolve potential loading and delivery concerns at the Gateway. If a coordinated effort can be reached the Developer shall submit revised plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 20. That the Developer revises the proposed floor plans for the Vail Plaza Hotel to provide freight elevator access to the lowest level of the parking structure. The revised plans shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 21. That the developer redesigns the proposed elevator tower to create an architectural feature atop the tower and revises the proposed building elevations and roof plan prior to final review of the proposal by the Design Review Board. The Board shall review and approve the revised design. 22. That the Developer submit a cost estimate prepared in cooperation with the Town of Vail Public Works Department to cover the complete cost of designing and constructing a left- turn lane on Vail Road and reconfiguring the landscape island in the South Frontage Road median to eliminate left-turns from the loading/delivery area. The Developer shall post a financial bond covering 150%,of the cost of constructing the left-turn lane and reconfiguring the landscape median'to eliminate the left-turn from the loading/delivery area. The bond shall be held by the Town of Vail for a period of 10 (ten) years for the Town to use to construct the left-turn lane and median improvements should it be deemed necessary by the Town of Vail. The determination of need shall be made by the Town Engineer upon finding that the existence of the hotel has negatively impacted the flow of traffic on Vail Road. The Upon determining the need for said improvements and notifying the Developer of the need in writing, the Town shall commence construction within eighteen months. The bond shall be in place with the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 23. That the Developer provides a centralized loading/delivery facility for the use of all owners and tenants within Special Development District No. 6. Access or-use of the facility shall 8 Ordinance 1, Series of 2000 not be unduly restricted for Special Development District No. 6. The loading/delivery facility, including docks, berths, freight elevators, service corridors, etc., may be made available for public and/or private loading/delivery programs, sanctioned by the Town of Vail, to mitigate loading/delivery impacts upon the Vail Village loading/delivery system related to the development of the project. The use of the facility shall only be permitted upon a finding by the Town of Vail and the Developer that excess capacity exists. The Developer will be compensated by the Town of Vail and/or others for the common use of the facility. The final determination of the use of the facility shall be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Town of Vail. 24. That the Developer submits a written letter of approval from adjacent properties whose property is being encroached upon by certain improvements resulting from the construction of the hotel, prior to, the issuance of a building permit. 25. That the Developer executes. a Developer Improvement Agreement to cover the completion of the required off-site improvements, prior to the issuance of a building permit. r Section 6. I 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, T1 . , sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 7. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 8. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer 9 Ordinance 1, Series of 2000 shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND-ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4th day of January, 2000, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 18th day of January, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 18`h day of January, 2000. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 10 Ordinance 1, Series of 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FR: Bob McLaurin RE: Town Managers Report DT: January 12, 2000 Meetina with Avon Town Council For the past few years we have been meeting with the Avon Town Council to discuss issues of mutual concern. The next meeting of the two groups has been tentatively scheduled for Thursday March 30th. This meeting will be held in Avon and will be a dinner meeting. Please let me know if this date works for you so I can confirm it with the Town of Avon. Ford Amphitheater Lease We are in the process of renewing the lease for the Ford Amphitheater. As you are aware we have leased this facility to the Vail Valley Foundation who operates it. Because of the proposed improvements, the Foundation has requested a fifteen-year lease. I have no problem with this term. Please let me know if you desire something other than a fifteen-year term. UD Comina Meetinas 1/25/00 WS - 2:00 P.M. Fire Department - Council Walk Through (30 mins.) Potential Revisions to Master Deed Restrictions for all TOV EHV's (45 mins.) Discussion of Master Deed Restriction PEC Report 2/2/00 WS - 2:00 P.M. Community Development - Council Walk Through 6 Critical Strategies Final Design Presentation of Buffehr Creek Park DRB Report 2/2/00 TC - 7:00 P.M. Budget Discussion for Buffehr Creek Park 2/8/00 WS - 2:00 P.M. Police Department - Council Walk Through 6 Critical Strategies Vail Marketing PEC Report Appeal of PEC Denial of City Market Sign Variance Wayfinding and Signage Program for the Town of Vail, Colorado; Statement of Probable Cost, 1118100, Page 1 Wayfinding and Signage Program for the Town of Vail, Colorado Statement of Probable Cost January 18, 2000 2000 Budget ($250,000) Professional Fees, Implementation Phase 27,500 Expenses 5,000 Cost of Signs Qty Fabrication Installation Winter 2000 Installation: New Vail Town Limit Signs 2 3,500 2,000 Installation by CDOT Pedestrian Directional Arrows 260 32,500 Signs for existing poles only; Installation by TOV Skier Drop-off Signs throughout the Villages 20 3,000 Cost of Posts 20 1,000 Installation by TOV Parking Structure Internal Circulation/Entry, Exit 100 50,000 Installation by TOV Parking Structure Column Markings 125 8,125 Installation by TOV Replacement Faces, Main Vail Roundabout 18 6,000 New Faces, West Vail Roundabout 12 4,000 Installation by TOV Subtotal, Gross 140,625 2,000 Less CDOT Considerations 2,000 Subtotal, TOV Capital Expenditure FY 2000 140,625 01 Wayfinding and Signage Program for the Town of Vail, Colorado; Statement of Probable Cost, 1118100, Page 2 2000 Budget ($250,000), continued Cost of Signs Qty Fabrication Installation Spring/Summer 2000 Installation: 1/3 of Frontage Road Vehicular Signs 10 13,000 12,000 Wood Posts and Rails 4,000 Parking Structure Identification (w/one-line LEDs) 2 51,750 8,500 Park Signs 24 36,000 Installation by TOV Trail Signs (3 inserts per unit) 40 6,000 Cost of Posts; Installation/TOV 40 4,000 Bus Stop Signs (within the Villages; 4 inserts per 22 6,600 Cost of Posts; Installation/TOV 22 2,200 Pedestrian Maps 16 36,500 21,000 Fees to Update and Annotate Maps 5,000 Pedestrian Directional Arrows (Completion) 72 9,000 Cost of New Poles (@ $1500 each) 18 27,000 Signs for new poles; Installation by TOV Subtotal, Gross 201,050 41,500 Less funds available from existing TOV Sign Budget 10,000 Less funds available from RETT 48,000 Less Partnership Participation Funding 50,000 Subtotal, TOV Capital Expenditure FY 2000 93,050 41,500 Total, TOV Capital Expenditure FY 2000 233,675 41,5001 275,175 a Wayfinding and Signage Program for the Town of Vail, Colorado; Statement of Probable Cost, 1/18100. Page 3 2001 Budget ($250,000) Professional Fees, Implementation Phase 12,500 Expenses 3,500 Cost of Signs Qty Fabrication Installation Signs along 1-70 (by CDOT) 100,000 30,000 Sign faces and installation by CDOT 2/3 of Frontage Road Vehicular Signs 20 26,000 24,000 Wood Posts and Rails 8,000 Sign faces and Installation by CDOT Gateway Sign/Monuments at Main Vail Exit 2 50,000 Costs include $5, 000 in professional fees Street Signs in Villages (Smaller) 75 22,500 Cost of Posts 50 3,300 Street Signs outside Villages (Larger) 100 30,000 Cost of Posts 100 10,000 Neighborhood Entry/Welcome Signs 30 18,750 Cost of Posts 60 3,000 Installation by TOV Regulatory Signs 400 50,000 Cost of Posts (Half New) 200 10,000 Installation by TOV Subtotal, Gross 347,550 54,000 Less CDOT Participation 126,000 54,000 Less funds available from existing TOV Sign Budget 6,000 Total, TOV Capital Expenditure, FY 2001 215,550 01 215,550 Total, TOV Capital Expenditure, FY 2000 and 2001 490,725 Wayfinding and Signage Program for the Town of Vail, Colorado; Statement of Probable Cost, 1/18100, Page 4 r 2002 and Beyond Professional Fees, Design, Document, Implement 125,000 Expenses 5,000 Cost of Signs Qty Fabrication Installation 1-70 Overpass Parking Information Sign 1 16,000 4,000 Gateways, Main Vail 2 1,000,000 Gateways, East and West Vail 4 570,000 Banner Poles and Banners 20 60,000 12,000 At mountain portal locations Freeway Monuments 2 345,000 Does not include the cost of the sculpture(s) Total Costs, 2002 and Beyond 2,121,0001 16,0001 2,137,000 Grand Total 2,627,725 i x { Jet _ AREA ED R 10-14 V9E r/ v 0 0 WS I- t f. 66 TABLE B - Year to Date Comparison UL.# 3 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 JAN 3919 4683 5543 5788 10906 1078.2 11194 10050 8986 9309 9536 11347 FEB 4489 4903 5634 5402 10486 10459 11177 9288 9130 9519 8538 9894 MAR 4963 5414 6556 6750 12999 11346 12415 10743 9926 10481 12582 12032 APR 4018 4750 4798 5075 11069 11269 10150 9343 10121 9425 12390 10905 MAY 2560 3390 3980 4002 11069 8309 8327 8347 8677 7646 7794 8516 JUN 4417 4486 5860 5997 11069 11070 10275 9600 9600 9353 9562 11637 JUL JUL 5636 5330 6401 6650 14823 14321 12410 13400 13406 12201 14012 AUG 5365 4958 6050 6450 11069 14641 13901 11842 12823 13259 11800 13728 SEP 3855 4003 5186 5401 11069 10381 10331 6552 8947 9870 10760 9738 OCT 4410 4791 6151 6409 11069 12314 11000 8573 8394 10852 11555 10528 NOV 4299 5486 6124 6201 11069 13457 12301 7973 6930 11064 10475 12105 DEC 4361 5364 5958 11069 15406 10725 10200 10456 8343 11602 6 Year 42295 52500 61212 63876 118524 128851 125392 104721.2 106934 114184 111193 1 ~7~68 Y. to D. Total 42295 56861 66t~ 6 69834 129593 144257 136117 114921.2 117390 122527 128795 137668 12 month Total ATTENDANCE - YEAR TO DATE COMPARISON Jan-Dec 160000 , 140000 137668 1"Ltitfbi 125392 120000 118624 1141A4 117193 104791 20E31 6934 100000 Number of 80000 - People 61212 63876 60000 5250(1-- - 42295 40000 - 20000 0 - - 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year it JULY COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT DATA j JULY VIDEO NOW ( FIC I RED I BLUE GREEN CAS JUV JVID JCAS CD ROM RES 378 531 487.1 82 18 50 145 38', >1 5I 4 1311 NONR 325 21 4101 711 8 18 109 20 1 131 111 1007 NEW 141 10~ 1771 0 0 0 20 5 19 1 0 373 SEAS 52 3 431 0 0 0 9 0 137 0, o! 244 IGUES 572 272 136!i 121 22 27 22! 1101 114 5 0 1401 IJUVE 47 17 5' 3 1 161 8; 19i 121 0 5 133 ICLC 73 72 30, 15 2 0 23 391 8 0' 1 263 JRES 47 '19 lo; 23 3 9 31 21 2 I 3 o 2; 160 IVRENT 324 27 375'. 16 0 3, 63! 761 31 1 3 919 RES2 j 254 139 150 168 24 281 36! 0I 87! 11 900 LEASE 881 41 16 0 0 01 4 0 0 0 0l 149 23011 674, 18391 499 78j 151 442 328 483 0 36' 2911 6860 ¦ JULY 1 JULY MEDIA TYPE I 3000 3000 2500 1 2500 2000 Z 2000 o I ~ + H ,soo 1511 4CLI :5 1500 ~ U U 1007 1000 919 s0e 1000 - - 500 500 ---37& 244 263 ~7 - 133 160 149 0 I 1f1 0 - NpEO 1 NONE FlC REp BWE l3flEFJi JUV MD JCPS D ROOM O~ HAY :!301 _ 611839 X99 19 151 K3 ]28 0 36 29 RES NONP. NCW SEAS GUES JUVE CLC JEES VRENT RES2 LEASE ae] BORROWER TYPE i 1998 (LOSS BY USER TYPE ' RES2 CLC - DEPO LE=ASS RESJ E-1 NONR NONR ¦ NEWC JUV E ? RES ail SEAS ?JRES ¦VRENT CUES 2 El GUES ¦ SEAS ? JUVE i NEWC ¦LEASE I RES2 VRENT ? CLC J RES RES ¦ RESJ ¦ DEPO 1999 GUES DEPO VSEN RES RES2 BUSN newcp newcdl newcv newce lease leasev leasee seas seasv sease JRES JUVE CLC *OTHER $(20) ($40) (prop) (DL) V E V E V E JAN 46 16 0 3 10 0 10 38 28 10 5 2 15 0 183 F E B 47 14 0 0 7 0 5 35 6 7 0 4 12 0 137 MAR 67 23 0 9 18 0 9 43 1 7 0 4 24 0 205 APR 34 20 0 4 6 0 7 55 4 1 3 3 14 0 151 MAY 4 7 0 2 0 0 4 39 10 0 5 3 0 0 74 JUNE 46 9 0 5 8 0 8 44 7 9 8 6 18 5 173 JULY 97 14 0 6 24 0 9 30 5 5 3 5 30 2 230 AUG 93 14 0 1 18 0 6 31 9 3 5 5 32 1 218 SEPT 18 26 0 3 5 0 2 12 1 2 3 0 11 0 83 OCT 12 19 7 6 0 31 9 22 1 3 1 9 1 41 0 162 NOV 10 17 4 8 0 31 12 34 3 ;I 1 2 Z 26 0 153 DEC 31 6 3 8 1) 25 8 31 6 1 1 1 6 0 127 TOTAL 505 185 0 47 118 0 60 327 87 29 71 87 10 44 7 3 44 41 223 8 1896 1999 GUES DEPO VSEN RES RES2 BUSN newcp newcdl newcv newce lease leasev leasee seas seasv sease JRES JUVE CLC *OTHER $(20) ($40) (prop) (DL) V E V E V E ***As of October Newc, Lease, and Seas were broken dawn into Newcv, Newce, Leasev, Leasee, Seasv, Sease excel\libdata\circ\memstats\ comb98991/171002:15 PM . BUDGET ;1999=2000 . LIBRARY BUDGET OPERAT NG 1992 :?1995 1996 1`992 ` 1998: 1999. 2000 < $192,865 216,665 184,845 192,445 238,569 245,555 Including salaries 675,00 FTE'S 1992 ;1995 1996 1997 1998: 1999 2:000 10.69 10.65 10.61 9.68 9.68 9.68 9.68 (Operating hours changed) COMPARISONS Valuation Levy Revenue Generated Town of Vail 457,268,390 4.406 2,014,636 CMC 1,335,160,350 3.539 4,725,214 Eagle Valley Library District 786,347,320 2.75 $2,162,515 Vail Library This is a projection for comparative purposes no separate mill levy on Vail Property tax bill 2.75 $1,257,490 Steamboat (Routt Library Dist.) 2.39 Pitkin Library District 1.39 $1,425,840 Jefferson Library District 3.5 Arapahoe Library District 4.07 **Valuations from Abstract of Assessment *Levys from State of Colorado 1997 Annual Report to General Assembly