The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-05-01 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA 6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 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 • ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Participation. (10 min.) 2• ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda. (5 min.) a. Approval of 04.03.07 & .04.17.07 min. 3. Stan Zemler ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager's Report. (10 min.) • Revenue Update. • Wildlife Resistant Containers. 4. Greg Hall ITEM/1'OPIC: Construction Update. (5 min.) 5. Stan Zemler ITEM/TOPIC: LionsHead Parking Structure RFP Update. (5 min.) 6. Bill Gibson ITEMlTOPIC: First Reading of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2007, an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 4, Cascade .Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (20 min.) Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2007, upon first reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On April 9, 2007, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on a request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. Upon review of the request, the Planning. and Environmental Commission voted 7-0-0 to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, of the request to amend Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to the Vail Town Council. These recommended conditions have been integrated into Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2007. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community ~ Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2007, on first reading. 7. George Ruther An appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission's decision to uphold an administrative action determining that Condominium Unit E within the Covered Bridge Building is the "street level" of the building, located at 227 Bridge Street Lots C & D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vait Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06- 0070, 0071., 0072) (60 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold, overturn, or modify the Planning & Environmental Commission's decision to uphold an administrative action determining that Condominium Unit E within the .Covered Bridge Building is the "street level" of the building. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On February 12, 2007, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission held a public meeting to hear an appeal of an administrative action determining that Condominium Unit E within the Covered Bridge Building is the "street level" of the building. Upon presentation of evidence and testimony, the Commission made eight findings of fact and voted unanimously to uphold the previous decision of the administrator. On April 3, 2007, the Vail Town Council granted a continuance of the public hearing on the appeal to the May 1, 2007, Town Council meeting at the request of the staff and the appellant. A copy of the memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission, dated February 12, 2007,and a copy of the approved meeting minutes have been attached for reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council upholds the February 12, 2007, decision of the Planning & Environmental Commission, based upon the evidence and testimony presented and the eight findings of fact made by the Planning & Environmental Commission. 8. Matt Mire ITEMlTOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 14, Series 2007. An Ordinance Amending Sections 5-1-7(H)(2)(d) Vail Town Code Regarding the Regulation of Amplified Sound for Commercial Purposes; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (15 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend or deny first reading of Ordinance No. 14, Series 2007. r BACKGROUND: During the Council meeting of April 17, 2007, the Council directed the staff to provide. an Ordinance amending the current town code section 5-1-7, extending the time periods for allowable outdoor entertainment. The Council wishes to extend the time which amplified-sound equipment may be used for commercial purposes on Friday and Saturday nights from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve amend or deny first reading of Ordinance No. 14, Series 2007. 9. Judy Camp ITEMlTOPIC: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 13, Series of 2007, AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, AND REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND OF THE 2007 BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. (15 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve or approve. with amendments the second reading of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2007. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: To be provided in a separate memo. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council approves or approves with amendments Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2007, upon second reading. 10. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (8:25 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING SESSION WILL BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M., TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2007 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Tuesday, April 3, 2007 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximate) 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Rod Slifer. y Members present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Farrow Hitt, Mayor Pro-Tem Kent Logan Greg Moffet Mark Gordon Kevin Foley Kim Newbury Staff Members: Stan Zemter, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. TJ Connors congratulated Council and Vail Resorts on the town and mountain's success. He then spoke in favor of sustainability (in terms of employee housing) for all future development endeavors. He then recommended increasing density (to allow for more workforce housing) on the Timber Ridge site. Wolf Mueller spoke against the town providing more subsidized em to e p y e housing. Larry Woods spoke in support of on-site employee housing. The second .item on the agenda was the Building & Fire Code Appeals Board (B&FCAB}, Design Review Board (DRB), Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and Art in Public Places (AIPP) Board Appointments. Earlier in the day Council had interviewed all of the applicants. 1) Appoint one applicant to the B&FCAB for a term of five years (through March 31 2012). Hitt moved to appoint Mark Mueller with Gordon seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. ' 2) Appoint three applicants to the PEC for a term of two years each (through March 31 2009). Hitt moved to appoint Bill Jewitt, Michael Kurz and David Viele with Fole seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Y 1 3) Appoint two applicants to the DRB for a term of two years each (through March 31, 2009). Hitt moved to appoint Thomas DuBois and Brian Gillette with Foley seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. 4) Appoint three applicants to the AIPP for a term of three years each (through March 31, 2010). Hitt moved to appoint Barbie Christopher, Pam Hopkins and Bill Rey with Moffet seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The third item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. • Approval of 03.13.07 & 03.20.07 Minutes. Moffet moved to approve the minutes without amendments with Newbury seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. • Update on private funding contributions for Seibert Circle. Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer reported earlier this. year, Council agreed to extend the timeframe during which contributions from the private sector toward shortfall funding of Seibert Circle could be collected. The total shortfall was $125,000. To this date, contributions of $107,700 have been received and a final $20,000 checks from Steve Virostek with the Willows. This Willows contribution will go against one of his "conditions of approval" that he provide $70,000 for public art. Representing the Vail Chamber & Business Association, Richard tenBraak described a proposed June barbeque event scheduled to be held in Vail Village. Commission on Specials Event Coordinator (CSE) Sybill Navas explained the difference between the former Chili-Cook Off and the proposed "Kick-Off to Summer" barbeque event. Gordon asked why a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the event did not take place. Navas explained event RFP's are not commonplace. He then clarified the proposed budget was reasonable as compared to other events. Navas explained there was not much incentive for restaurants to participate in the Chili-Cook Off. Public Works Director Greg Hall explained that on June 17, Meadow Drive would be available. for the Vail Farmers' Market. Foley asked if the town had planned on offering any assistance to the community of Holly in southeast Colorado. Slifer said the tornado-ravaged town had already received substantial assistance.. Zemler offered to consult with the Colorado Municipal League regarding requested assistance. • Revenue Update. Finance Director Judy Camp reported the year is off to a good start with tax collections for February year-to-date estimated at $5.5 million, up approximately 6.6% from the same period in 2006. February collections estimated at $2.7 will be up 7.2% from February 2006, which was the previous high for the month. For comparison, inflation as measured by the consumer price index was up just 2.4% in February. Similarly, ski lift tax collections for the year-to-date through February are up 8.4% from last year. The ski season to date (November -February) is up 5.2%. Construction permit revenue, which can be considered an indicator of redevelopment activity, is off to a good start in 2007. Year-to-date construction permit fees of $316,109 include $217,831 from major construction projects: the Arrabelle at Vail Square, -Four Seasons, Lodge Tower, Mountain View (formerly Apollo Park), Ritz Carlton, and .Vail Plaza Hotel. This is a 67% increase in total over the first two months of 2006, with the major projects accounting for approximately 69% of the fees in 2007 and 67% in 2006. Construction permit fees include building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing and sprinkler permits. Year-to-date RETT collections through March 28, 2007, total $1.3 million compared with $1.2 million for the same time period last year, an increase of 7.4%. including Gore Creek Place and Forest Place contributed $202,500 orv16°p of the total in 2007 while no major redevelopment projects closed in the first quarter of 2006. The fifth item on the agenda was .The LionsHead Parking Structure Redevelopment Update. During an update on LionsHead parking structure redevelopment negotiations, Zemler stated the parties had agreed that any of the town's expenses related to those negotiations would be reimbursed by the developer. `The town will be meeting with the project's architectural group and Open/Hillwood Partners...The town's financial representatives and bond counsel have also begun work." Zemler acknowledged Vail Resorts remained abreast of the project's progress. The sixth item on the agenda was a Vail Police Department Accreditation Presentation. Mayor Slifer and Rick Holman, Breckenridge Police Chief and a Northwest Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police .Board Member, p with the professional standards accreditation awards C.IRSA provides the tDownaw th a premium reduction as part of that accreditation. Police Chief Dwight Henninger was then awarded the Colorado Law Enforcement Executives Certification Award. Slifer thanked Henninger for his hard work and dedication. The seventh item on the agenda was a Conference Center Fund Reallocation Discussion. Town Manager Stan Zemler asked Council to provide direction to staff regarding potential conference center fund reallocation uses to explore in a voter opinion poll. Town staff has been working with Public Opinion Strategies to draft a statistically significant ,telephone poll to probe voter interest for various reallocation scenarios for the Conference Center Fund. The poll would be used to assist Council. in determining a possible ballot question for the November 2007 election. It is estimated the fund will be approximately $9 million by the fall election. The conference center taxes (a half-cent sales tax and a 1.5 percent lodging-tax) were approved by voters in 2002 and rescinded in 2006. The funding may be redirected to an alternate use(s) with the consent of Vail's electorate. Council was then asked to review the current list of reallocation possibilities to be probed in the poll and to provide direction regarding adjustments or modifications: ~ Increasing tourism ,promotion, marketing and special events to draw year-round visitors. ~ Providing greater access to workforce housing, including loans for first-time home buyers and acquisition of homes for local workers. 3 • Improving parks, trails and bike paths. • Remodeling and improving Dobson Ice Arena so it can be used for other athletic and community events in addition to its use as an ice skating facility. • Increasing environmental efforts, such as energy efficiency, recycling and improving the health of the forest by removing pine-beetle diseased trees. • Maintaining roads. • Remodeling public facilities, such as the library, fire station and other public buildings • Funding the needs of the town as they arise. The election calendar indicates the ballot question must be set no later than August 21 upon second reading of an ordinance. Moffet moved to proceed with the poll with Logan seconding. Zemler then asked if it would be appropriate to develop a working group to assist in reaching agreement in formation of the questions for the survey. Representing the Vail Valley Partnership, Michael Robinson urged Council to use the funds to "attract visitors to Vail." He then recommended the polling process be discontinued. Manager of the Ritz-Carlton Bachelor Gulch Tom Donovan spoke in support of the Vail Valley Partnership's recommendation. Sonnenalp Lodge owner Johannes Faessler seconded Robinson's comments. "I find it improper to even consider spending this money on anything other than what this money was originally intended to be used for." Montaneros General Manager Keith Odza asked Council to support a conference center type facility. Vail Homeowner and concerned citizen Stephen Connolly recommended Council, "Spend this money for an attraction that will bring people to town." Mire clarified any use of the funds would require voter approval. Lodging professional Stan Cope supported a public/private partnership. Michael Cacciopo encouraged Council to use the money for its original purpose. Gordon asked for an Executive Session to discuss the ramifications of a decision to .postpone an election on the matter for another year. Local restaurant owner Bill Jewitt questioned whether the original community desire to have a conference center still existed as the last public referendum spoke to the opposite. Representing the Vail Chamber and Business Association, Kaye Ferry said her constituency supported the money being used on tourism. Local hotelier Pam Stenmark questioned the defeat of the past conference center as it may have been for a variety of reasons and not necessarily the "idea" of a conference center. Moffet clarified half. of the taxes collected were through sales tax as opposed to the lodging tax. Newbury supported the poll. Hitt said, `?o send it out (the question of what to do with the money) to a wish-list is the wrong thing to do...l think there are many reasons the conference center failed." Logan questioned Council's responsibility to determine how to use the funds this year. He said to determine how to use the money prior to completing the current LionsHead parking structure negations (as the facility. may contain a conference center) would be premature and foolhardy. Gordon said he wanted to hear the opinion of the local voters. Hitt said the poll was clearly engineered to acquire a vote in favor of using the funds for employee housing. The motion passed 5-2, with Hitt and Logan opposed. The eighth item on the purchase of three sculptures. Art in Public Places Coordinator Leslie Fordham reported the Art in Public Places board voted unanimously to purchase three sculptures that have been on loan to the town for the past five years. All three sculptures were part of previous summer exhibitions in Ford Park and have remained on loan to the town since then. AIPP has negotiated with the artists. The cost reflects a discount of up to 80% over the original asking price. Funding comes from the AIPP budget. 4 Sculpture Artist Location Price Branching Pattern Robert Tully TRC stairs $4,200 Seat Rock Robert Tully Ford Park $1,500 Endless Possibilities G. Westerberg Willow Park $2,000 Total expenditure $7700 Moffet moved to authorize the purchases as proposed with Logan seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Hitt was absent from the item. The ninth item on the agenda an appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission's decision to uphold an administrative action determining that Condominium Unit E within .the Covered Bridge Building is the "street level" of the building, located at 227 Bridge Street Lots C & D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail. Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0070, 0071, 0072) Ruttier explained Council may, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Vail Town Code, grant a continuance to allow the parties additional time to obtain information. The continuance shall be allowed for a period not to exceed an additional thirty (30) days. Moffet moved to grant a continuance and table the item until May 1, 2007 with Newbury seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The tenth item on the agenda was the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2007, an ordinance repealing and re-enacting Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2006, establishing Special Development District (SDD) No. 39. Senior Planner Warren Campbell stated that on February 26, 2007, the PEC held a public hearing on a request for a major amendment to SDD No. 39, Crossroads. The purpose of the major amendment is to increase the maximum allowable number of dwelling units from 69 to 75 dwelling units, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Upon review of the request, the PEC voted 6-0-0 to forward a recommendation of approval of the request to amend SDD No. 39, Crossroads, to the Vail Town Council. On March 20, 2007, Council approved the first reading of Ordinance 10, Series of 2007, by a vote of 5-2-0 (Slifer and Gordon opposed). Moffet moved to adopt the ordinance with Hitt seconding. The motion passed 6-0. Logan was absent. Workforce Housing Regulations Moffet moved to approve Ordinances 7, 8, and 9, Series of 2007 along with Resolution No. 10, Series of 2007 with Gordon seconding. The legislation was combined as they were inclusive to providing employee housing. Town Attorney Matt Mire clarified it was reasonable and to discuss the legislation as a package. During public discussion, Vail Housing Authority Member Steve Lindstrom spoke in support of employee housing and mentioned Snowmass Village was attempting to mitigate 100°/a of employee generation. Representing the Vail Board of Realtors, Asher Maslan said he believed fee-in-lieu (FIL) payments would end up being used down valley. He then asked why real estate offices would be asked to provide more housing than other businesses. Maslan also asked about the potential of a dedicated employee housing tax. Slifer clarified Beaver Creek was a metropolitan district and had more opportunity to increase taxes. Former Vail Mayor Bob Armour asked if FIL payments could be used down valley. The answer was no. He then questioned the ability to build more employee housing in town due to a lack of space. Local business managers Rob Levine and Matt Morgan spoke in favor of the legislation on behalf of the Vail Economic Advisory Council. Morgan said, `This is too good of an opportunity to pass up...You are talking about thirty percent, I'm worried about the other seventy." Craig Forbes of Forbes Real Estate group spoke against the legislation. Local planner Tom Braun asked for consistency in the ordinances. Local property owner Rick Mueller spoke against the proposed legislation and encouraged Council to look at the issue regionally. Representing Vail Resorts Development Company Keith Fernandez asked for a program with clarity, certainty and flexibility. Moffet explained, "This is the first step in stopping the bleeding as is with providing first aid." Newbury said, "I think we are making a really important first step for this town, and I am passionate about it." Hitt spoke in support of the legislation and clarified it was only the beginning of a learning process. Logan thanked the audience for their participation and input and noted the compromises that had been made along the way. He then spoke about the opportunity to provide significant employee housing at Timber Ridge. Gordon said, "We are setting the stage for the ending of the down valley flight of our families...We are changing the direction of Vail for the better." Foley. spoke in support of the legislation. Slifer stated he had reservations about the housing requirements imposed on real estate offices and restaurants. The eleventh item on the agenda was Second Reading of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2007. An ordinance amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, by the addition of new definitions to Section 12-2-2, and the adoption of a new. Chapter 23, entitled Commercial Linkage. On November 7, 2006, the Vail Town Council directed the Community Development Department to prepare text amendments to the Zoning Regulations to adopt commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning as tools to achieve the Town Council's stated goal of ensuring that employee housing is available for at least 30% of the new employees generated by new development within the Town of Vail. Moffet moved to approve the ordinance and increased the minimum square footage per employee for a dormitory style unit from 200 to 250 Newbury seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The twelfth item on the agenda was Second Reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2007. An ordinance amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, by the addition of new definitions to Section 12-2-2, and the adoption of a new Chapter 24, entitled Inclusionary Zoning. On November 7, 2006, the Vail Town Council directed the Community Development Department to prepare text amendments to the Zoning Regulations to adopt commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning as tools to .achieve the Town Council's stated goal of ensuring that employee housing is available for at least 30% of the new employees generated by new development within the Town of Vail. Moffet moved to approve the ordinance and increased the minimum square footage per employee for a dormitory style unit from 200 to 250, with Newbury seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7- 0. The thirteenth item on the agenda was Second Reading of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2007. An ordinance repealing and re-enacting Chapter 12-13, Employee Housing, Title 6 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for revisions to the employee housing regulations. On November 7, 2006, Council directed the Community Development Department to prepare text amendments to the Zoning Regulations to adopt commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning as tools to achieve Council's stated goal of ensuring that employee housing is available for at least 30% of the new employees generated by .new development within the Town of Vail. Moffet moved to approve the ordinance with Newbury seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fourteenth item on the agenda was a resolution establishing the "2007 Payment Of Fee-In-Lien' fee for the Mitigation Of Employee Housing as prescribed in Chapter 12-23, Commercial Linkage, and Chapter 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. On April 3, 2007, the Vail Town Council will be considering the adoption of Ordinances No. 7 & 9, Series of 2007, establishing new regulations for commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning. As allowed by the new regulations, a payment of fee-in-lieu option exists for mitigating required employee housing. The purpose of this resolution is to establish the "2007 Pavment Of Fee-In-Lieu".fee. Moffet moved to pass the resolution with Newbury seconding. The motion passed 6-1, with Slifer opposed. The fifteenth item on the agenda was Ordinance No 12, Series 2007, An Emergency Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 26, Series 2006, Extending the Time in which Town Council may Adopt Employee Housing Regulations for Commercial and Residential Development. and Redevelopment. On October 17, 2006, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 26, Series, of 2007, which set forth the Town Council's intention to adopt employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007. In reliance on the "Pending Ordinance Doctrine," Ordinance No. 26, 2007 further required any development or redevelopment applications filed after October 17, 2006, to comply with the newly adopted housing regulations, if any. Ordinance No 12, Series 2007, was needed only if Council found and determined additional time was necessary to study employee housing options before adopting new employee housing regulations. The ordinance died for lack of a motion. The sixteenth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 8, Series 2007, A Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Consolidated Service Plan for Solaris Metropolitan District No. 1, Solaris Metropolitan District No. 2, and Solaris Metropolitan District No. 3. On September 19, 2006 the Town Council approved the Consolidated Service Plan for Solaris Metropolitan District No. 1, Solaris Metropolitan District No. 2, and Solaris Metropolitan District No. 3. The primary purpose of the metropolitan districts is to finance the public improvements associated with the "Solaris" redevelopment project. The formation of the districts was contemplated in the Development Agreement between the Town of Vail and Crossroads for the above-referenced project. The Consolidated Service Plan for the proposed districts details the purpose, intent and operation of the proposed districts. Because of the cost of the public improvements and the value of the underlying property, it is necessary to amend the Consolidated Service Plan to increase the debt cap from $20 million to $40 million. Moffet .moved, to adopt the resolution with Newbury seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The seventeenth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 9, Series 2007,. a Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement. between-the Town of Vail, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado (`Town"), and Solaris Metropolitan District No. 1, Solaris Metropolitan District No. 2, and Solaris Metropolitan District No. 3, quasi- municipal corporations and political subdivisions of the State of Colorado (the "Districts") Mire explained the Districts .were organized to provide those services and to exercise powers as are more specifically set forth in the Districts' Service Plan, approved by the Town on September 19, 2006 ("Service Plan"), as amended. The Service Plan requires the execution of an intergovernmental agreement between the Town and the Districts (the "IGA"). The IGA governs the relationship between the Town and the Districts and establishes certain requirements concerning the Districts' ability to levy taxes and issue debt. The Town and the Districts have determined it to be in the best interests of their respective taxpayers, residents and property owners to enter into the Intergovernmental Agreement ("Agreement"). Moffet moved to pass the ordinance with Hitt seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. District representative Reid Weily said demolition would begin May 1. The eighteenth item on the agenda was Adjournment. Moffet moved to adjourn with Hitt seconding at approximately 9:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Tuesday, Apri117, 2007 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Rod Slifer. Members present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Farrow Hitt, Mayor Pro-Tem Greg Moffet Kim Newbury Mark Gordon Kevin Foley Not present: Kent Logan Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. There was none. Foley stated the Vail Chamber and Business Association Premier Impression Awards Ceremony was successful The second item on the agenda was appointments to the Vail Local Licensing Authority (LLA) and Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) boards. Earlier in the day Council interviewed all of the applicants. All applicants for the LLA must be citizens of the United States, qualified electors of the Town of Vail, and have resided in Vail for not less than two years preceding appointment, and shall have no direct financial interest in any license to sell alcoholic beverages or any location having any such license. Duties of the five-member board include review of all Town of Vail liquor license applications. There are currently three vacancies on the LLA. The Town received five (3) applications for the vacancy. Moffet moved to appoint Mark Conlin, Connie Knight and Bryant Roth to the board with Hitt seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Foley thanked Bill Bishop and Dick Cleveland for their past service on the board. All applicants for the VLHA must be full-time, year-round residents of Eagle County who either are residents of the Town of Vail or work for a business holding a Town of Vail business license. Authority members must have a proven ability to be an effective advocate for a full range of housing projects and be able to promote a vision for local employee housing that has been approved of by the majority of the Authority. The role of Authority members is to act as Board of Directors for the business of the Vail Local Housing Authority. The duties may include budget approval, adopting policies, advocacy, staff oversight, strategic and long-term planning, setting development and acquisition parameters and potentially managing the existing Town of Vail deed- restricted housing inventories. Technical experience in one of the following areas is also desirable: financing of large projects, development, construction/construction management, planning, design, or legal. Hitt moved to reappoint Sally Jackie with Moffet seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The third item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Vail Pass Environmental Assessment Update. Town Engineer Tom Kassmel reported the process continued. For more information and a detailed time line please visit www.westvailpass.org. Police Department Annual Report Police Chief Dwight Henninger presented Council with the 2006 Police Department Annual Report. The report documents the activities of the Police Department and Vail Public Safety Communications Center during 2006. Highlights include a 14.5% increase in calls for service and no significant increases in crime rates. Gordon thanked the Police Department for their hard work. Henninger then thanked Council for their continued support. Seibert Circle Update. Project Manager Todd Oppenheimer reported significant engineering work still needed to happen before the proposed fountain could be completed. He said the town did not have the necessary schedule to guarantee a price with a general contractor. "VVe are not going to start this on April 23...I wish it was a lot better news." Hitt asked when the news came to light. Oppenheimer replied, `This company (project designer WET Design) is not a responsive company." The design of an intrusion system surrounding the sculpture was also discussed. Slifer asked that the intrusion element be brought before Counci{ for approval prior. to it being installed. Zemler said he would like the Town Attorney to review the contract with WET Design and determine an appropriate course of action. The fourth item on the agenda was a Noise Ordinance Discussion and opportunity for public Input. Police Commander Steve Wright asked Council to discuss and obtain .public input regarding the existing noise ordinance and give direction to staff if change is desired. During the Council meeting of March 20, there was discussion of possibly amending the current town ordinance section 5-1-7, extending the time periods for allowable outdoor entertainment. The current ordinance prohibits amplified sound between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Wright said, `The current ordinance appears to have a .good balance between the needs of the commercial establishments and the residential occupants of the core areas. However, if Council is desirous of making a change, staff recommends extending the period of allowable amplified sound on Friday and Saturday nights by one hour." Hitt and Gordon recommended allowing sound to be amplified for an additional hour on Fridays and Saturdays. Representing Vail Resorts, Tom Miller asked Council to consider: Special Entertainment Districts. Vail local Sheika Gramshammer asked Council to support an hour long amplified sound extension on Friday and Saturday. Representing the Vail Chamber and Business Association, Kaye Ferry said an extension would be appropriate. Hitt moved to have the Town Attorney bring back an ordinance extending the hours of outdoor amplified sound from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays with Gordon seconding.: Slifer explained he had concerns that amplified sound ultimately turns into street entertainment. Representing the .Red Lion, Scott Dolgitt spoke in support of the extension. The motion passed 5-1, with Slifer opposed. The fifth item on the agenda was a 2007 Integrated Weed Management Plan Update. Landscape Architect Gregg Barrie presented an update on Noxious Weed Management efforts for 2007. "Beginning this spring, the Department of Public Works will be stepping up efforts to effectively manage noxious weeds on town-owned property. The Town of Vail has a pretty significant noxious weed problem." Management efforts will include: inventory and mapping, public education, and then management efforts. Four different management efforts are proposed: --Mechanical --Chemical --Biological --Cultural The town is planning a first annual "Weed Pull" toward the end of the summer. Hitt commented he had participated in noxious weed management efforts in his neighborhood. Gordon encouraged using as few chemicals as possible. The sixth item on the agenda was an Environmental Program Update. Town Environmental Officer Bill Carlson provided Council with an overview of environmental programs the town has undertaken and was researching. Zemler said when the -Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) funding mechanism for environmental programs was approved, staff assured Council they would be informed as to how the funds would be spent. Carlson went on to explain the town's recycling, renewable energy, green building and energy management plan and water quality protections. Council discussed the potential use of a cardboard compactor for commercial cardboard collection. Zemler said he would investigate commercial cardboard collection. Gordon encouraged the use of compostable plastics at town special events. Gordon asked what the town could do to encourage photovoltaic systems. Hitt clarified the United States Forest Service and Eagle County also provided Forest Health Project Funding. Newbury thanked Public Information Officer Suzanne Silverthorne for her successful work regarding the bear-resistant container awareness program. The seventh item on the agenda was a LionsHead Parking Structure Update. Zemler reported much progress had been made in regard to the structure's redevelopment. Legal counsel for both parties are meeting and beginning to put appropriate language together. The possible use of Timber Ridge will also be discussed. Bond counsel has begun investigating the project's funding. A group of community leaders was convened to have a dialogue about the potential uses of a conference center/performing arts facility. The eighth item on the agenda was Conference Center Fund Reallocation Next Steps Report. Zemler reported that during the April 3, 2007, meeting, following public input from the business community, Town Council voted 5-2 to proceed with a telephone poll to probe voter interest regarding various reallocation scenarios for the Conference Center Fund, so long as Council's procedural questions are satisfactorily addressed during the April 17 work session. It is estimated the fund will be approximately $9 million by a fall election. The conference center taxes (a half-cent sales tax and a 1.5 percent. lodging tax) were approved by voters in 2002 and rescinded in 2006. The funding may be redirected to an alternate use(s) with the consent of Vail's electorate. Options for next steps include: • Proceed with the telephone poll to be fielded in June and provide direction on the list of questions. and possible uses to probe with input from a working group to be identified by the Town Council. Results would be used to determine readiness to set the ballot for November 2007, which would require second reading of an ordinance by August 21. • Postpone the telephone survey and create a working group to be identified by the Town Council to recommend a possible ballot question for November 2007, which requires second reading of an ordinance by August 21. A telephone poll could be scheduled later to evaluate voter interest prior to a go/no-go ballot decision. • Postpone the survey and ballot-setting process until 2008 when additional information will be known regarding future plans for public parking and aprivately-funded conference center as part of the LionsHead parking structure redevelopment negotiation process. Moffet moved to postpone the survey and ballot-setting process until 2008 when additional information will be known regarding future plans for public parking and a privately-funded conference center as part of -the LionsHead parking structure redevelopment negotiation process with Hitt seconding. Representing the Vail Valley Partnership, Michael Robinson spoke in support of the motion. Montaneros building representative Keith Ozda asked Council to continue efforts in determining what to do with the funds. .The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The ninth item on the Discussion of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2007, an Ordinance making supplemental appropriations to the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund and Real Estate Transfer Fund, of the 2007 Budget for the Town of Vail, The Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said. appropriations as set forth herein. Moffet moved to approve the ordinance with Newbury seconding. Fire Chief John Gulick explained. a town owned ladder truck had been recently refurbished. The Katsos Ranch recreation trail renovation was also discussed in .detail. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The tenth item on the agenda was the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2007. An ordinance amending title 10, Vail Town Code; adopting chapter 3, "in-building 4 public safety radio system coverage"; providing minimum standards for in-building radio system coverage. Town Fire Marshal Mike McGee reported the ability of police, fire, ambulance and other emergency providers and personnel to communicate with each other within buildings and structures, and to communicate from within structures and buildings to personnel and locations outside of the building and structures, is vital to the public and these responding agencies. A breakdown in communications among emergency responders and public safety personnel creates a serious risk of harm and is a serious threat to the safety and welfare of emergency personnel, the residents Vail and the public in general. McGee said he had recently found 18 buildings within town limits where radio communication was not available inside. Costs to install amplification systems range from ten cents to one dollar per square foot. Slifer clarified property owners were generally willing to be compliant.. Moffet moved to adopt the ordinance with Hitt seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. For details, contact Matt Mire at 479- 2460. The eleventh item on the agenda was Resolution Number 11, Series 2007. A resolution supporting the efforts of the Vail Valley Foundation to proceed with a bid for the 2013 FIS World Alpine Ski Championships. Vail Valley Foundation President Ceil Folz announced in 2004 the Vail Valley Foundation (the "Foundation") executed a challenging, yet unsuccessful bid to bring the Alpine World Ski Championships to Vail. The Foundation now believes it is time to "put our foot back in the pool" and submit a bid for the 2013 World Alpine Ski Championships. The Alpine Ski Championships gather the greatest skiers from over forty countries to compete over a two week period of time in every alpine discipline. The Alpine Ski Championships are expected to attract more than 800 athletes, 1,800 members of the media, 2,000 volunteers and several large international sponsors. Folz clarified that philosophical support would lead to financial support if the bid is successful. Moffet moved to adopt the resolution with Gordon seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. For details, contact Pam Brandmeyer at 479-2113. The twelfth item on the agenda was Adjournment. Slifer said he had indicated to St. Moritz, Switzerland officials the Town of Vail had a desire to increase interaction. Moffet moved to adjourn with Foley seconding at approximately 8:02 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher. MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 1, 2007 SUBJECT:. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2007, an ordinance amending Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, to allow for. the creation of Development Area E, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Bill Gibson I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, to allow for the creation of Development Area E, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. The applicant's primary purpose for this application is to designate Track. K as a separate development area to facilitate the construction of a new snowcat access road generally located south of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the former gas station sites (846 West Forest Road and 934 South Frontage Road) to the Cascade Way trail (formerly known as the Westin Ho trail). II. BACKGROUND On April 9, 2007, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval for the proposed amendments to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. -The Commission's recommendation was based upon the review of the criteria noted in the April 9, 2007, staff memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, with the findings noted in the same staff memorandum. A copy of the April 9, 2007 staff memorandum has been attached for reference (Attachment A). Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2007, has been attached for review (Attachment B). This ordinance has been drafted to include the allowable and conditional land uses for Development Area E as recommended by Staff and the PEC, and agreed upon by the applicant. III. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW The criteria outlined in section VI of the staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council approves Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2007, on first reading to amend Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, to allow for the creation of Development Area E, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria noted in the April 9, 2007, staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2007, on first reading, the Community Development Department recommends the Town Council makes the following findings: "The Town Council finds that the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council, based upon the evidence and testimony presented: 1. That the proposed major amendment complies with the standards outlined in the design criteria of Section 12-9A-8, Vail Town Code, based upon the review outlined in Section VI of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission; and, 2. That the proposed major amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town, based upon the review outlined in Section VI of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission; and; 3. That the proposed major amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas based upon the review outlined in Section VI of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission; and, 4. That the proposed major amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality based upon the review outlined in Section VI of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission." V. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Staff memorandum to PEC dated April 9, 2007 Attachment B: Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2007 2 Vail Town Council Attachment: A MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 9, 2007 SUBJECT: A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special Development District (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Development District No.4, Cascade Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Bill Gibson SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson, is requesting a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village (SDD #4), to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council of the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson, is requesting a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village (SDD #4), to designate Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, as a new "development area" (i.e. Development Area E) within SDD #4. The primary purpose for this application is to designate Tract K as a separate development area to facilitate the construction of a new snowcat access road generally located south of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) and former gas station sites (846 West Forest Road and 934 South Frontage Road) to the Cascade Way trail (formerly known as the Westin Ho trail). Tract K is currently designated as part of the "Dedicated Open Space" area of SDD #4. The provisions of SDD #4 have not, and do not, include any approved development plan nor any established development parameters for the Dedicated Open Space areas (including Tract K). SDD #4 does not designate any permitted uses, conditional uses, or accessory uses for the Dedicated Open Space. While the primary purpose for this application is to designate Tract K as a separate development area to facilitate the construction of a new snowcat access road, another purpose for this proposed major amendment is to establish a list of allowable land uses for Tract K. The applicant's proposed permitted uses for Tract K are similar to those within the Open Space and Recreation Districts established by Chapter 12-8, Vail Town Code (e.g. Agriculture and Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, Natural Area Preservation, Ski Base Recreation, and Ski Base Recreation 2 Districts). The applicant has proposed that the following land uses be permitted within Development Area E (i.e. Tract K): 1. Utility corridors and improvements 2. Mountain accessways, roads, bridges, retaining walls and related improvements 3. Skiways, catwalks, trails and related improvements 4. Snowmaking facilities and related improvements For consistency with the terminology of Chapter 12-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, and for consistency with the provisions of Chapter 12-8, Open Space and Recreation Districts, Vail Town Code, Staff recommends the following uses be permitted on Tract K: 1. Bicycle and pedestrian paths. 2. Interpretive nature walks. 3. Nature preserves. 4. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces. Also for consistency with the terminology of Chapter 12-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, and for consistency with the provisions of Chapter 12-8, Open Space and Recreation Districts, Vail Town Code, Staff also recommends the following conditional uses be allowed on Tract K, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: 1. Public parks. 2. Public utility and public service uses. 3. Access roads. 4. Ski lifts and tows. 5. Ski trails. 6. Snowmaking facilities. 7. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. A more complete description of the applicant's request (Attachment B) has been attached for reference. III. BACKGROUND The following is a brief summary of Tract K and SDD #4 history which is relevant to the proposed major amendment: March 1976: Ordinance 4 of 1976 -Town of Vail annexes "Lionsridge" area • March 1976: Ordinance 5 of 1976 -SDD #4 established, Tract K is part of development "Area C". "Ski lifts and Tows" are allowed as conditional uses in areas A, B, & C. • November 1977: Ordinance 28 of 1977 -SDD #4 "Dedicated Open Space" development area designation created; however, the properties in this area are not identified. • April 1978: Glen Lyon covenant restrictions are adopted for Tracts B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K & "stream tract". • July 1978: Tract K is deeded from Gore Creek Associates to the Town of Vail. • August 1983: conditional use permit approved "to construct the Westin-Ho ski trail in Special Development District #4". • June 1986: conditional use permit approved "in order to construct a ski lift at Cascade Village" • June and September 1987: Glen Lyon covenants amended to allow bridges, lifts, mazes, trails, equipment, etc. for Tracts J, H, & "stream tract". • December 1988:. Ordinance 40 of 1988 -SDD #4 repealed & re-enacted with "ski lift" conditional use allowed in areas A, B, & C. • July 12, 2004: Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for this major amendment to a Special Development District (SDD) to allow for a new development area located at Tract K. • August 3, 2004: the Town Council adopted Ordinance 17, Series of 2004, on first reading for this major amendment to a Special Development District (SDD) to allow for a new development area located at Tract K. • .Fall 2004 through Spring 2005: the Town Council tabled the second reading of Ordinance 17, Series of 2004, on multiple occasions while Vail Resorts negotiated with the other SDD property owners to resolve the related private covenant issues. • Spring 2005: Vail Resorts withdrew the application due to unresolved private covenant negotiations. The Design Review Board had previously reviewed and approved the proposed snowcat access road. The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council have previously approved a retaining wall height variance to facilitate the construction of the access road. 3 IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Article 12-9A: Special Development Districts (in part) 12-9A-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements forguiding developmentand uses ofpropertyincluded in.the special development district. The special development district does not apply to and is not available in the following zone districts: Hillside residential, single-family, duplex, primary/secondary. The elements of the development plan shall be as outlined in section 12-9A-6 of this article. TOWN OF VAIL LANDUSE PLAN Chapter VI-2: Key Goals D. Parks and Open Space: 2) The preservation of open space was determined to be a high priority. The improvement of existing parks and open space areas, in concert with continued purchase of open space by the Town of Vail were both identified as priorities. Chapter VI-4: Proposed Land Use Categories (in part) OS Open Space: Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors, and drainageways are the types of areas in this category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes over40% are also included within this area. These hillside areas would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning. Also, permitted in this area would be institutional/public uses. TOWN OF VAIL COMPREHENSIVE OPEN LANDS PLAN Tract K is not addressed by the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. V.. SITE ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot K, Glen Lyon Subdivision Zoning: Special Development District #4 Land Use Plan Designation: Open Space Current Land Use: Open Space and the Cascade Way trail Lot Size: 362,518 sq. ft. (8.3223 acres) 4 VI. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The proposed major amendment allows for uses within Development Area E (i.e. Tract K) which are consistent with uses allowed in the Town's Open Space and Recreation zone districts (e.g. Agriculture and Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, Natural Area Preservation, Ski Base Recreation, and Ski Base Recreation 2 districts); therefore, Staff believes these proposed uses are consistent with Tract K's current SDD #4 designation as "Dedicated Open Space". Additionally, Staff believes the proposed snowcat access road is a similar land use as the existing Cascade Way trail which was approved in 1983. Furthermore, the proposed land uses for Development Area E (i.e. Tract K) do not allow for the construction of buildings. The proposed snowcat access road was reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board; therefore, Staff believes the proposed major amendment is compatible and sensitive to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed major amendment allows for uses within Development Area E (i.e. Tract K) which are consistent with uses allowed in the Town's Open Space and Recreation zone districts (e.g. Agriculture and Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, Natural Area Preservation, Ski Base Recreation, and Ski Base Recreation 2 districts); therefore, Staff believes these proposed uses are consistent with Tract K's current SDD #4 designation as "Dedicated Open Space". Additionally, Staff believes the proposed snowcat access road is a similar land use as the existing Cascade Way trail which was approved in 1983; therefore, Staff believes the proposed major amendment is compatible, efficient and workable with the surrounding uses and activities. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of the Vail Town Code. Staff does not believe that this .major amendment is affected by the parking or loading requirements of Chapter 12-10, Vail Town Code. Therefore, Staff does not believe this criterion is relevant to this application. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for the establishment of a special. development district. Tract K is designated as "Open Space" by the Vail Land Use Plan. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 5 Chapter VI-2: Key Goals D. Parks and Open Space: 2) The preservation of open space was determined to be a high priority. The improvement of existing parks and open space areas, in concert with continued purchase of open space by the Town of Vail were both identified as priorities. Chapter VI-4: Proposed Land Use Categories (in part) OS Open Space: Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors, and drainageways are the types of areas in this category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes over 40 % are also included within this area. These hillside areas would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning. Also, permitted in this area would be institutional/public uses. The proposed major amendment allows for uses within Development Area E (i.e. Tract K) which are consistent with uses allowed in the Town's Open Space and Recreation zone districts (e.g. Agriculture and Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, Natural Area Preservation, Ski Base Recreation, and Ski Base Recreation 2 districts); therefore, Staff believes these proposed uses are consistent with Tract K's current SDD #4 designation as "Dedicated Open Space" and the policies, goals, and objectives identified in the Vail Land Use Plan. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. According to the Official Town of Vail Geologic Hazard Maps, Development Area E (i.e. Tract K) is not located in any geologically sensitive areas or within the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, Staff does not believe this criterion is relevant to this application. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The proposed major amendment allows for uses within Development Area E (i.e. Tract K) which are consistent with uses allowed in the Town's Open Space and Recreation zone districts (e.g. Agriculture and Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, Natural Area Preservation, Ski Base Recreation, and Ski Base Recreation 2 districts); therefore, Staff believes these proposed uses are consistent with Tract K's current SDD #4 designation as "Dedicated Open Space". Therefore, staff believes the major amendment complies with this criterion. Additionally, Staff believes the proposed snowcat access road is a similar land use as the existing Cascade Way trail which was approved in 1983. The proposed snowcat access road was reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board; therefore, Staff believes the proposed major amendment is functional, responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The proposed major amendment will facilitate the construction of a new snowcat access road. This proposal will remove Vail Resorts' winter mountain maintenance traffic from public streets (i.e. West Forest Road). Staff believes this will have a positive affect on traffic flows and traffic safety. Additionally, the proposed major amendment will not negatively impact use of the existing Cascade Way trail or the existing bike trail along Gore Creek; therefore, Staff believes the proposed major amendment complies with this criterion. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposed major amendment allows for uses within Development Area E (i.e. Tract K) which are consistent with uses allowed in the Town's Open Space and Recreation zone districts (e.g. Agriculture and Open Space, Outdoor Recreation, Natural Area Preservation, Ski Base Recreation, and Ski Base Recreation 2 districts); therefore, Staff believes these proposed uses are consistent with Tract K's current SDD #4 designation as "Dedicated Open Space". Therefore, staff believes the major amendment complies with this criterion. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. As there is no phasing or subdivision plan associated with the major amendment, Staff does not believe this criterion is relevant to this application. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council of the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. The Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence presented on this application subject to the following finding: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission, based upon the evidence and testimony presented: 1. That the proposed major amendment complies with the standards outlined in the nine design criteria of Section 12-9A-8, Vail Town Code, based upon the review outlined in Section VI of the Staff's Apri19, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission; and, 7 2. That the proposed major amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town, based upon the review outlined in Section VI of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission; and,; and, 3. That the proposed major amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas based upon the review outlined in Section VI of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission; and,; and, 4. That the proposed major amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that .conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality based upon the review outlined in Section VI of the Staff's April 9, 2007, memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this major amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. The following uses shall be permitted in Development Area E (i.e. Tract K) of Special Development District #4, Cascade Village: 1. Bicycle and pedestrian paths. 2. Interpretive nature walks. 3. Nature preserves. 4. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces. 2. The following conditional uses shall be allowed in DevelopmentArea E (i.e. Tract K) of Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: 1. Public parks. 2. Public utility and public service uses. 3. Access roads. 4. Ski lifts and tows. 5. Ski trails. 6. Snowmaking facilities. 7.Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. VIII. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Applicant's request Attachment C: Draft Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2007 Attachment D: Public Hearing Notice. 8 - ~+ - ~ ~ x, }~~:f;--c-^~~ • "~T: _ f. ~M ~z.- Tn ~ ey r*ri- .r^.- ~~.ti- y~-~'""~,,. ~ ,:F" J} .. R t ~ _ '~,' ~~' ,e ,,sxn'f c i'. `.w ~.;~ ~ ° .aly. ~.._rr ,~ ~ '~T'~i ^„tb~; ,.. cs -~"' 'r TtY'",~',~`P, ~?rt s di } s; t}e'`s,.~ t .y.,t ?: r. '+•. r-~ n yew _ . ...3. .. .r,. ,y 33 ~i f f ++r =',u~ ~,. '.;f;"~ V e 1 ft ' i ~. ,@C~ 5 ..k sue' w ~ y ~hr ~~„ ~~~a ~ ~ j~',- r,- }~r~ ,~~r~" e~ ® s ~ w ~ ~ sr ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~~~~~ s ~i~ fit"' _ ik~ ~~~ h3 ~ti :'~ . 'EfsyF ~-`' .~y^~ ri, ,,~ ._a^a~,: ,,T - _ - a '~ ~ ~ati1'i A _~r' 'r ~fl _ ~' a F l k p~`G. f'~".. sM j~S` ~ ~1~.C~~ 1s ~ f _ h: ~-; ~~ ~ ;~.. '.r,! t t ~ ~ : ~ r ~,~ ~r y, rt tt }k.~q,rt F`i ~. `~ rF ;~j~Y-•y C y_ C' ^`~~ ;~~ ~t ~ ~(~ -.r"- '1: a n .A -S' ~ r''y "-r,~ *r'.~ ~ 'l• k„~.r, ~~c 1.,^L' eCjL {.,~, ~:.:'' r .~'"?L~r ~ ~ ~ i _ ?~.".- ,~ r.i ~ _ ~ x > 1~'~~ .at[ ;``ft' ,.r, '~-Y,7 'Q~G +C` _ ti;... '~ ~ r_ !rid a' ; f r ~ ~t~~ r ."i ~~-~qy~~ ~;,.~~_r F:~~--r~ta9e \~ s _ ~ ^:~ ,"~~j* y~ (~'y j ~.` ~ rp ~•Krcf } . ' ~ ~ i i..'T't~y;~~ ' ti ', ~ [ yQ'1 1, _ ~., ; ~~:~. ,y 1 ~1,r t3r. Y "~~ ~ ~' :; rt * ~ Y ,, i-1-,1 Y { ' ~ ' uc ~" .fir ~~i .;~ _ ,. i \ ~ ~~ t~ ~y. y;~-~ y 4 ~= '~ -r-t.ty.~ r~ fr a,~; ~ l1K"' • ~L^ p, `th. :~- ''r ~- - -- f ~ ~'Y 'f ~ r i~.is t~~. y ~i{~ `°~" `~',~s .r> ~ - a. _ ' Y .~ .~ ~. , ~ . ~ ,_, 1 .... ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ '~ t ~ r '.~~.r ~ __ T ~ ~~, ~' r ~~ ~ Y~ ,~ !i if ~{ "~z~ ~ s - r G• ~ N ~' i ~ t~ ~~t ~ t~ 1 ti' ~ ~ ~' V ~ ~~ ~~ h { s.4C6~Z !iY r t t' ~ Yw ~ ~~rF ' i ,~,~ i ,? {~ ~ r +-? : y'! ~ ~ ~ fir' _- z d .. $ a )+' p 5 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~3 ~ i j .r ~ s.rq `1 ~`;~._h~`s'~'`-ir'1` L ,~~,~,+~~~a' ~'`a ..~~~* c:~ ~~L`ti * ±+, s,~.~ t ~5tf?M'~ ).~ T.i,k !~ dt.~ ~~ , 2Y~ v ,.i~~ }y ; '~`.. ..~. ;~'t l h :lit ti~~ r :{ t - ,~l i ~ a t ?-Z~ + _ ~ ....~t~~~~, t}~~ ~ ~ - 1 e ,,. ter 13~ -',.~~tr„ "- _ +s ~-.r ~. '?' t E.~ '~~ -~ r ~_ t r ~ .} ~ ''.. 11 rS~as ,_:t +~' " }~,~ "^i- t _ Cy; ~ t f ~ to t. " ~ , r."~ s ry -? F ii ti t ,y,r i-.!<„~ - t„ .Z ~~~ ~.,.s "~ ~ ~' y ~, jt~ ~`r 1~- i ~.~j ~ry '' tr t~ ~. `t It}` f - yf 1 'r•'h ~,. N t..m ' -' ~ 1p.~ .~`'` 1 . " ~ r w ~fi 1 l '.a ti'4 ttt`f _ ~ ~ t .~~ ~l• ~ f`if ti ' ~ S~ , l~'~~ ~..' : ' g~ 4 t,,. t~'{~1 i; ~$3 ~{ 1 r F;m k~~ ei '-.. ~~! ~ ss~.~ ~zr"'r'-a { _ _-". • - i-. ~;.f wmui'I an Mra}~ fa~Ftr ~"'T '~~. ~ ~ r. ~p~ ~ _ ~ ~'1- a.~ria~e~ne`aem®.v~>.a. ~ _ ~ `.-r.,wcrt~ ~ ~ 4i Ct. W ~ `` fi ~j~7 p r i ~.s~ r ~~ ~`~ ,t } ~ ~~~ ? Q ~ (.+A l? _ G' ~l~~i'"''V ~ ~~~C -:... R~ ~~l• r a ",~ [ ~^ ~ ink •~ r ~' ~ ~ ~ ' tz Attachment B Amendment to SDD #4 The purpose of this Amendment to SDD #4 is to allow for the construction of a snow cat access route to Cascade Way. This application is the same as the previous application which was passed by the Town Council on first reading and then tabled until the Covenant Amendment was approved by 75% of the Owners in the Glen Lyon Subdivision. (Such percentage based upon land ownership). The Amendment was later withdrawn due to the time lapse between readings. The previous submittal documentation and memos are still appropriate and relevant as this submittal is the same except for a slight re-alignment of the access way as it joins Cascade Way. The re- alignment was at the request of various owners in Glen Lyon and results in less retaining walls and a safer entrance onto Cascade Way. Anew drawing is attached showing the adjustment. Attachment: B PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO GLEN LYON SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #4 June 1, 2004 PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT This proposed amendment to SDD #4 has evolved out of Vail Resort's proposal to develop a new snowcat accessway from the VR Maintenance Yard to Vail Mountain. A portion of this accessway is located on Tract K which is a part of SDD #4. The purpose of this SDD amendment is to correct and clarify existing and allowable. uses within Tract K. BACKGROUND ON SDD #4 SDD #4 was originally approved in 1976. This SDD is unique from most other SDD's in two respects. Ordinance 5 of 1976 makes no mention of the SDD's underlying zone district. Typically a SDD references an underlying zone district and this zone district then establishes land uses permissible within the SDD. Secondly, SDD #4 includes reference to specific permitted, conditional and accessory uses that are allowed in the SDD. SDD #4 has been amended a number of times. over the years. Amendments have addressed a range of topics, primarily allowable uses, development level and changes to development azeas. When originally approved in 1976, SDD #4 was divided into four distinct "development areas". Development Areas A-D consisted of approximately 97 acres and allowed for a wide variety of uses which in hindsight are quite consistent with Glen Lyon's existing mixed-use character. In 1977 SDD #4 was amended to include the same four Development Areas (Areas A-D) with the addition of a 40.4 acres "Dedicated Open Space" category. There is no indication in the SDD what, if any, uses are permissible in the 40.4 acres of "Dedicated Open Space". As indicated in the 1977 amendment, the total land area of the SDD was approximately 92 acres. SDD #4 was amended a number of times following the 1977 amendment, most recently in 1998. There is no indication in any of these amendments as to what land uses are permissible within the "Dedicated Open Space" category. Tract K is a part of the "Dedicated Open Space" category. Tract K was deeded to the Town of Vail in 1978. BACKGROUND ON PROPOSED SNOWCAT ACCESSWAY Vail Resort's submitted plans to the Town this past fall in order to construct a new snowcat accessway. This new accessway is intended to provide a new snowcat route to Vail Mountain and in doing so eliminate the need to run snowcats on West Forest Road. A portion of the snowcat accessway is located on Tract K. As such, VR requested and was granted permission by the Town Council to proceed through the review process in order to obtain approvals for the snowcat accessway (and related improvements including anew snowmaking intake/vault, water lines, bridge, retaining walls and landscaping). VR has all but completed this review process. The PEC has approved a variance to maximum retaining wall heights and the DRB has approved the design of the project. The Town Council has approved two of the four easements necessary for the project and a building permit application has been submitted for the snowmaking intake/vault portion of the project. In April of 2004 a 19961etter was provided to the Town from a property owner in the Glen Lyon subdivision. This letter was a joint letter from the Town and Vail Resorts to the Glen Lyon neighborhood. The letter outlined a process for the review of a new mountain access road that would be located in part over Tract K.. The accessway location , and design contemplated in 1996 was very similar to the plans currently being proposed by VR. This letter indicated that the accessway would require amendments to SDD #4. In deference to this 19961etter, it has been determined that in order for the new snowcat accessway to proceed SDD.#4 will need to be amended in order to allow for snowcat accessways on Tract K. In addition, it has been determined that the existing Westin Ho skiway was likely approved in error. While a conditional use permit for this skiway was approved in 1983, there appears to be no basis for this request as neither "skiway" or "catwalk" appear to be a permitted or conditional use within Tract K. This condition will also be remedied by the proposed amendment to SDD #4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The following amendments and development approvals are proposed to SDD #4: Create a new development area -Development Area E, this area will consist of "Tract K". Establish allowable uses within Development Area E to include: Permitted Uses 1. Utility corridors and improvements 2. Mountain accessways, roads, bridges, retaining walls and related improvements ~ ~ 3. Skiways, catwalks, trails and related improvements \ 4. Snowmaking facilities and related improvements ^ Approve a development plan for Tract K-Development Area E. This plan includes all or portions of the existing Westin Ho skiway, snowmaking/utility improvements, the bridge and the snowcat accessway. An existing conditions map and a development plan are provided herein. In order to more clearly define the approved development plan for Tract K, it is anticipated that the ordinance approving this SDD amendment can also reference the previously approved plans for the bridge, snow-making facilities, accessway and retaining walls located within Tract K. REVIEW CRITERIA The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Response Numerous snowcat access alignments have been studied over the years. The proposed route minimizes impacts on the site and impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. When compared to the existing snowcat route up West Forest Road, the proposed route presents a much more sensitive solution for the immediately surrounding neighborhoods and the community as a whole. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Response The limited uses proposed for Development Area E are consistent with Tract E "open space dedication" designation, with existing uses of Tract E and with surrounding uses and activities. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. Response Not applicable. ~ D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. Response The removal of snowcats from West Forest Road is a stated goal of the L,ionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, an element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. E. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Response A geotechnical analysis has been completed in conjunction with the design of the snowcat access road. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Response The snowcat accessway has been designed in order to minimize both cut/fill slopes and site disturbance. An extensive landscape restoration plan has been proposed as a part of the bridge/snowcat accessway. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Response The new snowcat access is proposed in order to remove snow cats from West Forest Road. This change will result in a much safer roadway condition and a reduction of traffic on this road. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Response A landscape plan has been provided as an element of the development plan for the bridge and snowcat accessway. I. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. (Ord. 21(1988) § 1) Response Initially proposed to be developed in one phase, the project is now likely to be developed in two phases. Phase I is expected to consist of the new snowmaking intake/vault, new snowmaking lines up Vail Mountain and a new bridge over Gore Creek. Phase I would be done the summer/fall of 2004. Phase II would consist of the snowcat accessway up Vail Mountain. The timing for completion of Phase II is to be determined. If the SDD amendment process is resolved in a timely manner the accessway could be constructed in 2004. As an alternative, it is anticipated that the accessway would be constructed in 2005. GLEN LYON SDD #4 ~ W' ?_~ p~ ' TRACT K AMENDMENT ~ ~ ~ ~~ a af - ,r~: I~ /`~. nf~'\\ ~"` ,~ d ° 1 ' "~ a l ..I.nfia '~W Yi.,^ 1 ~ ~~ ~ „ ~~ ~~J, L ; , C~ ~ ~ y /~1»~ L !' __ ~ l :..-..- ~ .. ~f - a - _ tto / YY = ~ , i~.-:%'.' L /- ti~<1 .. ~' I~ If, C, - \_I .._. Y'f `S.J ... II, \_ ___ ~~ iap .\ , *ij il~.:~ 0 ._ - . ~ ~ II n ~ z s zz __ ^r~U ice z i e~ "'T~-::~~ ~-s. F ... i N P ' ~ ~ ~,+ o ~ ~ _ _'- ~( F'~ . . i ~ ~c `Q~ \l ! ~ ~ l ~ / t ~~ jJ ~ _ k 7°'°r ~- .~. 1 .~ i ...~ Y ,. 1 L ~'- ~ / i v _ ~ Yt,~. of Y ~ ) ~ .. t ~ ~.. ~ /:rte _ ~ ~n~ ~~t~~`~I I "1 y r ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~%. "..J __ C 'C ~~ 0'.ON ~ ~'- L ~ /+_=~_. _ Y`~ tI ''~_ . ',flJ ~~"^i Y _ r-" - wees~--NCSTS y 1 ! C `~ ~ ~ 4 Z O -~ r„_~ _ { ~y5~rytlfr~f~ ~' ~.,,_> ~'-~-..LaR - ~'ti'i 3r4 4.. r H '1~~~(~~"~ t._~ v ~~. ;+'t~?~_ 11 ~` ~ a ro r - i1,: ~ .~- ~-~,),,•~ ~~ yak - Lia -~-~x: ~ ~`: ~ -_ Yii., F ~77 x~+-s ~ .H °r- _ N ~9r 47 ~ ~; r ~ - y --- ~. - I ~` rc , = .~ ~", a~~hq-.5 ~.,~ .~, - :>•- :: ... _ x i 'y:l ~ - ...sue r ~ ~.7ao .: ~. ~~ '. ~~ - e ~ n1r~ a~ ~~ ,~: m, ec ~ej Ir _ "~3^~. '+'~ ~ ~ N}0. _ = ~ i _ / l • RL 4 ~ '! ~ - ~- ~ ~ ~~ L '/ '~'3gis ~2 3 ~ ~Hi'$3e 1 °w~'i ~j ~ 1S~_~ LLM _(~ / ~ 2 _ - - ~ - _ - ~ /t ,~'Jdl ,,~./~/.SfS.y ~ : __ ~-' tY Y.L`°i ~ ~ . f- ~ ~--~~~ ~..~~. ;il L.: ~~~ ~ ~~}.4'YT §'~ f~; t - / ~ {~ k'~*i~ Y7 ~ ~"_~ "Y 'rte-. ~r~ fi'ec. [ _ y _ t _ -~~ ~: i r _'/' .f•.~~ .eio /~ ~ "°~ y'Sr{~` z~ „''eY~A~v~ ¢ ~Z! ~- ~; _ """` ~ _ _ . _ _ _ -i` } '. ~ i t . 8~ ' ~__-_ _ ~ -4 '-- eL~gy: tl~dh - ~ -- .fin - " ~ ~ ~ q C ~ i~ ttll '.%'. ~.: -:•~L ` ~~': ~ e ,~y~i!' r: .° { '~ ~ i~~jL- !yam- .~,.pC _ °- - 59~': ~S n «t~'f ! 'f:`:%;"vi. i -- ~ ~ ~ ~ .94c'%~:%.. _--_. +__::~`, a e~"r _ f ~~~ ~- ,rS~}i7t, = _ - _ ~"1.Yr. f!f" - -\ fX bmf~( ~ ~~. ~i r. . "' - "i ~ it SN.ii 'EF z .. ~ z~ ~:~ \ ~ ~' - ~ ~ ; W v Y L Y ~ -~~ L I _~ L ~ .^ .; \ F.,:' - Y 1 ~ -}'-~~"` :~ : f '. _ " ,r _ ~ _ _ ' f i . ~ / ~ f /: i~ ~ em. '`` _ ~. ~ - t~,~}}T'~„-~ -a .._ .r,- - / ~,, • , ~ 4..i sm z L~t0...- ~: ~~. n ~~l ~ L'¢,~wri.Fwt"i / ~ / ~ ~ I hyN1 ~A~M}°~~ -;e~d . ~ ~1%~ ::;b . (~ ~ ~ y i _ ;: :; -'~ ~'~ _-?~ ,,^~'I*r - i ~Fw.~jS "x".30 --. ~t ~ ~:,_ a ~ _ _- __ "...cn __ __ _ _ _ Es a il ~"' c" - a ~ - ' : S e. ~ „I....: i . -7f'"'_'.' : amz v ?- r _` . •.,= ::• ,! - ,ii ~.... -.viers ~/e~~ F : a,~-. ,5~~ .. ,. ,.. ~, ~ ~ arf ki e ~ o PROJECT LOCAAON SHEET 1 NOT TO SCALE TRACT K DEVELOPMENT AREA E -'~1` GLEN LYON SDD #4 Z~`~ii~~Z P.a , - • TO SCALE EXISTING CONDITIONS or - N - _ ~ Q ~ ' z ' . -- ' -_ -_- ' .. - ~ -' -- `,^ d - : - -- - -~ _---- - j_~~r .]~~J rill 'I i ~ , ~~ - ,1 ,_--- ,; :. ! _ ~ I' / / ` -- - -- - - -- - =_ R Gp Z ~ I s - _ .~ _ ~ ~,.. i _~ :- -- ~` --.... ~- i. y-t. . .-.yi.•-.-. _ _._ . _. .- ._ -- ~ I i ~.~, _ _. ^ . '~ -. .. i ='~; / .. . •. J J .. ~ ::; ,..!- ...: . '. .. . _... - .- 7 _ . ~. ._. _ - .. ,, - ~. n ,_-^ ._ .. , .~ - ..' O yyLLZZ r . _. r _ ~A -~ /~ I ... ~ /_ _ O _ I _ _ 3 -Tf _ i ~. O i N _ _ - _-- ~-- _J ..., ~ -?"~ - ~- .r,` _ i. .r,.... Vii!- ---- -- -IS~b~Q._= -- "~- ,1~;..~~y _, .' ' •- _ _ . i . .'' ~'. _ .'-.: - -- _ _ ` ' -- -- - --- z 1. ~<, ~- _ _ _ :.. -- j, - _ .. ~. +- ~~ - - - - - •~~ ~ - _ - ~ r : ; •~. ~ ~. - ~._. - - - - - .- ~ -__. - _ _ _-t _ __ - _r .-J - - ~ - -- y' _ ~ ~ < _ ' .Y. - _ _ _ c / J - _ - _- / i-%. Ir - - __ _.- - ' /~~' iii _ - - _-. _- - .~ i - - !I %.• ~ - Y/ -,~:. ~ ~- ~ - - -~- .._• - - - ~ - - i~ - - _ - ~_ - ~• i _ - ~ _ _ __ ~~ ~ - _ i" - - ,~ =~ ~ - --- - ~7 / , •~ ' '/ Y: ~'• - -r ' - t - ' .. ~ - I /- - ` V ~ - ~. _ - - ~:~ - i - !~ i _ _ ~ _ !~ - - ~H .7. _ _ _ 7 ---- -- - - .r ' ~ .- r^,~ - 71. :•/' % : i ~ ~-=% - ^ - - - ~~ - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~; / - , r -- - ._ - - i - . ~ , ~. . , - '- - ... _-. -~- _- .- - S .-~ - - _ _ ... - :i- _ -- / , - .. ,_ ~' .- !?. i. ~,. - ,, : , 1 $ / --_ _ _ - _ - ,y •=- - ~_~ - i"j,; - _ - ''/ - - / - :== -,,~ ~_ :' /. - - - ~.~: ' - - - - /. ~ - - - .. ..~ -=-~ r' - - ' ~ fi - _ - ' - - ' - ~ - - _ . - _ - - _ - .~ - _. _ - _ __ • $ _ ~ _ -_ ._ ., . ,=.. _•~~ -~.- _ ~~:.._ ... . x. _ _ ~• - - - _ - I - -- - - --_~ - - - i - - -T.-~- ----- - - ~ - _ ..7 ~ _ - - - _ `-,_ -•- ~ - - ' 'i -- -• - - _ i - . - - - { / // ~:- .. _.~ - .~. ~.. ~ i _. ..r ~ - - _- _ - ,. - •. , i - _- ~=EX STI G=IIT(LIl`l'- / - ,/ - -- --- - -- - t ! ~~ h / ~' .... _ - - --- 't. _:.~ r/ .. x - ' - -_ _ - - - ,.. ~ .~.. _ _ - ~ .~ ~ ~- •..,.~- ` : ; .i~ ,/ .::: .~~ r - .; :. / --- , 77 ~ - ~ / - - - - _ - - . ,, . . -. r _ i- f - _ - - ~. .- %%% - - - ~~ - _ _ _ _ .- /. / _ _ _ _ _ -7. _ _ :/, _ ~ -- --- -- - ,r. - ..Y- _ , i - ~' - I / r/ „•.-; ~...i ~ ice. ..^.- -. =.-_____ .r _ .I. r• - :. ~ L _ - - ~,.. r . --_ :;~ . - , U.~ ~ - - - - .. ; ,/ - - _ ' i'• / - - rr - -- - - ;,; _ ~__f~- - %' ;%, - 'y .. , ,r . / />' - .. ,. n~^ - _ - / r~_ - _~ .;• -= .. „ - ~•. ~' •'• % - _ " __ _ - - - - - i - a ~.._., .. n .. . / .- .. .. ..' , '. ,. !... , - ice: ., .. .••. ~ ~ _- .. h - . •! - -. :~ • - ~ - --- -_ ~ ~.. ~. O ._. ~~ . ~.•, . .,r • .•. j.Y :... ~' '.~ .. - ~. ~ :.. ,// _ _ .- _ i i - ''~-_ _ ,'/' -: j. /~'.. _ ~; :•i /:,~' , ~ ... ~ ,•;- •- / \- :~', _ .' ; ~ . _. _ , - - < , , ,.., i.r, .i, - --- - -/ - t ,.. -- - r ..,- - - - -~. - -,. - .- - .- .• _ -~ _,_.. -' .. ,. .. - .. --' - " _- ... / - - - ' ~ . . _ .~.-~ - ' _ _ _ !' - _. . ~ • - ~ _ ~ ' .•" .,.. ~ , /./. / .,:.'/.. , i .. .tires .. /. ..~ / __ -~''. ~_ - . " ~^ ,. -1:.. .~ ~ =. • .... _ _ _ _ ~,,~ / : , , -....- ' ~ ... ' .- .' . ~ ., R' ,r ~$ ~ •" 'J ' ; ~ / / / ,~, „, ~ T1NG' WES~1N -- --- --- ---- /``^ ------- -. _ •','..; r '~.' 'y/``x.. ~ • :. :~ ~'%~ :/ ..=^r''~'S",~''-~ -~--~--h--j-~-=~ ~1 5s _ E~y1S i / '- ; ~• ---r ~~t ~ i ~ ~ - ~ 3 ~ ~ . , , r/ .,. './ /! ~ - ~ _ _ ~r i ~ . ri 'r ~ +"'f-"r` C`-~'- _ - i'. L '" ~^V°t~ .: •%.r /. =<~_ ~' +~c i , ':r: -- / ! / i' I --v-'~•''.'%~=-1; ' '_ :/• - - _~ 7 --- ~ ~ ~ o . ~ - . - v . ., ' , , % rte / % / -!`~ o i. ., '' ! ~ / / ~ -' _r / ,/ .,/ :~ - '.' ~',',. - r/. . ,;.,~:~'! rv ~ >, ';r<; ' :Jig', v ..,'vv , i ; i.s ~ ~ • - - = ~-~ - - • /~~ i l] ~ ~ 'i/' " i/.' :%:/ , • , _ . . . .' :' .' _ ,, .\ .". i, iii;'' y'=-;` _ ,• , ,• r ~ ~~/ 1 ..r ~ ~ /~ '/ ' ~ mot-, : . .,, .. , , , , / ,/ . , - _ , ,~ ..~. i. . ., , , ... -' .. - _ - ~ ~ t-~- ... ~,.,., i.. J .,.. r .. ~... ...._:.... ~.-_.__.--~ - Jim .-_ __ - ___ ~.4.~r~ ~t.-~. -----~---•-~--.... __ . ,• ./-'' ' -' '-`.- ; ` ~~ i ~ - -- -- /' " ..~.r. ~~ • , _ - : •~ ~, . %. :' )• :;~1 ' ~-}-- ir% ')i i - ^--~---^ - --~ ~1 url_W[ ` ,c-'~ +'-~~: T~?~_ -= - ,~~- .'.-. _- _- _. __-- =~~__ _ . .+ 9•. . '^V'.". ~~ ~ SHEET GLEN LYON SDD #4, TRACT K DEVELOPMENT AREA E ...[ ~., W'~~~I~f? P ~~~ T DEVELOPMENT PLAN No CAL - ~ z I w ' - ~ ~ - -~ -~= ; r ~~ I ~ II \ ~ . . _._ _. i Iryl ~ .. - ~ - ..y .~.~' ~~ ••~~- III' I~i~ill ~~~4 . ~ .. -J _ • _ _ _1 :~- / - ~ l 1 - C,R EK E 1 rkryW ~~ 1~lli'IlIi~Z ~^'^ _ _ -_~; ...~ r •-, .. - - '_ _, _ - ~.,, ~~ .... - _ r. -..., r - ~r 1 -- / h ' `' ` ' `~ ~ _ ~ , ,~ _ - ~ _ ~-~~l-:` s. -.. OPOSED- RIB DGE-~ #- , ~ ~ w ` - ~ _ - .: .~, - '~l i . r , .~- _ - _ - l f _. rI - - J .' • r. _. ~1-.j ~ _ _~ ~t~s~'X. ~. , .. - :, .• - - -- - -- ~:- ~-.• - - - __. .:° - -~. . -~_ __ - ~ nom.. ., =- _.,_ ..~ _ ~'_ - - - - '. ~~T8 era ~ ,.~ / . ~ o , ...... .. ..: - r/ .. _ ., _ . ' , , _ . -. . . ~,. .- :: _ -~ ~' - :• _ / - - -0_ - - / -.- ,- 7 ,. .~ y . - -' i + ::' ~ ' -- i . , .s ,-ti• : --. ., ~. ~- y ~~ ~ ,. i;^. .-~ ~- .- / _ - y ~ { - - "r ~~ . _ - ..~ ~ ! , /' ___- _ .. -'.'~ i ,; , ,- -+~ - -. -~ - _ . :.:.i -- _ - ,~/ . .-~-~ / - - - Y - - _ - r _.. _.~ _- _ r /, -- -RR R.CJ$Eb-SNOWGAT--- ----- - - - - ,. 1 .. _. ' _ , r , , ~ ..,....,. -_- ~-._~ - G ms - - - T -~ _,. .. .. - - - - - p'ka,.. - / / / . -/._. t .~' .I. r, /, - - .. ,. , --' - - ~ ..- - - - i Y _. .. - - •i~ _ - - ---_ ._- - , /.. - - 1 U ,. ~ - -... .~ J / . . , , -... _ - ~ -., _- • ------ ~ ,.. .-r.,..._ _'E- SITNG-:UT1Ll`1'1' - -- - '~ -- - _ .~ ~ - - - - - - - - r I - - :, - - - .- / - ~ ..». . - - - - ,r - - - _. i. - .- , ...-, ~! .. - 8.-- /' - - . .-. -_ / . ~ - -. - ~ -... _ 1 - ----- - - - - ~. t - ~ - - .~ - Y..^ - ... - - - -~ - -~ "_ ~ - - - - ~- - ~ -- - rl - - - - ~ . i. - - - - h ,/ / .~ % - - ~' - - ' 1 .~r 4 V _ ~ - ''/ % - /, %' _ / ~ `r~ - - , / ~' _ , ~/ ____ - - - /•• , -. //: - -_ ~ ~'~: '~^ _ , % /' - _ - / ~' - _.- - '~ :% _.- ~ / ! , i _. :' .~; /. ;' 444 ' _ -- - - - - - _ - - % : - _ _. - . ,; ,, .. , :; :. ,,. •, . -- ,. - ,; - ~,' ,~ ~ : . _- _ -- ~.J _ _ _ ~'- 1 /' '- -- --- _------ - - . . „ , • , :i- - -.. > - ----~_.. ;: ~ - ,. . , . .: '. :- - - - _ - - - l .- - .. , - - - % ,, :-~- -- - {_ ,, :..~- _ - _ ,. -. - ~"'~ - - - , ,.,,,. - .. -- - ;:~ .-:• - ~~ - .. ., ,' - ._. . .' . . .;~'. : - - • - - - - - - - / - - -- - - - '~. _ - - - . _ . , . : -. ,. ,, - ... . . ':/ -- .- - ~•--- /, „a. ".. , , .: ''••~ :r „r - _ _ y~ _ , , .. - - i / _ '7'- .' -. .' .•m - '- ,' 77 _ _ - - - - -'.. - - - -'- _ ./, ,,.~, / / ,. ,~.,/ I _ _ / >r~s~ ~-~- , Y j~ J l ~ J ~ - 1 , ~ _ .. . j ~ : • C i i tea .~. ./, ~ t / /r /, ~ .~ ~1` "':::.v;y ~i~ iG~'/ ~,;%, i, /i: (~ -I-_' -_- ! '~`i .. _ •v - - _ _ _ y J ./:/ ! !%~;//r !5 r ~ ._~--i ~ r r;.f~''~~1 '•. ~ - ,nNV'~~- ' ~- '...Yu---- ~ l~ I'~ ~ J ~ / - ' , - . , :' , ,~ i / - .' , •' _ , _ ^' • i , - 9 ,. , ~ y . _ v , -', /' _ , ~ / \J J , :/ ,, _ v , - , ' H ? S / ' . ; ~ ~.' , , , v, I - c V{ ( ~~1,": i - - `i £i.. :"s%' - ~- - /":~,-, - ~ tom. ` ' ~ =" -~ ' ' ~ I ~, r -~-- .. _- r _ _ ~ - ~ ~ _,. .!- ~ SHEET 3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11, SERIES OF 1999, SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4, CASCADE VILLAGE, TO ALLOW FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT AREA LOCATED AT TRACT K, GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-2 of the Vail Town Code permits major amendments to existing special development districts; and WHEREAS, Vail Resorts has submitted an application for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this major amendment at its April 9, 2007 public hearing, 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 Special Development District No. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1999, is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in st-r+l~e-tk~et~g~/additions are shown in bold italics) Established A. .Special Development District No. 4 is established for the development on a parcel of land comprising 97.955 acres as more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A. Special Development District No. 4 and the 97.955 acres may be referred to as "SDD No. 4". B. The district shall consist of four separate development areas, as identified in this ordinance consisting of the following approximate sizes: .,,. ~ 1h ~~ is } Area Known As Develop ment Area Acrea e Cascade Village A 17.955 Coldstream Condominiums B 4.000 Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single Family Lots C 9.100 Glen Lyon Commercial Site D 1.800 Tract K E 8.322 Dedicated Open Space 48:498 32.078 Roads 4.700 TOTAL 97.955 Section 2. Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1998, is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in °+•~Uoz:~/additions are shown in bold italics} Development Plan -Required -Approval Procedure Each development area with the exception of Development Areas A and D shall be subject to a single development plan. Development Area A shall be allowed to have two development plans for the Cascade Club site as approved by the Town Council. The Waterford and Cornerstone sites shall be allowed one development plan each. Development Area D shall be allowed to develop per the approved phasing plans as approved by the Town Council. A development plan for Development Area E shall be established through the review and approval of a design review application and/or conditional use permit application. The developer shall have the right to proceed with the development plans or scenarios as defined in the development statistics section of this ordinance. Amendments to SDD No. 4 shall comply with Section 12-9A of the Municipal Code. Section 3. Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1998, is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in s~t~e-tf~~/additions are shown in bold italics) Permitted Uses A. Area A. Cascade Village 1. First floor commercial uses shall be limited to uses listed in Section 12- 7B-3, (Commercial Core 1), of the Municipal Code. The "first floor" or 2 ~~. ~:;- ti,. ~a;~' ' .~. ~ , ~' "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level; 2. All other floor levels besides first floor street level may include retail, theater, restaurant, and office except that no professional or business. office shall be located on street level or first floor (as defined above) unless it is clearly accessory to a lodge or educational institution except for an office space having a maximum square footage of 925 square feet located on the first floor on the northwest corner of the Plaza Conference Center building; 3. Lodge; 4. Multi-family dwelling; 5. Single Family dwelling; 6. Primary/Secondary dwelling; 7. Transient residential dwelling unit; 8. Employee dwelling as defined in Section 12-13 of the Municipal Code; 9. Cascade Club addition of a lap pool or gymnasium. B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums 1.Two-family dwelling; 2. Multi-family dwelling. C. Area C, Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single-Family Lots. 1. Single family dwelling; 2. Two-family dwelling. 3. Type II Employee Housing Unit (EHU) per Chapter 12-13, of the Municipal Code. D. Area D. Glen Lyon Commercial Site 1. Business and professional offices; 2. Employee dwelling as defined in Section 12-13 of the Municipal Code. 3 >~ E. Area E, Tract K 1. Bicycle and pedestrian paths. 2. Interpretive nature walks. 3. Nature preserves. 4. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces. Section 4. Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1998, is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in n#riLn +"r^••^h/additions are shown in bold italics) Conditional Uses Conditional uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as outlined in Chapter 12- 16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. A. Area A, Cascade Village 1. Cascade Club addition of a wellness center not to exceed 4,500 square feet. 2. Fractional fee ownership as defined in the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Section 12-2 shall be a conditional use for dwelling units in the Westhaven multi-family dwellings. Fractional fee ownership shall .not be applied to restricted employee dwelling units or transient residential dwelling units. Ownership intervals shall not be less than five weeks. 3. Special attraction; 4. Ski lifts, 5. Public park and recreational facilities; 6. Major arcades with no frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 4 °~ ' ~, -;~ :'~} ;~ `' ~~ B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums 1. Public park and recreational facilities; 2. Ski lifts. C. Area C, Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single-Family Lots 1. Public park and recreational facilities; 2. Ski lifts; D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site 1.Micro-brewery as defined in Town of Vail Municipal code, Chapter 12-2. E. Area E, Tract K 1. Public parks. 2. Public utility and public service uses. 3. Access roads. 4. Ski lifts and tows. 5. Ski trails. 6. Snowmaking facilities. 7. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. Section 5. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not 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. s f i2 :Y; ~~. ~ ... Section 6. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Wail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 7. 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 8. .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 1St day of May, 2007, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 15th day of May, 2007, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rod Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 6 ~~ READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 2007 Rod Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Attachment D .+,.~. ~. ;~; .t . ; ~ , ~V6NSOF PAIL ~ THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on ,April 9, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0012) Applicant: Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smith Planner: Bill Gibson A request for final review of the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0013) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Wan-en Campbell A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0014) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0015) Applicant: Doug Weltner Planner: Warren Campbell Page 1 A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special ~µl ~~~ 0 Development District (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, ~ ~ Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Developmenf District No. 4, ~~~' VI Cascade Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0017) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planners: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published March 23, 2007; in the Vail Daily. Page 2 Vail Town Council Attachment: B ORDINANCE N0.11 Series of 2007 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4, CASCADE VILLAGE, TO ALLOW FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT AREA LOCATED AT TRACT K, GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-2 of the Vail Town Code permits major amendments to existing special development districts; and WHEREAS, Vail Resorts has submitted an application for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this major amendment at its April 9, 2007 public hearing, 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 Special Development District No. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in ~+r;U^ +"r^„^"/additions are shown in bold italics) Established A. Special Development District No. 4 is established for the development on a parcel of land comprising 97.955 acres as more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A. Special Development District No. 4 and the 97.955 acres may be referred to as "SDD No. 4". B. The district shall consist of four separate development areas, as identified in this ordinance consisting of the following approximate sizes: Area Known As Develop ment Area Acrea e Cascade Village A 17.955 Coldstream Condominiums B 4.000 Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single Family Lots C 9.100 Glen Lyon Commercial Site D 1.800 Tract K E 8.322 Dedicated Open Space 48499 32.078 Roads 4.700 TOTAL 97.955 Section 2. Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village„ is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in ~+r;U^ +".^„^"/additions are shown in bold italics) Development Plan -Required -Approval Procedure Each development area with the exception of Development Areas A and D shall be subject to a single development plan. Development Area A shall be allowed to have. two development plans for the Cascade Club site as approved by the Town Council. The Waterford and Cornerstone sites shall be allowed one development plan each. Development Area D shall be allowed to develop per the approved phasing plans as approved by the Town Council. A development plan for Development Area E shall be established through the review and approval of a design review application and/or conditional use permit application. The developer shall have the right to proceed with the development plans or scenarios as defined in the development statistics section of this ordinance. Amendments to SDD No. 4 shall comply with Section 12-9A of the Municipal Code. Section 3. Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in °'r;U° +"r^„^"/additions are shown in bold italics) 2 Permitted Uses A. Area A. Cascade Village 1. First floor commercial uses shall be limited to uses listed in Section 12- 76-3, (Commercial Core 1), of the Municipal Code. The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level; 2. All other floor levels besides first floor street level may include retail, theater, restaurant, and office except that no professional or business office shall be located on street level or first floor (as defined above) unless it is clearly accessory to a lodge or educational institution except for an office space having a maximum square footage of 925 square feet located on the first floor on the northwest corner of the Plaza Conference Center building; 3. Lodge; 4. Multi-family dwelling; 5. Single Family dwelling; 6. Primary/Secondary dwelling; 7. Transient residential dwelling unit; 8. Employee dwelling as defined in Section 12-13 of the Municipal Code; 9. Cascade Club addition of a lap pool or gymnasium. B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums 1.Two-family dwelling; 2. Multi-family dwelling. C. Area C, Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single-Family Lots 1. Single family dwelling; 2. Two-family dwelling. 3. Type II Employee Housing Unit (EHU) per Chapter 12-13, of the Municipal Code. 3 D. Area D. Glen Lyon Commercial Site 1. Business and professional offices; 2. Employee dwelling as defined in Section 12-13 of the Municipal Code. E. Area E, Tract K i. Bicycle and pedestrian paths. 2. Interpretive nature walks. 3. Nature preserves. 4. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces. Section 4. Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in s#~e-taae~#/additions are shown in bold italics) Conditional Uses Conditional uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as outlined in Chapter 12- 16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. A. Area A, Cascade Village 1. Cascade Club addition of a wellness center not to exceed 4,500 square feet. 2. Fractional fee ownership as defined in the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Section 12-2 shall be a conditional use for dwelling units in the Westhaven multi-family dwellings. Fractional fee ownership shall not be applied to restricted employee dwelling units or transient residential dwelling units. Ownership intervals shall not be less than five weeks. 3. Special attraction; 4. Ski lifts; 5. Public park and recreational facilities; 4 6. Major arcades with no frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums 1. Public park and recreational facilities; 2. Ski lifts. C. Area C, Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single-Family Lots 1. Public park and recreational facilities; 2. Ski lifts; D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site 1.Micro-brewery as defined in Town of Vail Municipal code, Chapter 12-2. E. Area E, Tract K 1. Public parks. 2. Public utility and public service uses. 3. Access roads. 4. Ski lifts and tows. 5. Ski trails. 6. Snowmaking facilities. 7. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. Section 5. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not 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, 5 subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 6. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 7. 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 8. 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. 6 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 1St day of May, 2007, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 15th day of May, 2007, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rod Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of !, 2007 Rod Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Vail Town Council From: Community Development Department Date: May 1, 2007 Subject: Covered Bridge, Inc. Appeal of PEC Determination 2/12/2007 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST An appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission's decision to uphold an administrative action determining that Condominium Unit E within the Covered Bridge Building is the "street level" of the building, located at 227 Bridge Street Lots C & D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. A copy of the Appeals Form submitted by Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, L.L.C., on behalf of the property owner, Covered Bridge, Inc., stamped received on March 1, 2007, has been attached for reference. 11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Uphold, overturn, or modify the Planning & Environmental Commission's decision to uphold an administrative action determining that Condominium Unit E within the Covered Bridge Building is the "street level" of the building. III. BACKGROUND On November 20, 2006, the Town of Vail Community Department received a letter from Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, LLC, requesting that the Town of Vail provide an interpretation of the- specific floor level and, therefore, the permitted and conditional uses of Condominium Units C & E, Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street, as defined by the Vail Town Code. On December 1, 2006, the Zoning Administrator provided the requested interpretation. .In making a determination of the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, Covered Bridge Building, the Community Development Department relied upon the following documents presently on file with the Town of Vail: Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code • Covered Bridge Building, Building. Permit Set, dated 4/19/94 ("CBBBPS") Town's legal file for Lots B, C and D, Block 5B, Vail Village 1St Filing On December 21, 2006, the Town of Vail Community Development Department received a complete Appeals Form filed on behalf of the appellant. On February 12, 2007, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission held a public meeting to hear an appeal of an administrative action determining that Condominium Unit E within the Covered Bridge Building is the "street level" of the building. Upon presentation of evidence and testimony, the Commission made eight findings of fact and voted unanimously to uphold the previous decision of the administrator. On April 3, 2007, the Vail Town Council granted a continuance of the public hearing on the appeal to the May 1, 2007, Town Council meeting at the request of the staff and the appellant. A copy of the memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission, dated February 12, 2007,and a copy of the approved meeting minutes have been attached for reference. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council upholds the February 12, 2007, decision of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission, based upon the following information: 1) the record established before the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission on February 12, 2007, 2) the eight findings of fact made by the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission on February 12, 2007, and 3) the evidence and' testimony presented to the Vail Town Council on May 1, 2007. Furthermore, the Community Development Department recommends that in upholding the decision of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission, the Vail Town Council makes the following findings of fact Due to the sloping topographic conditions of Bridge Street, specifically, and the Town of Vail, generally, instances will exist where a reasonable change in elevation (3.76 feet) from the pedestrian level to the `first floor" or "street" level of the building will occur. Said conditions, however, shall not be construed to circumvent the Town's longstanding development objective of maintaining and preserving the character of the Vail commercial area and promoting a variety of retail shops at the pedestrian level. For zoning purposes, the "street level" of the building shall be That floor level located at elevation 8162' 6 %`; as depicted on the approved plans. For zoning purposes, the "grade" on the east side of the Covered Bridge Building shall be 8158.74 ; not 8152 =8" as suggested by the appellant. 2 • The east and south sides of the Covered Bridge Building are entirely or substanfially below grade, as depicted on the approved plans. • The presences of a "garden" level of a building shall reasonably infer that some portion or portions of a building or structure will be exposed for purposes of visual exposure and ingress and egress. According to the approved "(PEC) meeting minutes, dated February 14, 1994, in part, it is clearly understood by the decision-makers that retail space was proposed for the first two levels of the building, as required by the Zoning Regulations. The definitions of "basement" or . "garden" level and "first floor" or "street" level have remained unchanged and the regulation has been consistently applied by the •Town of Vail to meet its development objectives for the last 32 years. To except the appellant's interpretation of the regulations will fundamentally alter the character of Vail Village and the development objectives of the Town. For instance, after 32 years, it would now be interpreted that existing first floor and street level retail businesses such as Russell's, Ore House, Vendetta's, Red Lion, Moose's Caboose, Vail T-Shirt Company, Axel's, Sweet Basil, Rucksack, Laughing Monkey and numerous other retail businesses could be converted to non-retail uses such as business offices and professional offices. This change in use is clearly contrary to the adopted goals, objectives and policies of the Town of Vail and inconsistent with the Town's Horizontal Zoning Ordinance of 1975 (ord. 16 series of 1975). • Thafi the PEC neither violated the rules of .statutory construction nor amended the Code in guise of interpretation as the PEC correctly applied the definitions of "garden or basement level" and "first floor or street level" as these terms relate to the Covered Bridge Building, since it is clearly understood through the consistent application of the regulations a slight change in elevation between the street and the floor of a building may exist. In fact, the statutory language of the relevant definitions is clear and the legislative .intent of ensuring retail uses on the pedestrian level(s) of a building is reasonably certain as' affirmed by the Town's Horizontal Zoning Ordinance of 1975 (ord. 16 series of 1975). • To ignore the intent of the Code and the development objectives of the Town, as suggested by the appellant, would. suggest that the street level of the Covered Bridge Building must slope at the same pitch as Bridge Street or a portion of the street level of the building must be buried below grade to account for the pitch of the street. • Thaf based upon the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail Town Council finds that the Town of Vail Planning •& Environmental Commission accurately interpreted the definitions of "garden or basement" level and "first floor or street" level, as these terms relate to the intent of the Code and apply to the development objectives of the Town of Vail. As a result, the determination of fhe PEC on February 72, 2007, is neither contrary to the language of the Town Code nor was it an arbitrary or capricious decision. Any other interpretation of the Town's horizontal zoning regulation is contrary to the horizontal zoning intent of the Code and development goals and policies of the Town. To interpret the Code otherwise would result in office uses on the street level of buildings throughout the Town's crucial commercial core areas. Such an interprefation would result in an inferpretation of the Code to mean that which it does not .express nor intend fo express. The Vail Town Council concludes, based upon the evidence and testimony presented, that the appellant has not met the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of the Zoning Regulations to overturn the decision of the Planning & Environmental Commission. Specifically, the appellant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town Council that the interpretation and application of the horizontal zoning regulations has been incorrectly applied as dehned by the Zoning Regulations and the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 4 f Carlson,Carlson €~ Dunkelman, L.L.C. Ronald W. Carlson Attorneys at Law Judith James Carlson Paul R. Dunkelman Drake Landing + 975 N. Ten Mile Drive + P.O. Box 1829 Frisco, Colorado 80443 Christopher D. Tomchuck February 27, 2007 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Appeal -Covered Bridge, Inc. To Whom It May Concern: PnrnlvQalc Maria K. Ku7iz (-'.nrln Tvf FPI.ifP Tracy LeClair ~_~~0~~ D f,~ n ~~ ,~, - •..~.~~ TC7W~ OI= 'TI L Enclosed please fmd the following in connection with Covered Bridge Inc.'s Appeal: • Appeals Form • Attachment 1-Aggrieved or Adversely Impacted Person • Attachment 2 -Nature of Appeal • Attachment 3 -Adjacent Property Owners • Stamped, addressed envelopes for each property owner listed on Attachment 3 Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, t" . ----~~ ~ c Paul R. Dunkelman Enclosures (970) 668-1678 + FAx (970) 668-5121 + E-mail: carlson2@colorado.net + Uail Valley + (970) 845-7090 Appeals Form ~; Department of Community Development ~~,~~~, ~ 75 South Frontage Road., Vail, Colorado 81657 te1:970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.vai~c ov.com I ~ ~ ~ D V ~~D ~eh~ .. _ „r -.-~ 1°OWN ®F 1/AIL General Information: This form is required for filing an appeal of a Staff, Design Review Board, or Planning and Environmental Commission action/decision. A complete form and associated requirements must be submitted to the Community Development Department within twenty (20) calendar days of the disputed action/decision. Action/Decision being appealed: See at ach d Dateof Action/Decision: Board or Staff person rendering action/decision:pl ann; nq anr7 Fnv; rnnmenta 1 commiss 'ton Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? (yes) (no) yes. If yes, are you an adjacent properly owner? (yes) (no) No Name of Appellant(s): Covered Bridge, Inc. Mailing Address: i?_o_ Box 1829r Frisco, CO 80443 Phone: 97n_~t;R-1678 ______- _ Physical Address in Vail: 2 ~ 7 over d Br i dgP Big i 1 d i nc~ Va i 1, C'n Legal Description of Appellant(s) Property in Vail: Lot:_Block:_ Subdivision: AAA a t t a rh ed -,-~--=- Appellant(s) Signature(s): `~ ~ ~ ~-~, (Attach a list of signatures if more space is required). Submittal Requirements: 1. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, provide a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person". 2. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed. 3. Provide a list of names and addresses (both mailing and physical addresses in Vail) of all owners of property who are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent .property owners (including owners whose properties are separated from the subject properly by a right-of-way, stream, or other intervening barrier). 4. Provide stamped, addressed envelopes for each properly owner listed in (3.). PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS TO: TOWN OF VAIL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657. Fbr Office Use Only: Date. Received: Activity.No.: Planner: 'Projecf No. . 1 F:\cdev\FORMS\PERMITS\Planning\Applications\Appeals.doc 12-6-2005 Action/Decisionheing appealed: The Appellant is appealing the Community Development ruling upholding the administrative action which determined that, for zoning purposes, Condominium Unit E of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street/Lot C & D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Vail Village First Filing is located on the "first floor" or "street level" of the Covered Bridge Building and that by affect Condominium Unit D and Unit F are located on the "first floor" or "street level" and the proposed findings of fact made in support of its ruling. Legal Description of Appellant's Property in Vail: Lot C and D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, Vail Village, according to the recorded plat thereof, Eagle County, Colorado. Attachment 1 Aggrieved or Adversely Impacted Person Appellant is the owner of 227 Covered Bridge Building, Vail, Colorado. The Planning and Environmental Commission Community Planning Department has upheld the fording of the Community Development Department and determined that for zoning purposes Unit E Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado is to be considered a "floor or street level" of the building. This fording is also applicable to Unit D and Unit F, Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado which are similarly situated units. It is the Appellant's position that Unit E, Covered Bridge must be considered a "second floor" unit. Appellant is adversely affected by the determination that Unit E is considered a "floor or street level" unit. A "floor or street level" unit has the most restricted uses. The permitted uses of "floor or street level" units are retail stores, eating and drinking establishments, lodges, and type IV employee housing. The permitted use of a second floor unit includes the permitted uses of the "floor or street level", but also provides for many additional uses, including but not limited to lodges, bank and financial institutions, business and office services. The ruling severely impacts the Appellant's property rights, its right to use of the property under the Towri Code, the rentability and marketability of the real property and will result in vacancies. The property is not in fact at street level. This has been agreed by the Planning Department. Pedestrians are required to walk up a set of stairs to enter the Unit. The findings of the Planning and Environmental Commission are that Unit E is actually 3.76 feet above street level. It is also approximately fifteen (15) feet above grade. This makes it clear that this Unit cannot be considered at street level, but also makes the unit unattractive for the type of use required on street level, i.e. retail use. Appellant presently has a renter interested in renting Unit E for use not permitted under the Planning Department ruling. This has limited the ability of the Appellant to fully rent Unit E. This ruling impacts use of not only Unit E, but also future use of Units D and F. Attachment 2 Nature of Appeal The Planning and Environmental Commission [the "PEC"] has upheld that Community Planning Department ruling and determined that for zoning purposes that Unit E Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado is to be considered a "floor or street level" of the building. Appellant is the owner of 227 Covered Bridge Building, Vail, Colorado. In making the ruling, the PEC adopted the proposed findings of fact recommended by the Community Planning Department. These findings do not support the ruling and result in a clearly erroneous interpretation of the Municipal Code. These findings of fact include but are not limited to the following Due to the sloping topographic conditions of Bridge Street, specifically, and the .Town of Vail, generally, instances will exist where a reasonable change in elevation (3.76 feet) from the pedestrian level to the "first floor" and "street" level of the building will occur. Said condition, however, shall not be construed to circumvent the Town's longstanding development objective of maintaining and preserving the character of the Vail Commercial areas .. . • For zoning purposes, the "street level" of the building shall be that floor level located at elevation 8162-6 3/4, as depicted on the approved plans. • According to the approved (PEC) meeting minutes, dated February 14, 1994, in part, it is clearly understood by the decision makers that retail space was proposed for the first two levels of the building .. . • Any other interpretation of the Town's horizontal zoning regulation is contrary to the horizontal zoning intent of the Code .. . In considering the appeal, it is important to consider the relevant definitions of "basement or garden level," "first floor or street level," and "second floor." A "basement or garden level" is defined "as that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade." Of note is that the term "street level" is not part of the definition. 12-7B-2, Vail Town Code. 2. A "first floor or street level" is defined "as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level." 12-7B-3, Vail Town Code. 3. The relevant language for usage of "second floor" is "above grade within a structure." Again the term "street level" is not used. 12-7B-4, Vail Town Code. The law on statutory construction is clear. In interpreting statutory language-municipal code is statutory language--, the ruling board and ultimately the Court must effectuate the plain meaning of the words used by the legislative body. Clear, plain and unambiguous language of municipal code will be applied as written. Burns v. City Council of Denver, 759 P.2d 748 (Colo. 1988); see also In re the Marriage of Ciesluk, 113 P.3d 135, 141 (Colo. 2005); People v. Yascava~e, 101 P.3d 1090, 1093 (Colo. 2004). • In statutory construction, the more specific statutory terms preempts the more general statutory terms. Showpiece Homes Corn v Assurance Company America, 3 8 P.3 d 47 (Colo. 2001). • The municipal government cannot amend the Code in guise of interpreting the Code. Anderson v. Board of Adjustment, 931 P.2d 517 (Colo. App. 1996). • Ultimately, if the matter is appealed to the District Court, the Court is not bound by the decision of the municipal government if there is no competent evidence to support the decision or if the decision misconstrues or misapplies the law. Anderson v. Board of Adjustment, 931 P.2d 517 (Colo. App. 1996). It is not disputed by the Planning Department that Unit E is a minimum of 3.76 feet above the level of the street. Appellant disputes that it is not that the rise above street level is not greater than 3.76 feet. It is also approximately fifteen (15) feet above grade. Unit E is neither at street level, nor at grade as is required for a determination that this is a "first floor level." In effectuating the plain meaning of the Code, it is clear that this Unit is above both street level and grade and therefore a "second floor" unit. It is important to note that lack of modifying term in the definition of "first floor or street level." A modifier- entirely or substantially-is use for the definition of the "basement or garden level", but there is no similar language for first floor It is clear the PEC violated additional rules of statutory construction. It ignored the more specific statutes defining a first floor unit and relied on the more general provisions regarding the intent of the Code. Specifically, it made findings that general Town's objective and horizontal intent preempted the specific terms defining "street level." It ignored the more specific statutes defining a first floor unit and relied on the more general provisions regarding the intent of the Code. To reach it desired ruling, the PEC amended the Code in guise of interpretation. In effect, the PEC found that being above street level still meant street level. This is not supported by the Code and the PEC had to read additional language into the statute to support there ruling. The PEC added language that being within four feet of street level was street level. Even more egregious, the PEC changed the facts to support its ruling. The PEC found that for zoning purposes it would determine that street level of the building is the elevation of 8162-6 3/4. This is the floor level elevation; however, as acknowledged by PEC (and Community Planning) this is not street level. This is above the actual street level. The PEC changed the facts to conform with its ruling. It is also changed the facts regarding the prior understanding of "decision makers." Initially, the prior understanding is irrelevant. What the PEC and Town Counsel is required to do is interpret the statute. However, to support its conclusion, the PEC states as fact the understanding of the prior "decision makers" by referencing February 14, 1994 PEC meeting minutes. Specifically, it references a concern by a single DRB representative regarding split level retail. Retail is allowed on any level. This concern provides no factual support that prior decision makers considered Unit E to be a "street level" Unit. The determination by the PEC is contrary to the language of the Town Code, is legally in error and is, in fact, an arbitrary and capricious decision. This ruling is contrary to the goals and policies of the community. It would create a .situation were retail space would be above street level and, therefore, unattractive to potential users. The end result would be a perennially vacant unit. Attachment 3 Adjacent Property Owners Covered Bridge Building Association, Inc. 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 P.O. Box 2636 Edwards, CO 81632 Pepi Sport, Inc. c/o 3osef Gramshammer 231 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Gastof Gramshammer, Inc. c/o Pepi Gramshammer 231 E. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO 81;657 Mountain Haus Condominium Association Attn: Bazbaza Banks 292 E. Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 Slifer Building, LLC 230 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Charles David Luther c/o Craig Denton 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 1116 Deer Blvd. Avon, CO 81620 Charles David Luther 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 16 Paddock Road Edna, MN 55436 P & R Partners-Vail, LLC 228 Bridge Street, Units A, C, D & E Vail, CO 81657 Attn.: Michael Staughton 228 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Charles & Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust 228 Bridge Street, Units F & G Vail, CO 81657 411 E. 37th St. N. Wichita, KS 67201-2256 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Q D fl ~. February 12, 2007 .~ i'~ ~C~IVOf VAtL" 1:OOpm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS /PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Bill Jewitt Doug Cahill Bill Pierce Anne Gunion Dick Cleveland Rollie Kjesbo NO SITE VISITS 60 minutes A request for a worksession to discuss text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to add commercial linkage requirements and inclusionary zoning requirements to the Zoning Regulations for the purpose of mitigating employee housing impacts resulting from development in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0084) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Nina Timm ACTION: Tabled to February 26, 2007 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:6-0-0 Nina Timm gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. The Chairman opened the meeting to public comment. Peter Knobel stated that all of the employee housing needs to be provided in the Town of Vail. He would also like to see any requirements phased in over time so that the market values of properties can adjust. Dominic Mauriello representing Lionshead Inn and other clients expressed concern that the PEC has not been provided the Rational Nexus or Town Council Memorandums. The' same . information is not being shared with PEC as Town Council. Jim Lamont commented that there is too much growth and redevelopment occurring in Town. Kaye Ferry stated that the PEC should determine who the employee housing program should house. Town Council is (oolong for the PEC's direction and was confused at their last meeting that they were seeing the item again. The Commission stated they understand that there is an employee housing issue in the Town, but expressed concern about the lack of an.overall employee housing plan for the Town of Vail. Concern was expressed about who this housing program is supposed to provide units for and without that answer it is difficult to know how many units and what type of units are needed. There was support for linkage programs for both commercial and residential development Support was also expressed for a funding source, as long as there is an acceptable plan in place for spending the money. The Commission would like more answers prior to providing a recommendation to Town Council. Page 1 10 minutes 2. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 12-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a modification to shared property boundaries, Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, located at 4852 and 4856 Meadow Lane, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0001) Applicant: Meadowlark Development Partners, LLC, represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:6-0-0 CONDITION(S) 1) The applicant shall not be permitted to request any variances subsequent to the approval of this plat for Lots 11 and 12, Block 7, Bighorn 5~' Addition, on the basis that the approved plat created a hardship for developing these lots. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. John Martin, the architect of the homes to be proposed on the lots, representing the applicant, explained why the access to the design to be proposed necessitated the shift in the shared property line. . There was no public comment.. The Commission expressed there support of the application. Commissioner Cleveland suggested a condition be placed upon the approval stating that no variances could be requested in the future as a result of the replat. 3. A request for a final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-3B, Appeal of Administrative Actions, Vail Town Code, appealing a determination made by the Zoning Administrator that for zoning purposes Condominium Unit E, Covered Bridge Building shall be considered the "first floor or street level" of the building, located at 227 Bridge Street/Lot C and D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appellant: Covered Bridge, Inc., represented by Carson, Carson and Dunkelman, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Uphold MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE:6-0-0 George Ruther made a presentation per the memorandum to the Planning 8~ Environmental Commission dated, February 12, 2007. Based upon review of the evidence and testimony, staff was recommending that the Commission upholds the administrative action of staff dated, December 1, 2006. Paul Dunkelman, representing Covered Bridge Inc. the owner of Condominium Unit E, indicated that based upon his review of the Zoning Regulations, Condominium Unit E can not be interpreted as the first floor or street level of the building. Mr. Dunkelman went on to present photographs of the Cover Bridge Building and urged the Commission to overturn staff's interpretation. The Chairman opened the meeting to pubic comment Page 2 Kaye Ferry, on behalf of the Vail Chamber indicated that Vail's Zoning Regulations were very clear on the issue. The space in question was and always has been required to be retail by Zoning. Kaye asked the Commission not to change 34 years of development. history in Vail Jim Lamont indicated that he was the author of the 1975 ordinance cited by the staff. He further stated that it was understood that physical conditions such as those existing at the Covered Bridge Building were contemplated and understood when the ordinance was adopted. The Commissioners stated their support for the administrative decision of staff determining that Condominium Unit E in the Covered Bridge Building was the street level of the building and the second floor as contended by Mr. Dunkelman. In coming to this conclusion, the Commissioners cited the purpose of the 1975 ordinance, the fact that all codes are open to a certain amount of interpretation, the information presented by staff and the longstanding and consistent application of the regulation by the Town of Vail. In voting to uphold staffs interpretation, the Commission cited the findings of fact listed on page five of the staff memorandum 4. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town -Code, to allow for additions to, and the renovation of, the Landmark Condominiums; and a request for a final review of variances from Sections 12-7H-10, Setbacks, 12-7H-14, Site .Coverage, and 12-7H-15, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an underground parking structure and a staircase within the setbacks, and deviations from the maximum site- coverage and minimum landscape area requirements, located at 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0074) Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Geoff Wright Planner. Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to February 26, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:6-0-0 5. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1895 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0002) Applicant:. Nancy Hassett, represented by Miramonti Architect PC Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to February 26, 2007 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Berhardt VOTE: 6-0-0 6. Approval of January 22, 2007 minutes MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Kjesbo) 7. Information Update 8. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Page 3 Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department /Published February 9, 2007, in the Vail Daily. Page 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 12, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12-3-3B, Appeal of Administrative Actions, Vail Town Code, appealing a determination made by the Zoning Administrator that for zoning purposes Condominium Unit E, Covered Bridge Building shall be considered the "first floor or street level" of the building, located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Appellant: Covered Bridge, Inc., represented by Carlson, Carlson and Dunkelman, LLC Planner: George Ruther SUBJECT PROPERTY The Covered Bridge Building, Condominium Unit E, is located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C & D, and the southwesterly four feet of Lot B, Vail Village First Filing. II. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION Pursuant to Section 12-3-3B-1, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Authority, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town of Vail administrative official with respect to the provisions of the Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Tawn Code. III. PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS Pursuant to Sections 12-3-3B-2 and 12-3-3B-3, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Initiation and Procedures, Vail Town Code, there are three basic procedural criteria for an appeal: A) standing of the appellant; B) adequacy of the notice of appeal; and C) timeliness of the notice of appeal. A) Standing of the Appellant The appellant, Covered Bridge Inc., is the owner of Condominium Unit E within the Covered Bridge Building. As the owner of the subject property, the appellant has standing to appeal the administrative action. B) Adequacy of the Notice of the Appeal An Appeals Form was filed on behalf of the Covered Bridge Inc., by Carlson, Carlson, & Dunkelman. The Appeals Form and .the materials required for its submission have been determined to be complete by the Community Development Department. A copy of the Public Notice of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission February 12, 2007, Public Hearing was sent to adjacent property owners, pursuant to Section 12-3-3(B)(3), Procedures, Vail Town Code. C) Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal The Administrative Section of the Town's Zoning Code (12-3-3B-3, Procedures) states the following: `A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator or with the department rendering the decision, determination or interpretation within twenty (20) calendar days of the decision becoming final. If the last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a Town-observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. The Administrator's decision shall become final at the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) following the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by the Board or Commission." A complete Appeals Form was filed with the Community Development Department within the twenty (20) day requirement. IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL On August 8, 1973, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No.8, Series of 1973, and thereby enacted Zoning Regulations for the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, the Commercial Core I (CC1) zone district was established. On September 16, 1975, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1975. Pursuant to Section 1, Title, of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1975, this ordinance shall be known as the "Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance by Imposing Horizontal Zoning in CCI': (Exhibit A) The purpose of this ordinance was "...to maintain and preserve the characfer of the Vail commercial area'; "...to continue the balance between the many commercial and residential uses permitted in the Commercial Core 1 District'; and "...to promote a variety of retail shops at the pedestrian level." 2 In addition to imposing horizontal zoning in CC1, Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1975, also established definitions for the specific floor levels of a building or structure. In accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 16, the "basement" or "garden "level of a building shall be defined as, "that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade." Additionally, "first floor" or "street" level of a building shall be defined as, "that floor of a building that is located at grade or street level:" These definitions have remained unchanged and the regulation .has been consistently applied by the Town of Vail to meet its development objectives for the last 32 years. On August 27, 1990, the Town of Vaii Planning & Environmental Commission approved an application for a major exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building pursuant to the development standards prescribed for development within the Commercial Core I .district. On February 14, 1994, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission held a joint worksession meeting with the Town- of Vail Design Review Board. According to the approved (PEC) meeting minutes, dated February 14, 1994, in part, it is clearly understood by the decision-makers that retail space was proposed for the first two levels of the building, as required by the Zoning Regulations. (Exhibit B) On March 14, 1994, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission approved an application for a major exterior alteration to allow for the "demolrebuild" of the Covered Bridge Building. According to information contained in the Town's legal files, in part, "The proposal calls for major design modifications to the front entrance (east elevation) of the existing commercial spaces, the creation of lower level commercial spaces which would be accessible from stairs directly on Bridge Street, the infill of the northwest section of the property, the addition of an elevator at the west end of the building, and the addition of two upper level floors to accommodate one condominium." The major .exterior alteration application was approved pursuant to the development standards prescribed for development with the Commercial Core 1 district. On April 19, 1994, the Town of Vail Community Development Department approved a building permit application to allow for the construction of the Covered Bridge Building. According to the Office Copy of the building permit plan set dated March 28, 1994, the "garden" level of the building (Sheet A2.1) is 6.08 feet lower than Bridge Street and the "street" level of the building (Sheet A2.2) is 3.76 feet above the street. 3 On May 5, 1995, the Covered Bridge Condominiums Map was approved by the Town of Vail Zoning Administrator and, in part, establishes Condominium Unit E. According to the Map, Condominium Units E & G comprise that portion of the building described on the Office Copy of the building permit set as "Lower Retail C" and "Upper Retail C". (Exhibit C) On November 20, 2006, the Town of Vail Community Department received a letter from Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, LLC, requesting that the Town of Vail provide an interpretation of the specific floor level and, therefore, the permitted and conditional uses of Condominium Units C & E, Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street, as defined by the Vail Town Code. (Exhibit D) On December 1, 2006, the Zoning Administrator provided the requested interpretation. In making a determination of the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, Covered Bridge Building, the Community Development Department relied upon the following documents presently on file with the Town of Vail: (Exhibit E) • Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code • Covered Bridge Building, Building Permit Set, dated 4/19/94 ("CBBBPS") • Town's legal file for Lots B, C and D, Block 5B, Vail Village 1St Filing On December 21, 2006, the Town of Vail Community Development Department received a complete Appeals Form filed on behalf of the appellant. (Exhibit F) V. REQUIRED ACTION To Uphold/Overturn/Modify the administrative action. Section 12-3-3B-5, Findings, details the requirements for action taken by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: "The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case. of design guidelines) 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 have or have not been met." VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning & Environmental Commission upholds the administrative action which determined that, for zoning purposes, Condominium Unit E is located on the "first floor" or "street" level of the Covered Bridge Building, located at 227 Bridge Street. In accordance with the information presented in this memorandum, and the exhibits attached hereto, staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission makes. the following findings of fact based upon the evidence and testimony presented: 4 Due to the sloping topographic conditions of Bridge Street, specifically, and the Town of Vail, generally, instances will exist where a reasonable change in elevation (3.76 feet) from the pedestrian level to the `first floor" or "street" level of the building will occur. Said conditions, however, shall not be construed to circumvent the Town's longstanding development objective of maintaining and preserving the character of the Vail commercial area and promoting a variety of retail shops at the pedestrian level. • For zoning "purposes, the "street level" of the building shall be that floor level located at elevation 8162' 6 % `; as depicted on the approved plans. • For zoning purposes, the "grade" on the east side of the Covered Bridge Building shall be 8158.74; not 8152' 8" as suggested by the appellant. • The east and south sides of the Covered Bridge Building are entirely or substantially below grade, as depicted on the approved plans. • The presences of a "garden" level of a building shall reasonably infer that some portion or portions of a building or structure will be exposed for purposes of visual exposure and ingress and egress. • According to the approved (PEC) meeting minutes, dated February 14, 1994, in part, it is clearly understood by the decision-makers that retail space was proposed for the first two levels of the building, as required by the Zoning Regulations. The definitions of "basement" or "garden" level and "first floor" or "street" level have remained unchanged and the regulation has been consistently applied by the Town of Vail to meet its development objectives for the last 32 years. To except the appellant's arguments will fundamentally alter the character of Vail Village and the development objectives of the Town. For instance, after 32 years, it would now be interpreted that existing first floor and street level retail businesses such as Russell's, Ore House, Vendetta's, Red Lion, Moose's Caboose, Vail T-Shirt Company, Axel's, Sweet Basil, Rucksack, Laughing Monkey and numerous other retail businesses could be converted to non-retail uses such as business offices and professional offices. This. change in use is clearly contrary to the adopted goals, objectives and policies of the Town of Vail. • Any other interpretation of the Town's horizontal zoning regulation is contrary fo the horizontal zoning intent of the Code and development goals and policies of the Town. To interpret the Code otherwise would result in office uses on the street level of buildings throughout the Town's crucial commercial core areas. 5 VII. EXHIBITS A. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1975 B. Approved Meeting Minutes, in part, February 14, 1994. C. Covered Bridge Condominiums Map, dated May 5, 1995. D. Letter to Warren Campbell, Community Development Department, from Carlson, Carlson &Dunkelman, LLC, dated November 20, 2006. E. Letter to Mr. Paul R. Dunkelman, Carlson, Carlson &Dunkelman, LLC, from George Ruther, Town of Vail, dated December 1, 2006. F. Appeals Form, dated December 21, 2006. 6 T~ - - r ~ ~ t Exhibit A ORDINANCE N0. 16 Series of 1975 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE SECTIONS 8.200 "PERMITTED USES", 8.300 "CONDITIONAL USES", 8.400 "ACCESSORY USES", AND 8.510 "PARKING AND LOADI~ir,", RELATING TO COMMERCIAL CORE 1 DISTRICT, BY THE ENACTMENT OF NEW SECTIONS 8.200 -"PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECI- FIC", 8.300 "CONDITIONAL USES -GENERAL", 8.400 "ACCESSORY USES - GENERAL", AND 8.510 "PARKING AND LOADING", SPECIFYING THAT PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL, AND ACCESSORY USES AND PARKING IN COMMERCIAL CORE 1 DISTRICT SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO AND DETER- MINED BY SPECIFIED FLOOR LEVELS WHEREAS, it has been and continues to be the intent of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, to maintain and preserve the nature and character of the Vail commercial area, which is designated as zoning district Commercial Core 1 District, with a mixture of residential and commercial uses; WHEREAS, it has been and continues to be the intent of the Town Council to promote and protect said area as a pedestrian access area and to discourage vehicular use therein; and WHEREAS, because of changing conditions, the Town Coun- cil considers that the municipal government must protect the char- acter of said area and that this ordinance is necessary to continue the balance between the many commercial and residential uses per- mitted in the Commercial Core 1 District, to prevent entire build- ings therein from becoming commercial space at the expense of dwelling and accommodation units, and to promote a variety of retail shops at the pedestrian level; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section l.' Title. This ordinance shall be known as the "Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance by Imposing Horizontal Zoning in CC1" Town er - I~~ t ~ i •^ ~ Ord. 16, 1975 Page 2 Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled; Planning Commission Report. The amendment procedures prescribed in Section 21.500 of the Zoning Ordinance have been fulfilled, with the report of the Planning Commission recommending the enactment of this ordi- nance. Section 3. Amendments to Zoning Ordinance. Sections 8.200, 8.300, 8.400, and 8.510 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, are hereby amended to read as follows: A. Section 8.200. Permitted and Conditional Uses - Specific. A. Permitted and conditional uses - basement or garden level within a structure: 1. The "basement" or "garden level" shall be defined as that floor of a build- ing that is entirely or substantially below grade. 2. The following uses shall be per- mitted in basement or garden levels within a structure: a. Retail shops and establishments, including the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores To C erk . ! ~1 ~. J 1` ~ ' Ord. 16, 1975 .Page 3 Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores and pharmacies Florists Gift stores Hobby stores Jewelry stores Health food stores Leather goods stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Stationery stores Sporting goods stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goods stores b. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Small appliance repair shops Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies c. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to prepara- tion of products specifically for sale on the premises Cocktail lounges and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants Town er i - (~ Ord. 16, 1975 Page 4 d. Professional offices, business offices, and studios e. Banks and financial institutions f. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in subparagraphs (a) through (e) above, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21.200 of this ordinance, so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic g. Lodges 3. The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance. a. Meeting rooms b. Household appliance stores c. Liquor stores d. Luggage stores e. Radio and TV stores and repair shops f. Multiple-family housing g. Theatres B. Permited and conditional uses - first floor or street level within a structure: 1. The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level. 2. The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level floor within a structure: a. Retail stores and establishments, including the following: _ r,_ _.. _ ~ -. t ~ Oxd. 16, 1975 Page 5 Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores and pharmacies Florists Gift shops Hobby stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goods stores b. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation of products sped - fically for sale on the premises Cocktail lounges and bars Tow lerk ~ ~ it ' ^ ~ l Ord. 16, 1975 Page 6 Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants c. Lodges d. Additional uses determined to be similar. to permitted uses described in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above, in accor- dance with the provisions of Section 21.200 of this ordinance, so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic. 3. The following uses shall be permitted on first floor or street level floor within a struc- ture, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Arti- cle 18 of this ordinance. a. Liquor stores b. Professional offices, business offices, and studios c. Banks and financial institutions d. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and office services Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies Small appliance repair stores e. Multiple-family residential dwellings f. Household appliance stores g. .Luggage stores h. Radio and TV stores and repair shops i. Theatres Tow , lerk .~ i t Ord. 16, 1975 Page 7 C. Permitted and conditonal uses - second floor above grade within a structure: 1. The following uses shall be permitted on the second floor above grade within a structure; provided, however, that a Condi- tional Use Permit will be required in accor- dance with Article 18 of this ordinance for any use which eliminates any existing dwelling or accommodation unit or any portion thereof. a. Multiple-family residential dwelling b. Lodges c. Professional offices, business offices, and studios d. Banks and financial institutions e. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and office services Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies f. Retail stores and establishments, including the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores To erk V ~~ _.. Ord. 16, 1975 Page 8 Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores and pharmacies Florists Gift stores Hobby stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Photographic studios Sporting goods stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goods stores g. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation of products speci- fically for sale on the premises Cocktail lounges and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants 2. The following uses shall be permitted on second floors above grade, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance: a. Meeting rooms b. Liquor stores c. Household appliance stores Town, er Ord. 16, 1975 Page 9 d. Radio and TV sales and repair shops e. Luggage stores f. Theatres D. Permitted and conditional uses -any floor above the second floor above grade within a structure: 1_ The following uses shall be permitted on any floor above the second floor above grade: a. Multiple-family residential dwellings b. Lodges 2. The following uses shall be permitted on. any floor above the second floor above grade, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance: a. Retail stores and establishments, including the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted. to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores. and photographic studios Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores Florists Gift shops Hobby stores Household appliance stores Jewelry stores 1 Town Jerk i ,~~~ ^ 4 ~- ~ Ord. 16. 1975 Page 10 Leather goods stores Luggage stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Photographic studios Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goods stores Liquor stores Radio and TV stores and repair shops Sporting goods stores b. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation of products speci- fically for sale on the premises Cocktail lounges and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants c. Professional offices, business offices, and studios d. Banks and financial institutions e. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and offices services Small appliance repair shops Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies own er ~ ~ - Ord. 16, 1975 Page 11 f. Theatres g. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in subparagraphs (a) through (e) above, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21.200 of this ordinance, so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic B. Section 8.300.. Conditional Uses -General. The following uses shall be permitted, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 8 of this ordinance: a. Ski 1 i ft s and tows b. Public utility and public service ' ^~ uses c. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities d. Public park and recreational facil- ities C. Section 8.400. Accessory Uses -General. The following accessory uses shall be permitted: a. Swimming pools, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily inciden- tal to permitted residential or lodge uses b. Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permitted eating and drink- ing establishments c. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.300 of this ordi- nance d. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory t o permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. n, Tows ~erk I~ f Ord. 16, 1975 Page 12 D. Section 8.510. Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be pro- vided in accordance with Article 14 of this ordi- nance. A t least one-half of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. Parking within buildings shall be restricted to the basement. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. Section 4. Development Factors Pertaining to Conditional Use Permits. In considering in accordance with Article 18 of the Zoning Ordinance an application for a Conditional'Use Permit within Commercial Core 1 District, the following development factors shall be applicable: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core 1 District. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commer- cial Core 1 District. C. Reduction of nonessential off- street parking. D. Control of delivery, pick-up, and service vehicles. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. F. Continuance of the various commercial, resi- dential, and public uses in Commercial Core 1 District so as t o maintain the existing character of said area. G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core 1 District so as to maintain the existing character of said area. Town lerk ---, 1 . " ~ .- Ord. 16, 1975 Page 13 H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on .the environment of Commercial Core 1 District. Section 5. Continuing Enforcement of Amended Sections as to Prior Acts. The amendments of the aforesaid sections of the Zoning Ordinance shall not bar the enforcement of said sections as to an act or acts heretofore committed or the prosecution and punish- ment of an act or acts heretofore committed or omitted in viola- tion of said sections; said sections amended by this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect in the form preceding this ordinance for the purposes of sustaining any and all actions to enforce the same, suits, proceedings, prosecutions instituted, and the penalties imposed therefor which arose prior to the effec- tive date of this ordinance. Section 6. Repeal of Any Conflicting Section. Any sections or parts of sections of the Zoning Ordinance or other ordinances of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in conflict with this ordinance or inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed, pro- vided, however, that the repeal of any section or parts of sec- tions of said ordinances shall not revive any other section of said ordinances heretofore repealed or superseded. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five days after publi- cation following the final passage hereof. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE I N FULL, this 2nd day of September, 1975, and a public hearing on this ordinance shall be_ held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the Town erk i ,_ ... 1 Ord. 16, 1975 Page 14 16th day of September, 1975, at 7:30 P.M., in the Municipal Build- ing of the Town. ATTEST Town C __ Ord. 16, 1975 Page 15 INTRODUCED, READ ON SECOND READING, APPROVED, ENACTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE I N FULL, th i s 1 6th day of September, 1975. ATTEST i~ Town C1 k Exhibit B PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 14, 1994 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Greg Amsden Bill Anderson Jeff Bowen Diana Donovan Kathy Langewalter Allison Lassoe Dalton Williams Kristan Pritz Tom Moorhead Mike Mollica Andy Knudtsen Jim Curnutte Randy Stouder Russ Forrest A request for a conditional use to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit to be located at 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing. Applicant: Chris Kempf Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the requested conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit with the two conditions stated in the staff memo. Diana Donovan stated that she would like the Design Review Board (DRB) to carefully review the proposed architecture for the project since it is somewhat unusual and different from what is present in the neighborhood. Dalton Williams agreed with Diana's comment. Dalton Williams made a motion to approve this request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit per the staff memo and the two conditions contained on Page 6 of the staff memo with a directive to the DRB to carefully review the architecture of this project to ensure that it is harmonious with the character of the Town of Vail. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion. A 7-0 vote approved this request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit. 2. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District; Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District; and Chapter 18.36, Public Use District of the Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jim Curnutte Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 3. A request for a joint worksession with the. PEC and DRB for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that this proposed redevelopment involves no variances at this time. He summarized Section IX, Discussion, of the staff memo. Ned Gwathmey, the architect for this project, stated that they have been "wrestling with this site" since 1990. He said that the applicant has spent a great deal of time studying the feasibility. of this project. Bill Anderson stated that the view corridor line should be adjusted to accommodate a sloped roof for the Covered Bridge Building. He also supported moving the building 5 feet to the west property line. Saundra Spaeh, architect representing Pepi Gramshammer, stated that Pepi was concerned with the fifth floor. Greg Amsden stated that he was concerned with the proposed staging area in the pocket park. Mike Mollica explained the staging plan to the PEC. Ned Gwathmey stated that they had approached Pepi about doing the Covered Bridge Building construction at the same time as Pepi's building is under construction. Saundra Spaeh stated that Pepi is adamant about not using the area behind his building as the staging area for this project. Greg Amsden inquired whether moving the building height interpretation line was an option. Mike Mollica stated that staff was open to amending the line and discussed the staff's reasons. Peter Dan, of East West Partners, stated that the applicants were open to shifting the fourth and fifth floors to the. west. Allison Lassoe inquired whether the building height interpretation line could be moved horizontally. Ned Gwathmey stated that such a change to the project would delay construction for at least one year. Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 6 Dalton Williams asked the applicant that if the project was approved, could they be flexible on which roof form they used, depending. on whether an encroachment into View Corridor #1 is approved. Ross Bowker stated that this would be okay with them. Bob Borne, DRB representative, asked whether the building would be out of the view corridor if the building was shifted back 5 feet to the west. Mike Mollica stated that the building would still be located in the view corridor. Jeff Winston, the Town's design consultant, stated that he felt moving the building back 5 feet would help this project. He questioned whether the whole building would have to be moved back. Ned Gwathmey stated that they could not do this and still satisfy the ADA requirements for disabled access. Jeff Winston stated that a small portion of flat roof may be acceptable but that it must not appear to be flat. He said that another concern that. he had was that the building did not appear to be one piece of architecture and he suggested that the applicant tie the roofs together in some way so-that the different sections of the building do not look so segmented. He stated that the Town did not intend for the line of View Corridor #1 to effect this site in the way that it has. He would like to see the upper portion of the building be reworked in order to avoid the flat roof as well as tie it to the rest of the building. He said that the proposed design of the building resembles the Gateway Building and that the architectural design needed to relate better to the Village core. Jeff suggested a more unified approach to the building. He added that he also supported the applicant pursuing an encroachment into View Corridor #1. Dalton. Williams supported changing the building height interpretation line, or eliminating it entirely. Mike Mollica stated that the PEC and staff have some flexibility to modify the line. He stated that the 60%-40% for roofs was a hard and fast standard that had to be followed. A variance would be required if the roof departed from this standard. Sally Brainerd, DRB representative, stated that her concerns are mainly with the storefront. She is concerned with the split-level retail. She stated that the building design is not in keeping with Vail's guidelines. She stated that she did not feel the separateness of the upper levels was ideal. She agreed with Datton's comments about the building height. Bob Borne agreed with Dalton's comments. He added that he was concerned about the construction activity occurring during the summer. Planning and Environmental Commission February 14,1994 7 Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with the previous comments concerning the roof height line. He said that he would like to see the building go back to the west at least 5 feet. Fie added that the staging for this site would be difficult. He added that he understood Ned's concerns about proceeding through the variance process. Bill said he would be willing to approve the project if Ned brought the roof issue back to the PEC for a view corridor encroachment assuming the top portions of the building were shifted to the west. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see the building height interpretation line moved. She said the building needs to be moved back and that this will help widen Bridge Street in this area. She felt the criteria for view corridor encroachment could be met but not if the view corridor line became the height limit. She stated that an alternate location would need to be determined for trash removal and that it should not be via Bridge Street. Greg Amsden stated that he did not want to see the building height interpretation line set at this stage of the game. He was in favor of shifting the building back. He added that he would like to see the staging area located to the west of the Covered Bridge Building. Jeff Bowen stated that the view corridor has been considered from the Transportation Center and that the view from upper Bridge Street is also affected. He said that he would like to see a different roof form. He added that he would like to see the building dropped down from the north so that the building will appear less massive. Allison Lassoe said she would like to see the building pulled back 5 feet and that this would help the building appear less massive. She stated that she felt that Dalton's previous suggestion could help the roofs for this project. Dalton Williams inquired whether there was a way to internalize the trash removal on the Bridge Street. He said that he likes the way the front of the building looks pushed back but that he is concerned what that would do to the Bridge Street shopping experience. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she agreed with the other Board members comments. She added that more integration of the roof forms is needed. She is concerned about how the roof form will look. She said. that shifting the building back 5 feet is positive. She stated that trash removal will be difficult because this site is "land locked". She added that the staging for this project will be difficult and she did not feel that it would be acceptable to lose a mature tree due to construction staging. She said that she felt that there was a way to do this project without a height variance. She stated that the diagonal line could be stepped. Ned Gwathmey stated that he did not want to advise his clients to go forward with this variance. He said that it would be helpful for them to have an interpretation of the ordinances from the PEC. He said that this site is very tight. Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 8 Dalton Williams suggested that they eliminate the diagonal line and go off of Bridge Street with the 60%-40% and a view corridor encroachment. All the members of the PEC agreed that this was acceptable. Ned stated that this would not necessarily help them get this project going. Kristan Pritz stated that staff had sat down with the architects for this project previously and it was deemed by the Town Attorney that a modification to the 60%-40% rule is not possible without a variance. Peter Dan stated that he would like to shift the building back and go off of Bridge Street to determine heights. He added that they would like to connect the roofs on the fourth and fifth floors together. Bob Borne summarized that the applicant wants to get this project going and that the main issue seems to be the roof and that the PEC seemed to be generally in favor of the design of the building and that some caveat be made regarding the roof. Jeff Bowen stated that the Covered Bridge Building is the entrance to Bridge Street and the Village and that he would like to see the building mass lessened, the building shifted back, and the roof element changed. Jeff Winston stated that the building design was a result of the diagonal line and that if the line were to be eliminated, then the roof forms could be integrated. Kathy Langenwalter inquired about .the transition of siding to stucco. Dalton Williams made a motion that the PEC has reviewed the prior PEC determination regarding the building height interpretations and that after careful review, and that since View Corridor No. 1 determines the Covered Bridge. Building maximum height, the building is restrained by the view corridor. Due to this, the height calculation can be taken from Bridge Street with the understanding that the mass will be pushed to the west and that the building be stepped back. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Kathy Langenwalter restated Dalton Williams motion. A 7-0 vote approved the height determination from Bridge Street as stated above. Kathy Langenwalter stated that there were still issues and details that had not been discussed at this worksession which would need to be discussed in two weeks. Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 9 t ... COVERED BRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS ~~~ e. ~w9 ~~ ~~ s ~, @Y: ei i +d iiur ~ ~ em c - 3 an: m9s SECTION B SECTION C per: a~av 4E vlMwe uert c ~ n~u LL`!: T6I.1 ~JI ~~ ^ b UNt e , OfR ~ IM 1 an: aids ~ un. a s nn.: naA ~. )~ ww. ~6, sa a u ronew - ur, e~na uwi n ears ~ ics d GWrt ALL% eA ).i ~nrr; coca a ~- ' ~ e +wea Sur, war A ~ rur: nna SECTION A ""` ~, a„:, _~ cwn 9 mm r 9 per, aorc 6WAe 9ua Wr,:n,~ :<~ SECTION D wrt o °d uxr L ~ imx o nn. nna cc ~-5 ao uw c ~ aw c uuwi aru nev taAl< azV: eH1) SCALE: 1" = 10' 61199 HIGHWAY 6 k Z4, EA0.F-VAIL r.o. eoe 19ao - SHEET 4 OF 4 EowA9os, co. aisaa ~ ~ JOB No. 565.7 (3GS 999-1406 ~~,. Sur: elna ~~ ~~ nn. nna ~` ua o y ulw a 9 e um ~ Luv: nns um e e ruv: anu aHr c e ... ~ . COVERED BRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS 11198 NICNXAY 6 k 24. P.O. BO% 1230 EoxpROS, m. e+632 303 949-1106 + I.C.F. STAIRS LM7 A A 13.7-- B I7.1 n L.C.E. UNII A SiA{gS 11.8 -~ 12.1 4 4.9 L.CB. UN[i ~A PATIO~DCCK AREA ItA--------~1 !° - UA - UNIT A S11IRS UNI7 A I I ~ 11,3 ~ f ,7- B.0 I ~Bb-~' m I N IA 102 ~__ __. 23.1 0.5 25 I 6a iu 1.5 dl 9A EL AIOR I I 'A a1 ~ !4 4r2 N~6D ro 10.1 12.4 I I L' \I B.E . lo.l 11.8 I ~ ~ ~ /~+ I 12.] / Ib I ~ 1 ~TIAEPLpCC~ / . -1731 12.4 x124 I I I fi,v~ I I` I22 ~~ 16 1 I u ~ I-to \ ~~ "n 9.1 -4-I lo.i ~ I 124 10l\i '. ffl.0 __ ~__\ !~\ D1 n _____ z _,~~ ~,, Sd - ~ 4GE DECK UNI1 A 9.7 N 4 6.5 e.o B.o 0.7 27R LEVEL FOUR '' ' B' .. - _ GSFKp IINE INOIGTE$ A CfllINO BREAR - lMOL ! DIMENBIDN INgG1ES "J NEpM OE CElUNO ABP/F 0.00R • -ASIERISN iN01CAlE3 ACCEBS~DCOR IOCATgN A i A I]A ILE. STAIRS UNIT A ~__ Y 0.7 I86 0.I 3z I. 3a ~ 4J za 35 m µ ~nl(yi I 1 I/ I I ].° i°~,__,b I ~1r 3b I ---, ~sslsy~®~~" I 1 L-L- LLE. DC[K i OS 6I9 u2tlT A w ~ I I I I 0.7 I I 07 118 I I I III I I UNIT A I STAIRt I UN17 p I I N I . -rt I I __L____u...____ i I DTf I I I ® I a I I I I -I L-O.B _3.iJ I- IF~ -- T3--1.6 ,'ll 7.9 D.1 LCR. DECK Iplli A E I _ LEVEL FIVE ~P B A 1 SHEET 7 OP A JOB No. 565.1 . , ~ COVERED BRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS A B ~~ A ~ B 1 11.0 IQ.9 l7A SDA o,IJ oa~ - 17A III 1 CE. NECPA111 AL SHAFT 7A " cE. stalRs - - - - es Loa la,o - - cE, m cE, stases ~ 9.,- ~ NECNANICAL m ROON ~ e 62 ~ 'a d d ~ -oa I7A ~ ~ I L1 ILA RaJ f19 pa_ ~ CE. HALl4aY DA ~ ~ at ~ ® I 7E CE HALL4AY ' ' S.9 I /09 Bb CE. ~t + ~ O n G EN7AY HALL 12 I I I -a7 ~ 117 ~ ~ IB t6/ RaJ 3S - ~ 6b - N~ R O I51 E3 L3 B.0 CE ~ ~ n ' E ~ C.E. 9` ELEVATOR I-2b- a oa- e ' iROp1 • EO o~ENf . d -0.e CE. &B ELEVATOR CE. - ^ND ELEVATOR q B.9 Fab a FRa 4,4 11.9 ^• 6 3,6 12b I 19 I I I ow - n I 16 9a - ^~ I 7.5 ~ Fa 1, x1 I~19.9 ~ 63-.I I^. G2 ~u B.0 1g _ ~u ILiCJI ~ ~_29- l2 L 2I1 - r+(7 Fo7 105 ILy -l.D 1 ~-I B B D - UNIT C ~ n sraws UNIT • F ro ® -O.i 9a- - 17.6 -lA - _ - - - 9.1 0.7- ^. ~-1.1 8A I 2A-I I I--+1a7 lRJT ]J Db Ls - _ Ia~ IA 1 0 G ~ UNITE ~~ - 0.7 ISI N ~ ~ ~ 92F-~,,I/ ~ 119 ~i 8.D ~ 1 "^ ~ -_ __ .7 ae0 -~ ~ ~ -_ q 109 I. .N G ~0 IL6 ob IEJ /-O.B I e ~ 92 UNIT C ' ' t3,0 I D.0' I 20.5 - ~-I.A ~_ ` P ~ d _ --I _ 1 --- 139 I 7A .0.7-e-- 7.6-- ~ -- ^0.T -•~,t 7b 9A GI 9a Ls . L,C,E~ ENTRY " ~°4 I .13.7 13A FoT D.BS6 UNITS D,E,F,G Ds ~' ~' I 1 0.7~ I aaJ T P q B H - - - - - DASXED LINE 1NOICATCS A CEILMS BREAK LEVEL ONE ~ - srl2a ~ Bu¢nsmn Ir~lutES ~__ ~EVE~._.TWQ NEIOXi OF C[ILDIG ABOVE FLOOR 1 • B' t - ASTERISK BIBICATES ACCESS\DOOR LOCPTI011 ~ ~ 5 A 411BB H10HWAY 6 ! 24, EAGLE-YA0. ~ - SHEET 2 BF 4 P.0. BO% 1230 ' JOB No. 565.1 EOwAR05, CO. 81852 ' 707 B4B-1108 • A , Exhibit I COVERED BRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS LOT c, LOT d, AND THE SOUTH 4 FEET OF LOT b, BLOCK 5-B, VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING TOWN OF VAl'L, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO UNIT C, D, E, F,G to o iD 10 So Feet SCALE: i" = 10' NOTES. (1) Dote df Surveys Decenber, 1994 (2) Street Address 227 Bridge Sheet (3) Bosls of Hearin gs-is o Ilne cannecting the existing nonunents narking the NV 1/16 corner oP Section 8, TSS. RBOV of the Sixth P.N. and the C4 1/16 corner of sold Section 8 being S00. 09'E. (~ ~ (ndlCates set no. 4 rtbnr and alunlnun cap L.S. 26598 - (5) Elevations shorn hereon are based on Tawn of Yall view paint no. 6 backslght point, efevotlon = 8160,9', on fl le wl th the Town of Vnl 1. (6) As shown hereon, 'C.E.' Indicates Connan Eleneni, ns the sane ore def lned in the Declaration. f77 As shown hereon, 'L.L.E.' Indicates Llnl led Conran Elenent, as the sane are def lned in the Declaratlan. (8> Ensenents shown ore per Land Tlt le Guarantee Conpany, title pollcY no. Y23477 date4 Aprl! 2l, 1994. (9) The condonln tun units Ilstea below are subJect to certo In deve topnent rl ghts, as Indlcatedi pEVELOPFENT RIGHTS U~ DEVELOPNENI R[GHTS v right to conptete Inprovenents as Inds sated on this cocoon In tun w r ght to subdly lde un It w rl ~t to create Ilnlted cannon elenmis elth In the un It a right to nalnta In sales office and flue signs odvertlsing the condon lniun protect, subJect to the Ilnl <ntions stated In the Dec larotl on For Covered Br edge Condon In ions e Ight to use eosebents through the cannon elenmts For the purpose of nnk inp inprarenentsto the protect, subJect to the Ilnl tat Ions stated m the Dec laratl on For Covered Br edge Condon lnlwl5 k right bmoimmn marropemem ollice A w right to conptete Inprovenents az Indicated on this rondonln tun nap w rl pht to subdivide un It w rl ght to create tlnesMre units ar sl nl Iw Interval omership units w right to na mtam one sign odvertl S lRp the COdOn In tun prof e[t, suhtect to the Ilnl tat Ions stated In the Declarptl on for Covered Bridge Condanlnluns w rl pht to uss easenmts through the cocoon elenents For the propose of nnkl np irgrovenents to the protect, subJect to the tlni tat Ions statetl m the Dec loran on for Covered Bridge Condon In ions Notes The exeru se of these rl phts Is subJect to the :on mB repo loll oni and all other nppll cab le requvenmts Inposee by the loco of Val I. /~ `\`I CENIFRtINE OF / / BDpK &5~1.FVAOE 111 lv TS' SpURE / BLOCK 5B BOd(~8 0~ \WNK VW Li / PARE 2e1 /` S ~ lot b / /\ao ~ In 63e' / \,y / ry A° ~ 91 F /~\ lot a ~ ~•~8sss // 'o`'~C 7D.D ~ !e `~j4\ GWfIIEVER / /2 /'i~ / ~ \'~~ / BVIIDING WALL FANS ON PROP~E / / / O LOT c ~e `~ / / ' Q \ .r 3RD fL00k OVAM% / h~ / \\`\ COVERED BRIDGE d ~ j ~ `~ CONDOMINIUMS e \a~ \~ '~ PEER ' \ \ 0.1013 ACRES / PROPERLY uNE6 cC E(~~ / ~~ \\\ e ^ ~ 51%1R5~ LOT d \ ~ \ \ ABANDOU ~ ,C.E~ DECN / \~ UMf P-I ~~~PAVEIta \\ \\ / / ` , P / UNP \ \ ~ / / ,, '~ S s e 3r HWOI~ PED ~y5TAN1S W ' 3 7g, /, ~ lot e 9658 /N ~Q~ /~ rr__ NOTICE C.E ~ /. V/ AccoNinq to Colorado low you cook commence oily la9ol acdon boaad /°A Pon any Eafect in Min survey wMln three yea otter you ffrat +-oa PVMFR (~ dixovar ouch delact. In no event, may my ochon hosed upon airy defect in thin survey be wmmencad more than ten yearn from Iha ~ Q dote of Us cadifka8on shown hereon. - / 1 NW I/i6 COfl. SECT. 6~C FOU PA! B COP ' 47199 I6GNWAY 6 r 24, EACLE-VAIL Ls. 18827 ~ N D4'DT14' W _ 516.65' P.0. BOK 1170 EOWARDB, Co. 87831 ~ PAIPoOK FlLLkIiAZ 1/3/95 nasuAa_voe _ CERTIFICATE DF DEDICATION AND OVNERSHIP Know all Wen by 4hese presents that Lavered Br edge Building, Ltd., a Colorado Ilnlted partnersh lp, geing owner In fee single. of all that real property sltupted In the Town of Voll, Engle County, Colorado, described as Followv Lot [ and Lot d ontl the southwesterly four feet. of Lot b, Block 5-B, Vail Vi linge, First Flllnp, according to the nap thereof rerorded In the office of the Engle County, Colorndo, Clerk ontl Recorder, contain lag 0.1073 acres, Wore or less. does hereby sden It this ' Lavered Bridge Contlonln runs ' to the provisions of the Contlonln tun Ded arntion for Covered Britlge Condonlniuns recorded In BoAr _____ at Poge _____ Executed this _Y~ dny of __11~M _________________ A.D., 199,x, OVNERS~ Covered Br edge But lding, Ltd„ a Colorado llnlted pnrtn ershlp . IS Hlph lands Lane Beaver Creek, CD 81620 Bye East Vest grin r , Inc. A Colarnd Cor lion, Asper r BY'___ y _ _ ~l_____ Ha y N rnnpt n III //JJ ~~ // oz president ' STATE OF_C~C4/(_Q___7 U~ [['',, /~ )ss. Tfie foreg.Jo~/~JJJ,, Instrunent wnz askpo ledpetl hefore ne tnls dny of _f ~ ___ _, A.D„ 1991_ by Harry H. Franpton [Il as preslden of ast Vest Partners,lnc., o Colorado torporntlon, as the nonnglnp penernl partner of Covered Bridge 8ulld lag, Lkd., a Colorado llnlted partnership My n~ explres~__~~/_Q Luny,, o and senl~ ~ Qi"YAgT'~ _V_V!1!---------- r0 Notary Publ lc ~J / ~r~ .. ~':o Addressi __,~ lJ~k-~~_°__'~-1.7~~-//- '., `X4,QC ___ta-6,CvG~~AAt6'Z'~?-a~~. PUB o d'jq,.,..,..•~~ CER -EDICATIDN FOR MORTGAGE HOLDER OR DEED DF TRUST HOLDER Know all Wen by these presents that FlrstBonk aF Voll, being the 4eneflUOry of n deed of trust on Shat real property sltupted m the Town of Yal 1, Eagle County, Co loratlo, tlescn bed as follows lot c nntl Lot d and the southwesterly lour feet of Lot b, Block 5-B, 4nil Yl llaBe, first flung, according to the nap thereof recorded In the offs ce of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, wnta m mg D.1073 acres, Wore or less. hereby can seats to the provisions of this ' Covered Bridge Condonml~ns ' and 4he Conddnmlun Declaration for Covered Bridge Contlonln runs recorded In Book,,yy_____ at Page _____, Cxecuted this _~~ day aF _1!~~1__________________ A.D., 199. NWtTGAGEE~ flrstBank of Ynll ' 17 Vall Rond Yall, CD ~J657 9x BY'_______ •~ ___ T n'Fia'" STATE OF'_~D_l?>'K~Q____> CC r )ss. COUNTY OF _ 5,__ 1C ) u ______ 1 ~ITiknhe fore np Instrun((e~~nt was ocknov leq~~gleAdtp~ofRre a Nis 2___ YY_k~(~tll. _t'~__7~p _19o1pp~Fbi rsiBanh o4 VaIQ~ ____ as B Ion exPlresl_Q=a~Q._1~_ _~ etinas6• y nntl and seal. Oi 1gIA,, .,,r, Noiory Public (, HBCAfA~.C ptldress~ 9l''.., ''pet FOf COQ ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE I do hereby serf lFy that all strvctural corponmis of all but ld logs canto In lag or corprlslnp any units created by the Bas lnrnt ion Por Covaretl Bridge Condonmluns ontl by this condonln tun pop an sWstmntlally cony leted. InvA mess thereof 1 have set ny hand And seal this _~__ day of _,_LL _ _ _____________ n~d. 1995. ip ~ vl Eduard M. GrotMey, Jr., '.LA. TITLE CERTIFICATE Land Tlt le Guarantee Lonpany does hereby certify that the title to all lands shorn upon this final plot Fos. been exan lned nntl Is vest S~Ced_~itt&E__84(/4sl~Sllr.Y~S~,A..~4r±Ch4Plwfd+±~._ ___ _~' .SF~1 ____________________________________________ ontl flint title to such lands Is Free ontl clear of nil Ilene ontl cunbronces, except ns folio si v ~gUaktfl~BEc1TS 4.t!_9 _LN_9xgp1S_ 9_T aG'f F ~ IER$_4'iD71'_'(~_'E~'~'~L~LN_~K~~~G+tC .26S t• vYlEdE,A~JS ~`3_ u~kle3~.,43 318 -r~ dd.tetya.,Vz _(1a~:a_a•~~~N k r~C'ios A~ul6eb21£ALL@F__ fd~14! 6~,$j~&846. Dated this _(yLk dny of __q(~,y~_ _ A,D., 199 . ' D Land Title Guarantee Conpnny 108 S. Frantnge Raad Vest 4a11, 81657 ~y BY' ________ // - (SlgnatureY ssna/rv+n~o9uw.wasv TTtEaFF !.!'~ _ J___._._._ (Print Wane and tl tie) SURVEYOR'S CERTFICATE I do hereby certify Shat I nn a ProFessiona! Land Surveyor replstered under the taws of 4he State of Colorndo, 4hot this condon colon wpp Is true, correct and conptete as lord out, platted, tled lcated and shown hereon, that such candoni pion nap was nude fran on accurate survey of sold property by ne nntl under ny supervision and correctly shows the horizontal and vertical lorotlon nntl dlnen sl one of the bui ldinp contain inp the condonln tun unltE, the Contlon lnlun units, pnrttls, nntl edalnents of sold condonlniun nap, nntl the parcel Is stoked upon the Around In conpllnnce with apptlcable repulatlons govern lag the subdlvlsiod of land. I further certify that this conddggpl,R, un nap contains nil Infornatl on required Colo. Rev. Slat. 3&+33.1Bt~9. e° d Fad;~r 'v,, In witness thereoi I have set ny hnnd,<fi~'{yeWk + ~H day of _____llef___________, A, D., 1996,8 yq raihY B .rf ;~ 2659@'I; _____ _w ~ _ _ ____________ Stan H b 6~ 3 Colorado`P,4 L dN~~9~ A,+rm"r ZONING AOM INISTRATOR CERTIFICATE This tontloninlun nap Is hereby approved b the-Tarn of Vnll Zon 9q~Adninlstrator this .5_ _dny of _ ________, DFT ~. _ _ _____ _ wn Cler ~ Zoning Adnlnlstrator n of a Co orodo lawn of Vall, Co lorodo roIORP~ 1 CERTIFICATE OF TAXES P0.1D (, the undersl Aped, tlo hereby certify that the entire onount of tuxes due and pnya6le as of __________________________, upon all parcels of real estate described on this rondomnlun nap are paid In full Dated thla _____ day of ________________________, A.-., 199__, Treasurer of Eagle County, Colorndo CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE This condon In tun nap rope filed for retard In She office of the Clerk and Recordrr on thls_____ day of ___________ ________, A.D., 199__, nt ____ o'clock __ M, Recorded under Receptlan No. ________ In Book _____ at Pope _____, Condonln:un Declaratl on recorded to BoaN _____ at Pnge _____. CIerN nntl Recorder Eagle County, Co lorodo BY' ______________________________ Deputy SHEET Y OF 4 JOB: 565.1 i Exhibit D Carlson,Carlson c~ Dunkelman, L.L.C. .Attorneys at Law Drake Landing + 975 N. Ten Mile Drive + P.O: Box 1829 Frisco, Colorado 80443 November 20, 2006 Paralegals Maria E. Ruiz Carla M. Hayden Patricia J. Craig COPY Warren Campbell Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Unit E, Covered Bridge Building 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO Dear Mr. Campbell: We would request that the Town of Vail provide an interpretation of the specific. floor level and, therefore, the permitted and conditional. uses of Condominium Unit E, Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street as defined by the Vail Town Code. In providing this .interpretation, we believe that it is also necessary to provide an interpretation of the specific floor level of Condominium Unit C, Covered Bridge Building. It is clear from the language of the Vail Town Code that Unit E must be considered a second floor unit and Unit C must be considered a first floor unit. The relevant definitions. in this determination are the terms "basement or garden level," "first floor" and "second floor," as follows: 1. A "basement or garden level" is defined "as that floor of a building. that is entirely or substantially below grade." Of note is that the term "street level" is not part of the definition. 2. A "first floor or street level" is defined "as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level." 3. The relevant language for usage of "second floor" is "above grade within a structure." Again the term "street level" is not used. Ronald W. Carlson Judith James Carlson Paul R. Dunkelman Christopher D. Tomchuck (970) 668-1678 + FAQ (970) 668-5121 + E-mail: carlson2Qcolorado.net + Vail Ualley + (970) 845-7090 In construing a statutory code, it is black letter law that strict construction must be given to statutory language. You must first look at the "plain language of the statute." If the language is clear, it must be interpreted as written. The architectural design for Unit E show that. the level is a minimum four feet above street level and approximately fifteen feet above grade. A walk by of the Unit confirms this. Unit E is neither. at street level, nor at grade as is required for. a determination that this is a "first floor level." This requires a finding that this unit is above both street level and grade and therefore a "second floor" unit. This position is strengthened by the fact that Unit C must be considered a "first floor level." In the Code, there is a difference between street level and grade. While Unit C may be below street level, it is not below grade. It is in fact at grade. As this Unit is at grade, it cannot be considered a "basement cr garden level. Again; the definition of basement or garden level is limited to "substantially below. grade." -The Unit must. be considered a "first floor" unit which is at grade. Any other interpretation will be contrary to the Code and legally unsupportable, It would also contrary to the goals and policies of the community. It would create a situation were retail space would be above street level and, therefore, unattractive to potential users. The end result would be a perennially vacant unit. I would. appreciate it if you would coordinate a time with me to walk the unit in order to provide the appropriate usage interpretation. Sincerely, ~ ~ g ~~~~~ Paul R. DunkelmaY cc: Covered Bridge, Inc.. TOWN OF YAIL ; Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479 2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www. vailgov. com December 1, 2006 Mr. Paul R. Dunkelman Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, L.L.C. P.O. Box 1829 Frisco, Colorado 80443 RE: Covered Bridge Building Street Level Determination 227 Bridge Street Vail, Colorado Dear Mr. Dunkelman, The Town of Vail Community Development Department is in receipt of your letter dated November 20, 2006, regarding the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, respectively. In making a determination of the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, the Community Development Deparhnent relied upon the following documents presently on file with the Town of Vail: • Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code • Covered Bridge Building, Building Permit Set, dated 4/19/94 ("CBBBPS") • Town's legal file for Lots B, C and D, Block SB, Vail Village 1st Filing Upon review of the aforementioned documents, the Community Development Department has determined that, for zoning purposes, .Unit C is to be considered the "basement or garden" level of the building. In contrast, Unit. E .shall be considered the "floor or street level" of the building. While it is mutually understood that Unit E is a minimum of four feet above the level of the street, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission and Vail Town Council have consistently held, when interpreting the applicable sections of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, that such a change in elevation shall not constitute an "above street level" condition. Any other interpretation is ~~a 1tECYCLED PAPER t contrary to the horizontal zoning intent of the Code and development goals and .policies of the Town. To interpret the Code otherwise would result in office uses on the street level of buildings throughout the Town's crucial commercial core areas. Therefore, Sections 12-7B-2 and 12-7B-3 of the Vail Town Code shall apply to Units C and E of the Covered Bridge Building, respectively. As you are likely aware, Section 12-3-3, of the Vail Town Code outlines a procedure for appealing an action of the Administrator. Should you wish to appeal the Community Development Department's determination regarding the specific levels of Condominium .Units C and E, a form for filing said appeal is on file at the Offices of the Community Development Department. Sincerely, -- ~~~~ George Ruther, AICP Chief of Planning Town of Vail 2 ~~LE COPY TOWNOF YAIL ~ Exhibit E Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www. vailgov. com December 1, 2006 Mr. Paul R. Dunkelman Carlson, Carlson & Dunkelman, L.L.C. P.O. Box 1829 Frisco, Colorado 80443 RE: Covered Bridge Building Street Level Determination 227 Bridge Street Vail, Colorado Dear Mr. Dunkelman, The Town of Vail Community Development Department is in receipt of your letter dated November 20, 2006, regarding the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, respectively. In making a determination of the specific floor levels of Condominium Units C and E, the Community Development Department relied upon the following documents presently on file with the Town of Vail: • Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code • Covered Bridge Building, Building Permit Set, dated 4/19/94 ("CBBBPS") • Town's legal file for Lots B, C and D, Block SB, Vail Village 1St Filing Upon review of the aforementioned documents, the Community Development Department has determined that, for zoning purposes, Unit C is to be considered the "basement or garden" level of the building. In contrast, Unit E shall be considered the "floor or street level" of the building. While it is mutually understood that Unit E is a minimum of four feet above the level of the street, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission and Vail Town Council have consistently held, when interpreting the applicable sections of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, that such a change in elevation shall not constitute an "above street level" condition. Any other interpretation is ~~• RE'CYCLED PAPER contrary to the horizontal zoning intent of the Code and development goals and policies of the Town. To interpret the Code otherwise would result in office uses on the street level of buildings throughout the Town's crucial commercial core areas. Therefore, Sections 12-7B-2 and 12-7B-3 of the Vail Town Code shall apply to Units C and E of the Covered Bridge Building, respectively. As you are likely aware, Section 12-3-3, of the Vail Town Code outlines a procedure for appealing an action of the Administrator. Should you wish to appeal the Community Development Department's determination regarding the specific levels of Condominium Units C and E, a form for filing said appeal is on file at the Offices of the Community Development Department. Sincerely, George Ruther, AICP Chief of Planning Town of Vail 2 Ronald W. Carlson Judith James Carlson Paul R. Dunkelman Christopher D. Tomchuck Exhibit F Carlson,Carlson €~ Dunkelman, L.L.C. AttOrneyS at Law Parale als g ~_ Drake Landing + 975 N. Ten Mile Drive + P.O. Box 1829 Maria E. Ruiz Frisco, Colorado 80443 Carla M. Felice Patricia J. Craig December 21,-2006 Via Facsimile (970) 479-2452 and U.S. Mail Town of Vail Attn.: Warren Campbell Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Unit E, Covered Bridge Building 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO Dear Mr. Campbell: Enclosed please find the Appeals Form as well as the necessary attachments. The. Appeals Form has been sent by both facsimile and U.S. Mail. Please advise as to when the matter will be brought before the Planning Commission. Sincerely, ~~ ~ ~,~_ Paul R. Dunkelman cc: Covered Bridge, Inc. _.._ ___r l ~~ a f~ EI~- , . 1~ fit ~; ~,~ s~a~~ ~~ ~'. 2006 ~ ~ ; ~ t ~~~ ~' ~ ~' ~1 (970) 668-1678 + FA2C (970) 668-5121 + E-mail: carlson2Qcolorado.net + Vail Valley + (970) 845-7090 fu. ^ti ., ~4pp~a~l.s Farm bel~arl,ttent of ~orrrmu.nity:Developrr-cnt. 75 Sauth Frorttage Road., Vdl(; Cdl'orado 8165'T tel: ~170~.479'.21,3y fax: 970'.a~79.2~{52 well: www.vai o '_,y co'm General Inforrnatiori: TF,is form is required for•filing an af,E~PaI of a Staff, De'sigrt Review Board, ~Qr'hfan'niny and l:rtvirunrnental Cvmmis5ion action/decision. a cUrtll~leL•e .form and associated req•u'it'ement5 nn,cl be' submitted to the Community Development Deparlrrtent withirF twenty (2D): calandur daYs~t~f the'clispiited action/decision. ACt"ton/Decision bein j appealed: Avnellant is atpealing the Community bevelopment Department determination that for zonin~ptlxposes C7nit E Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado is to be considered a "floor or street level" of the building. Dateof Action/Decision: December 1, 2001 Board or Staff person• rendering actiar-jdec~ion: George Ruther a©es this appeal Invol~Q a°speclfic parcel of land?. rtnQ') If yes, are yuu art adjacent property~•owner? iye~s' .rt,a Name of ApRt:llant(s): Covered Bridge, Inc. Mtailing Address: F•O. Botc 1829, Frisco, CO 80443 Pftysical Address i.n Vall: phone: 227 Covered Bridge Building, (970) 668-1678 Vail, GO Legal Descripfian of l4ppellant:~s); Property 'In Vail: Lot C and Lot b and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, ~~ C.~ all in 131oek 5-B Vail Village accordi>zQ to the Appellant(s~ 5ignatura(s~}: !~`~ ~ recorded~plat thereof Eai;le County. Colorado. ~i1C'tach a list of signatures if ~r,are space is.required~. Buhrnitta.i Requirements; 1. On a sepdrale street or separate".sheets aF paper;, ~ro~ricle, d c1~I~iileil'rricplartatton of how you ale an "aggriev~Cl or adversely affected'persort". 2. On a separate sheeC or separate sheds of parer, specify the precise na~tui'e of the appeal. Rle~as~: cil~ specifrc'code sections having refevanee to the dctidn being appealed. 3. Provide a list of names and addresses (bulb mailing and ph~~ical' 'addresses in Vail} of all owr-ers of property who aro th'e subject of the appeal and all adjacent property awnNrs, (inclurting o~rners whose propcrtaes are ~sel•)araled from the subject property by~ a ri4(til-of-wad, stt~eam, or other intervening barrier. 4. Provide.stampcd, addrFSSed envelopes for each ~roperfiy o~+viter listed in (3.). PLCII5E.S.UBMITTHIS FORM ANf) ALL.5l1Rt~IT1TpL~RCQI'1IREMEIVTS ~O•; TOWN •l)F VALL, OFPARTM~NT OF Ct~~1MUNIT~' t1EVELOPMENT, /5 S{)tJTH f"RONTvtG~ ROAi7,'1/A1L, COI.ORAUQ ~Si&5i. Far QFfice Ilse drily: ( v date Receided: ~ Z' ~ Z " • ~ , _ /lcti.vity Nd•.: ... ....~ jPla~tner• _ ~ 'Pi'uje[t No.' • ,,, -- i .. .... p:\r_dev\FUItN15~,I~ERi~11TS\Pldrtning~Applicaticnst~re.~L,do~. t 3.6-2[05 £ ' d 998ti' oN X11 NdW13~NNq 'R NOSI~ti~ NOS1Nd~ WdZ9 ~ 9 9002 ' l Z' ~e4 A,ttacfamenf 1 Aggrieved or Adversely Impacted Person Appellant is the owner of 227 Covered Bridge Building, Vail, Colorado. The Community Planning bepartrnent has determined that for zoning purposes Unit E Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado is to be considered a "floor or street level" of the building. Tt is the Appellant's position that Unit E, Covered Bridge must be considered a "second floor" unit. Appellant is adversely affected by the determination that Unit E is considered a "floor or street level" unit. A "floor or street level" unit has the most restricted uses. The permitted uses of "Moor or street level" units are retail stores, eating and drinking establishments, lodges, and type IV employee housing. The permitted use of a second floor unit includes the permitted uses of the "floor or street level", but also provides for many additional uses, including but not limited to lodges, bank and financial institutions, business and office services. The Community Planning Department determination severely impacts property rights, its right to use of the property under the Town Code, the rentability and marketability of the real property and will result in vacancies. The property is not in fact at street level. This has been agreed by the Planning Department. Pedestrians axe required to walk up a set of stairs to enter the Unit. Unit E is a minimum of 4 feet above street level. It is .also approximately fifteen (15) feet above grade. This makes it clear that this Unit cannot be considered at street level, but also makes the unit unattractive for the type of use required on street level, i.e. retail use. Appellant presently has a renter interested in renting Unit E for use not. permitted under the Planning Department ruling. This has lirrxited the ability of the Appellant to fully rent Unit $. ~ 'd 998~'~N X11 NbW13~NNQ ~ NOSI~d~ NOS18d~ WdZ9~9 9042 'lZ'~a4 Attachment 2 Nature of Appeal The Community Planning Department has determined that for zoning purposes that Unit $ Covered Bridge Building, 227 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado is to be considered a "floor or street level" of the building. Appellant is the owner of 227 Covered Bridge Building, Vail, Colorado. It is important to consider the relevant definitions of "basement or gazden level," "first floor or street level," and "second floor." 1. A "basement or garden level" is defined "as that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade." Of note is that the term "street level" is not part of the definition. 12-7B-2, Vail Town Code. 2. A "first floor or street level" is defined "as that floor of the building that is located at grade. or street level" 1Z-7B-3, Vail Town Code. 3. The relevant language for usage of "second floor" is "above grade within a structure." Again the term "street level" is not used. 12-7B-4, Vail Town Code. Xt is not disputed by the Planning Department that Unit E is a minimum of four feet above the level of the street. It is also approximately fifteen (15) feet above grade. Unit E is neither at street level, nor at grade as is required for a determination that this is a "first Moor level." This requires a finding that this Unit is above both street level and grade and therefore a "second floor" unit. This position is strengthened by the fact that Unit C should be considered a "first floor level." The Planning Department has determined that Unit C is a "basement or garden. level unit." This is not part of the appeal due to the lack of adverse impact which is considered in the appeal process, i.e. Attaehxnent 2. While Unit C is belo'w' street level, it is at grade. In the Code, there is a difference between street level and grade and in this instance only the term grade is considered . As this Unit is at grade, it cannot be considered a "basement or garden level. The definition of basement or garden level is limited to "substantially below grade." The Unit must be considered a ``first floor" unit which is at grade. 9 'd 998~'oN X11 NdW13'~NNO a NQSI~b~ NOSI~d~ WdZ9~9 9002 'lZ'aa0 It is clear from the language of the Vail Town Code that Unit E must be considered a second floor unit and Unit C must be considered a first floor unit. Tt is well established law that in interpreting statutory language, you must first look to the plain language of the statute. See In re the Marriage of Ciesluk, 113 P.3d 135, 14I (Colo. 2005); see also People v. `Y'ascava~e, 101 1'.3d 1090,1093 (Colo. 2004) The Planning Department has decided to ignore the strict language of the Town Code and determine that a Unit four feet above street level and fifteen feet above grade is in fact at grade or street level. The determination by the Planning Department is contrary to the language of the Town Code, is legally in error and is, in fact, an arbitrary and capricious decision. This ruling is contrary to the goals and policies of the community. It would create a situation were retail space would be above street level and, therefore, unattractive to potential users. The end result would be a perennially vacant unit. 9 'd 998~'~N X11 NdW13~NNa ~ NOS1Nti~ NOSI~d~ Wd£9~9 9001 'll'~aQ Attachment 3 Adjacent Property Owners Covered Bridge Building Association, Znc. P.O. Box 2636 Edwards, CO 81632 Pepi Sport, Ync. c/o Josef Crramshammer 231 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Slifer, Smith and Frampton, LLC 230 Bridge Street 'N'ail, CO $1657 David Luther c/o Craig Denton 1116 beer Blvd. Avon, CO 81620. L 'd 996~'oN X11 NdW13~NN4 ~ NOS1Nd~ NOS1N~a Wd£9~9 9002 'lZ'~aa Carlson,Car~lson ~ Dunkelman, L.L.C. xonald W. Carlson Attorneys at Law Judith James Carlson Paul ~. Dunkelman Drake landing + 975 N'. Ten Mice Drive + P.O. Box 1829 ' l~risco, Colorado 80443 Christopher 17. Tomchuck December 21, 2006 Via Pacsiltsile (970) 479-2452 and ~:S Mail To~vc-n of Vail Attn.: Warren Campbell Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Unit E, Covered Bridge Building 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO Dear Mr. Campbell: Enclosed please find Supplemental Attachment 3. Sincerely, Paul R. Dunkelrnan ee: Covered Bridge, Inc. Paralegals Maria ~. Ituix Carla Ivl. 1~elice Patricia J. Craig (970) 668.1678 + 1~A?r (970) 668-5121 + E-mail: car-Ison2®colorvdo.nec + Uail Valley + (970) 845-7090 Z ' d 998ti' aN all Nt~'W1~'aN(>0 ~' NOSINH~ NOS1~H~ WdZE ~ 9 9002 ' lZ' yea Supplemental Attachment 3 Adjacent Property Owners Covered Bridge Building Association, Inc. 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 P.O. Box 2636 Edwards, CO 81632 pepi Sport, Inc. c/o Josef Gramshammer 231 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Gastof Gramshamtner, Inc. c/o Pepi Gramshammer 231 E. Grore Creek Drive, Vail, CO 81657 1Vlountain Haus Condomiaium Association Attn: Barbara Banks 292 B.1Vleadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 Slifer Building, LLC 230)3ridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Charles David Luther c/o Craig Denton 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 1116 Deer Slvd. Avon, CO 81620 Charles bavid Luther 227 Bridge Street 'N'ail, CO 81657 16 Paddock Road Edna, MN 55436 E 'd 998~'~N X11 N~W13~N~4 ~ MOSIa'd~ NOSI~d~ Wd1E~9 9001 'll'~a4 P 8r R Partners-Vail, LLC 22813ridge Street, Units A, C, D & E Vail, CO 81657 Attn: Michael Stoughton 228 Bridge Street 'Vail, CO 81657 Charles ~ Elizabeth Y~ocb Real Estate Trost 228 fridge Street, Units F & G Vaal, CO 81657 411 E. 37~' St. N'. Wichita, KS 67201-2256 ti ' d 998ti' ~N X11 NdW13~N(l4 ~ NOSI~b~ NOS1N'd~ WdlE ~ 9 9002 ' lZ' yea 12onatd l~"1: Carlson Judith James Carlson Paul R. Dunkelman Christopher D. Tomchuck Carlson,Carlson ~ Dunkelman, L.L.C. Attorneys at Laav Drake Y.anding t 975 N. Ten Mile Drive + T'.O. Box 1829 Frisco, Colorado 80443 December 21, 2006 Via Facsimile (970) 479-2452 and U.S. Mail Town of Vail Attn.: 'W'arren Campbell Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Unit B, Covered Bridge Building 227 Bridge Street `Vail, CO Dear Mr. Canpbell: Enclosed please find the Appeals Form as well as the necessary attachments. The Appeals Form has been sent by both facsimile and U.S. Mail. Please advise as to when the matter will be brought before the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Paul R. Dunkelman cc: Covered. Bridge, Inc. ~`, t l! ~~ ~', ~ DEC 2 ~ 2006 a~~t ~_ ~~ -~ ~~!~ ~ ~~F~~ - 1°nrClegdlS ' Maria 1:. Ruiz Carta M. Felice Fdtricia ]. Craig (970) 668-1678 + FA.?i: (970) 668-5121 + Email: cartson2®colorado.nec + V'ai1'Vatley • (970) 645.7090 Z 'd 998~'~N X11 NdW13~NN4 ~ NOS1yH~ NOSI~d~ WdZ9~9 9002 'lZ'~a4 ORDINANCE NO. 14 SERIES OF 2007 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-1-7(H)(2)(d) VAIL TOWN CODE REGARDING THE REGULATION OF AMPLIFIED SOUND FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, The Town of Vail (the "Town"), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); and WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council") have been duly elected and qualified; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to extend the time which amplified-sound equipment maybe used for commercial purposes on Friday and Saturday nights from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 5-1-7(H)(2)(d) Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: In all other zones, except such portions. thereof as may be included within one hundred feet (100') of any residential zone, the operation or use of sound-amplifying equipment for commercial purposes is prohibited between hours of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. of the following day on Sunday through Thursday and between the hours of eleven o'clock 11 00) P.M. and eight o'clock (8.00) A M of the following day on Friday and Saturday. Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares 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 Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007 , thereof. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously amended 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. Section 6. This ordinance, as adopted by the Town Council, shall be numbered and recorded by the Town Clerk in the official records of the Town. The adoption and publication shall be authenticated by the signatures of the Mayor, or Mayor Pro Tem, and Town Clerk, and by the certificate of publication. Section 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication following final passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 1 st day of May, 2007, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 15th day of May, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007 2 MEMORANDUM To: Town Council From: Stan Zemler Judy Camp Kathleen Halloran Date: Apri126, 2007 Subject: 2006 Preliminary Results and 2007 Supplemental Appropriation Recording of the town's 2006 financial transactions has been completed, subject to any audit adjustments. The completion of 2006 financials sets the stage for the first supplemental appropriation of 2007 with the identification of capital projects that span more than one year and need to have funding "rolled forward" to the current year. In Tuesday evening's session, you will be asked to approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 13 making supplemental appropriations and adjustments to the 2007 budget. The following information is provided for your review: First Supplemental Appropriation Request of 2007 Summary of Revenue, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - 2006 Actual Compared with Amended Budget and 2007 including First Supplemental Appropriation - General Fund - Capital Projects Fund - Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Fund Ordinance No. 13 2006 RESULTS The town ended 2006 in a strong financial position through a combination of higher revenue and lower expenditures than budgeted, Higher revenue included a record year for sales tax, ski lift tax, real estate transfer tax, construction permit fees, parking revenue, and earnings on investments. Sales tax collections of $18.0 million exceeded the amended budget by $786,796 or 4.6% and exceeded 2005 by $1.1 million or 7.1%. The unbudgeted collections of $786,796 were all recorded into the Capital Projects Fund. Ski lift tax provided $3.0 million of revenue, up 7.1% from 2005. Real Estate Transfer Tax collections of $6.2 million were ahead of 2005 by just $35,435. Construction permit fees of $2.O million were up 36% from a record 2005. The following major projects contributed over $1.2 million of 2006 permit fee revenue: Arrabelle at Vail Square, Forest Place, Front Door, Gore Creek Place, Lodge Tower, Manor Vail, Mountain View (Apollo Park), One Willow Bridge Road, Sonnenalp Resort, Westhaven Condominiums, and Vail Plaza Hotel. Parking revenue exceeded $4.0 million for the first time and was up 9.7% from 2005. Earnings on investments reached anall-time high of $2.1 million, almost double 2005's revenue of $1.1 million, reflecting higher fund balances and increased interest rates. Expenditures, meanwhile, were generally favorable to budget, with General Fund expenditures of $24.6 million below budget by $1.4 million or 5.2%: Salary and benefits were under budget by $195,481 partially because of open positions, but also because health care claims were less than budget. Approximately $350,000 of the favorable variance was due to timing of payments to outside contractors for plan reviews and building inspections. Other favorable variances were spread across all departments. -1- Favorable variances in the Capital Projects and RETT Funds were primarily a result of projects continued into 2007 and are shown in the first supplemental of 2007 as roll-forwards. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION AND BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Capital Proiects Fund Projects budgeted in 2006 but not yet completed comprise $7.2 million in expenditures "rolled" to the 2007 budget. Expenditures rolled forward are detailed in the attached schedules. The supplemental appropriation also includes revenue recognition of $141,869 for streetscape snowmelt agreements with the Sitzmark and Bell Tower Condominium Association; $65,000 for the LionsHead Parking Structure RFP including $35,000 for Economic and Planning Systems' financial review and $30,000 for legal fees incurred before the decision to negotiate exclusively with Open/Hillwood; and an expenditure of $172,550 for purchase of atwo-bedroom, one bath Town of Vail employee housing unit at Vail East Lodging. This purchase was approved by Council on Apri13, 2007. RETT Fund Almost the entire $3.2 million of supplemental appropriations for the RETT Fund are roll- forwards from 2006. Donations for Seibert Circle totaling $127,700 are also recognized as revenue in the 2007 budget adjustment. Most of these funds were received in 2006, but cannot be recognized as revenue until spent for their intended use. Donations for windmill project marketing are also recognized along with the related expenditures. General Fund $20,000 has been set aside for the cost of putting the Commission on Special Events (CSE) handbook on the web. This project was budgeted in 2006 and was delayed. Rental revenue is reduced and operating expenditures increased to reflect the termination of the Vail Valley Partnership's lease at the town-owned space Vail Village effective May 1. The $48,750 of revenue and offsetting expenditure reflect the new arrangement with the Vail Local Marketing District (VLMD) for the town to manage marketing coordination efforts for the VLMD's summer marketing programs. This funding pays a portion of the new Economic Development Manager's salary and benefits. The remainder of those costs are funded from money already budgeted for economic development. An additional $20,000 of expenditure incurred for outside legal counsel working on the new housing ordinances is also included. For second reading, three items have been added. The first is $540,000 of revenue and: $SOO,U00 of expenditure for plan checks contracted out. Included in the expenditure number is $294,000 to complete work on pla~l checks where fees were collected in 200b for contracted work to be completed in 2007..The second item is $356,000 of revenue and $698,000 of expenditure for inspections contracted out to Colorado Inspection Agency (CIA). Included in the expenditure number is $232,000 to complete work on inspections where fees were collected in 2006. The thrdtem is $1,000 to replace an overworked and malftuictioning shredder in the, municipal office building, -2- Proposed Supplemental Appropriations and Budget Adjustments #I of 2007 Revenue Expenditure Increase Increase vital Projects Fund Debt Service Transfer Eagle County Grant Revenue Adjacent Property Reimbursement Fire Infrastructure Improvements Donovan Park Pavillion Dobson Ice Arena Vail Gymnastics Bldg Fire Truck Purchase Replace Buses GPS System Buses Facility Capital Parking Structure Maintenance Flammable storage / Mag Chloride Street Light Improvements LH Improvements I-70 Noise Wayfinding Improvements Streetscape Buy Down Program Timber Ridge Legal /Zoning Rational Nexus Study TOV Strategic Planning (Vai12020) LH Parking Structure RFP Timber Ridge Debt Service Guarantee Wendy's property East Vail Lodging Unit Subtotal Capital Projects Fund rT Projects Fund Windmill Donations Windmill Project Expense Public Art Rec Path Maintenance Tree Maintenance Black Gore Creek Sand Mitigation Bear Proof Trash Containers Stream Tract Mitigation Retrofit Park Restroom Forest Health Manaeement Supp 1 of 2007 Reason (57,213) Debt for W Vail Fire Stn not actualized as yet; removing debt service payment from budget 500,000 Roll-forward from 2006; West Vail Fire Stn 141,869 Streetscape snowmelt agreements w/ Sitzmark ($128K)& Bell T C 767,229 ower ondo Assn ($13.9K) Roll-forward from 2006; add to West Vail Fire Stn '07 b d 29,634 u get Roll-forward from 2006; ventilation system design 7,900 Roll-forward from 2006; repair boiler room leak 5,612 Roll-forward from 2006; retaining wall repair 1,352 Roll-forward from 2006; tools for new truck 167,605 Roll-forward from 2006; will add to Fed'1 grant to purchase another hybrid 52,750 Roll-forward from 2006; Nextbus payment for'07 298,627 2 1 Roll-forward from 2006; Various bldg repairs/renovations including Comm Dev restrooms & Library remodel 6, 29 Roll-forward from 2006 24,000 Roll-forward from 2006; Secondary containment 5,099 Roll-forward from 2006 89,764 Roll-forward from 2006; engineering work for Urban Renewal (Transportation Study etc) 587,575 , Roll-forward from 2006 9,896 Roll-forward from 2006 1,776,667 Roll-forward from 2006 265,000 Roll-forward from 2006 32,558 Roll-forward from 2006 1,999 Roll-forward from 2006 45,224 Roll-forward from 2006 76,299 Roll-forward from 2006 of $11.3K plus additional requested of $65K 925,000 Roll-forward from 2006 2,000,000 Roll-forward from 2006 172,550 Purchase of TOV Employee housing 641,869 7,311,256 14,065 Recognize Contributions 14,065 Add'1 project expenses such as marketing, brochures & publicity 171,846 Roll-over from 2006 18,537 Roll-over from 2006 17,796 Roll-over from 2006 35,000 Roll-over from 2006 19,500 Roll-over from 2006; Compliance with ordinance 34,881 Roll-over from 2006 172,402 Roll-over from 2006; Red Sandstone & Stevens park restrooms 135,325 Roll-over from 2006 4(26/2007 11;a8 AM Proposed Supplemental Appropriations and Budget Adjustments #1 of 2007 Revenue Expenditure Increase Increase Description (Decrease) (Decrease) Reaso Whitewater Park Donovan Park Lower Bench 93,185 n Roll-over from 2006 Skate Park 49,050 Roll-over from 2006; install drainage pan in middle of parking lot; Xeriscape demo garden Bighorn Improvements 400,000 Roll-over from 2006; $170K for temp. park; remainder for design & initial construction of permanent park Irrigation Control 216,756 Roll-over from 2006 Trailhead Signs 10,388 Roll-over from 2006; Raw water project Cascade Bike Path 6,273 .Roll-over from 2006 Katsos Bike Path 7,000 Roll-over from 2006; finish landscaping ADA Compliance 475,943 Roll-over from 2006; Fall'07 construction Seibert Circle -Donations 127 700 76,848 Roll-over from 2006 Seibert Circle , Roll-over from 2006 Rec Master Plan 699,095 Roll-over from 2006; original budget $620K plus $125K Open Space Acquisition /Land 2,444 Roll-over from 2006 551,019 Roll-over from 2006 Subtotal RETT Projects Fund 141,765 3,207,351 General Fund CSE Event Handbook -web Vail Village Inn Property 20,000 Cost to put handbook on the web /online Vail Village Inn Property (17,688) Loss of rent from Vail Valley Partnership vacating property at end of April Vail Village Inn Property 18,771 Assessments from homeowner's association for Apr-Dec Employee Housing Study /Legal 4,500 Electric utility bills VLMD Management Fee 20,000 Housing ordinances -legal counsel Economic Development Programs & Staff 48,750 Revenue from VLMD Management contract Plan Check Fee Revenue 540 0(10 48,750 Apply VLMD Mgmt revenue toward new Economic Development programs & staffing Reimburseable Professional Fees , Increase in plan check revenue based on current overage of $376K plus anticipated revenue of $164K from various Construction Permit Revenue 356 000 500,000 ' Increase. in plan check expense; $194K of this total relates to fees eoliected in 2006 Reimburseable Professional Fees , Increase in permit revenue anticipated from projects not previously budgeted Office Equip < $5,000 698,000 Increase in building inspection expense; $232K of this total relates to fees coilected in 2006 Subtotal General Fund 1,000 Paper shudder for Admin office 927,062 1,311,021 Total All Funds 1,710,696. 11,829,628 . Supp 1 of 2007 4 4/26/2007 11 X40 AM 1st Supplemental of 2007 Second Reading ~~wN vF VAIL 2007 BUDGET --------------------------------- _ ---- -------- _ SUMMARY OF REVENUE EXP - - - -- ---------.--_-____-__-_ ._-.___._-_______________-___ _, __ __ENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ------- ------ ----- ----- --- ----- ---- _ _ GENERAL FUND - - _:-_-- --- i - - ----------- Unaudited ~ ~ ~ Proposed _ _ Ammended ii 2006 ;Over (Under) Budget ~ 1st Ammended - 2006 I Actual !Ammended '' 2007 Supplemental 2007 Revenue - -_ j _j __ ! ~- ~ i I _ Local Taxes: ~ _ I - - t Sales Tax Split b/t Gen'I Fund & Capital Fu _ r 54/46 _ I 63/37 T ~ 63/37 Sales Tax Pro a and Ownershi ! $ 9,345,660 j $ 9,345,660 ~ $ - 1~ $ 10,741,500 10,741,500 p Ski Lift Tax ~ 2,929,068 ; 2 931,34 7 2_,_2_7_9 _~~3,007,998 7 3,007,998 Franchise Fees, Penalties, and Other Taxe ~ 2,800 00 d 819 000 ~ 2,975,098 884 328 ' 1 5,098 65 328 j + I 2,890,000 j _ 2,890,000 807 000 ' _ Licenses & Permits Int , ~____ 3,541,575 , 3,561,757 , I 20,182 , I 807,000 1,883,550 896,000 2 779 550 e ovemmental Revenue Trans ortation Centers 1,402,512 1 477,270 '--- 74,758 , , ~ 1,283,200 1,283,200 Charges for Services 4,018,000 4,099,674 81,674 ~ 3,685,380 3,685,380 Fines 8, Forfeitures 640,832 667,423 26,591 752,856 I 48,750 801,606 Eamin son Investments 248,000 i 285,136 37,136 201,500 201,500 Transfer from RETT 150,000 - 815,306 665,306 425,000 425,000 Rental Revenue 0 Miscellaneous and Pro'ect R i b 784,096 827,280 43,184 754,908 17,688 ' 737,220 e m ursements Total Revenue 231,267 488 902 257 635 70,000 70 000 26,910,010 28,359,181 1,449,171 26,502,892 927,062 ! 27,429,954 Expenditures ~ i Salaries ' Benefits 11,403,124 11,347,540 55,584 12,099,741 - 12,099,741 Subtotal Com ensation d B f 3 937,526 3 797 629 139 897 4 240,927 4 240 927 an ene its 15 340,650 15 145 169 195 481 16 340 668 - 16 340 66 , , 8 Contributions and S e i l E c a vents AllOtherO eratin Ex enses 1,028,460 j 986,792 I 41,668 1,176,664 ~ 1,176,664 Hea E ui ment O eratin Ch 6,600,152 5,548,012 1,052,140 5,974,016 1,3#1,021 _ 7,285,037 ar es 1,835,477 1 774 861 60 616 1 946 418 Hea E ui ment Re lace t Ch , , , , , 1,946,418. men a es Dis atch Services 578,738 574,902 3,836 631,723 631,723 Total Expenditures __ 525 994 25,909,471 525 994 24,555,730 0 1,353,741 512 427 26,581,916. 1,311,021 512,427 27,892,937 Revenue Over (Under) E di xpen tures 1,000,539 3,803,451 .2,802,912 79,024 383,959 462 983 , Transfer to Ca ital Pro t F p jec s und (2,000,000) (2,000, 00 0)', - Transfer from Capital Projects Fund - Transfer to RETT _ (9,378) (12,772) Transfer to Dispatch Services Fund i Be innin Fund Balance _ I 13,673,818 ; ~ 13,673,818 12,664,979 I $ 15,464,497 Ending Fund Balance _ $ 12,664,979 $ 15,464,497 $ 2,802,912 $ 12,585,955 ; $ 15,001,514 - I I - 1st Supplemental of 2007 Second Reading -t--------------------- --------_--------TOWN OF VAIL 2007 BUDGET -- --~- _ ___ CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND _ _ __ _ -_-___ __ SUMMARY OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE -- --- -- -- ~ 1 ~--- -__~__ _ ; Unaudited ! ~ ~ ~ Pro osed - --_~ Ammended 2006 ~ Over(Under) ii Bud et 1st ! Ammended 2008 ' Actual ~ Ammended Revenue ~ 2007 'Supplemental '. 2007 i Sales Tax - $ 7,854,340 $ 8,641,136 ' $ 786,796 Federal Grant Revenue , $ 6,308,500 j i 6,308,500 _ 2,191,832 ~ 1,739 052 ~ 452,780 Lease Revenue ~ _ ' . _ 190 000 jProject Reimbursement i 1,325,429 ~ ~ 179 910 ! (10 090) ~ 977,590 347 839 7 187,800 i ~ 187,800 141 869 ~ 141 869 Eagle County Grant Revenue 500 000 , - -- ~ 500 000 _ , , _ ___ _ , Earnings on Investments d Oth __~_ , __ __ 500,000 , 500,000 an er _ 324 000 667 918 343 918 43 000 :' 43 000 (Total Revenue ~ 12,385,601 ~ 12,205,607 i 179,994 , ~ 6,539,300 , 641,869 ~ 7,181,169 i ~ Ex penditures ~ ~ 'Land Purchases __ I i i Vail Das Schone Unit 295,508 295 545 ; 37 ~- ~ East Vail Lodging Unit , Wendys Property 2,026,000 ' 26,561 I (1,999,439) 172,550 2,000,000 j 172,550 j 2,000,000 Equipment Purchases Document Ima ing Software ~ Hardware U rades I- 40,000 ~ 8 18,219 j i 21,781 97,000 j 97,000 Comm Dev Interactive Permit software _ 0,417 ~- 83,830 3,413 72,000 72,000 Software Licensin - 65,000 I 65,000 67,000 59,384 ' 7 616 Network u rades/new UPS for corn uter roo m , . ' 0 Corn Dev Plotter Web Pa a DevelopmenUEcommerce _ _ 9,000 ~ 1 i __ - 45,000 9,000 j i j 45,000 0 Ea le Coun CAD / RMS Project 2,000 52 260 4,984 66 778 ~ (7,016 20,000 ~ 14 518 j 20,000 Parking Equpment Replacement , ~ , , 92,500 _ 92,500 Police Co ier ~ 0 Patrol Car Video Cameras ~ 45,000 45 000 - 0 ~ Fire Truck Rebuild/Refurbish Fire De artment Breathi A _ 240,000 , 238,648 1,352 588,000 ' 1,352 0 589,352 n aratus Jail Video S tern U rade 30,000 30,959 959 0 Police Radio AMP in arkin structures ~ - 12,000 12,000 Hea Du Tire chan er - 50,000 50,000 Co ier for Comm Dev - ~____ 17,500 17,500 Re ower Buses - 17,000 17,000 Re lace Buses _ i GPS for Buses 2,398 942 2,231,337 167,605 - 0 167 605 167,605 _ 800 MHz radio system ~ 362,500 18,160 344,340 _ 52,750 ' 52,750 __ Vehicle E i ~ _ i x ans on Subtotal Equipment Purchases 45,429 ' 45 429 44,800 44 800 Capital Maintenance ~ 3,382,548 2,842,729 ~ 539,819 1,120,800 ~ 221,707 1,342,507 Bus Shelter Re lacement j Ca ital Street Maintenance 10,000 i 1,762 8,238 30,000 ' 30,000 P _ j arkin Structure Im rovements ~ 1 600,874 j 1 578 531 I 662,8 75 I 636 746 ! (22 343) 830,000 (26 129)1 45 0 i 830,000 26 129 General Facili Im rovements _ 409,888 j 111,261 ~ (298 627) 446,000 , ~ 481,129 298 627 744 627 F ire suppression in computer rooms i ' ' , , F __ i lammable stora e / Ma Chloride 24 000 ' - _ 35,500 ; 24 000 ' 35,500 ' Subtotal Capital Maintenance , 2 707 637 2 328 299 ' 379 3 24 000 24 000 _ , , , , , 38 1,796,500 348,756: 2,145,256 iS treet Reconstruction ~ -~-- ~ N ei hborhood Road Reconstruction j ~ I ~ 'N ei hborhood Bridge Recon t ti ~ 0 F s ruc on j rontage Road -Ford Park - ' I i 0 ~ __ -Subtotal Street Reconstruction 0 __ ~ _ _ _ _ 0 ~ I 1st Supplemental of 2007 Second Reading 1st Supplemental 2007 Second Reading. _ TOWN OF VAIL 2007 BUDGET Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund _____________ _________ ___ _ ___ - ----- _ ---- Five=Year Summar}r of Revenue and Expenditures ___ -7- - ---- --------- -- -- -- - _-- _- _._ _____ _ ~ - ~ Unaudited _ -- -~-- ---- I _ -- -- _~r~osed _ __ Ammended ; 2006 ~ Over Under) ! _ Budget ~ ____ 1st Ammended REVENUE __ 2008 Actual ~ Ammended '; 2007 !Supplemental ! 2007 Real Estate Transfer Tax ', $ 5,500,000 $ 6,239,744 ! $ 739,744 i $ 8,179,952 ' ' 8,179 952 Federal Grant _ i , Golf Course Lease i 119,435 1 113,622rt (5 813 ) 123 018 ~ 123,018 Lottery Revenue __ j 20,000 ; _ 26,580 6,580 20,00 i 20,000 Pro ect Reimbursements _ _ _234,034_( 10 02 60 131,974 ' 150,000 j _ 14,065 i 164 065 Eamin son Investments and Other I 56,500 I 427 721 ~ 371 221 _ 57 000 ~ 127,700 __ , 184 700 Transfer from GF i 9,378 I 12,772 i 3,394 ' , 0 Recreation Amenity Fees I 125 000 i 117 5027 - 7 499 j 125 000 ; 125 000 _ _ _ Total Revenue 8,064,347 7,040,001 975,854 8,654,970 141,785 ! , 8,796,735 i EXPENDITURES ~ - - I Annual Maintenance ~ RETT Mana ement Fee i 27 005 0 296,291 21,291 i 408,998 ; 408 998 Rec. Path Ca ital Maintenance ~ 78,500 64,145 j (14,355 216,300 18,537 , 234 837 AI ine Garden Su ort 80,000 50,000 ~ 30,000 54,080 , 54 080 Tree Maintenance 72,651 54,855 17,796 87,000 ' _ 17,796 , 104 796 Forest Health Mana ement _ 342,188 206,863 ~ 135,325 ' 250,000 135,325 , 385,325 Street Furniture Re lacement _ 55,491 64,886 9,395 : 20,000 20 000 Black Gore Creek Sand Miti ation 100,000 ~ 65,000 ' 35,000 . 100,000 35,000 , 135 000 Bear Proof Containers i __ 19,500 I 19,500 ' 19,500 , ' 19 500 Park, Path & Landsca a Maintenance 1,213 768 ~ 1 075 525 138 243 1 260,802 . ' , 1 260 802 Subtotal Maintenance ! 2,237,098 ! 1,877,564 359,534 2,397,180 226,158 2,623,338 Recreation Path rail Development- i ~ Katsos Ranch ~ Cascade Skier Birid e 500,000 24,058 475,943 750,000 475,943 1,225,943 g __ Cascade Bike Path 60,000 0 ~ Westhaven Pedestrian Bride _ 313,984 94 620 213,553 94 620 100,431 - 7,000 _ 7,000 TimberRid e-Buffehr Crk Rd Se aration , , 675,000 0 675,000 LionsHead to Meadow Brid e , 0 Streamwaik & Safe Im rovemetrts 0 Trailhead Develo ment 2_4,392 18,119 6,273 ~ 21,000 6,273 ' 27 273 N. Fronta a Rd. School to Roundabout , 0 Villa a Streetsca a Desi n & Im lement 1,250,000 1,250,000 0 Streetsca a for Crossroads area ~ I ~ 0 Meadow Drive Streetsca a 1,042,027 1,042,027 ' - - 920,000 920 000 Fronta a Road Bike Trail - , 0 Subtotal Pathways _ 3,285,023 2,642,376 582,647 2,388,000 489,216 ! 2,855,216 Capital Maintenance - - ADA Com liance w/ VRD 120,000 I 43,152 76,848 50,000 76,848 126 848 VRD A reements/Recreation Master Planr " 60,000 57,556 2,444! 50,000 ! 2,444 , 52 444 Raw Water Pro ect / Irri ation Control 15,057 I f 15,057 - 10,388 , 10 388 Stream Tract Incursion Surve j 34,881 i __ t (34,881) __ 34,881 I , 34 881 Bi Hom Park -Per Safe Plan ~ 3 939 97 123,241 i 216,756 _ 216,756 ~ , 216 756 Red Sandstone Park -.Per Safety Plan ~ i I ~ 58 000 I , 58 000 Retrofit Park Restrooms-3 seasons 200,000 ' 27,598 ~ 172,402 172,402 i , 172 402 Park Ca ital Maintenance j 20,000 i 10,847 ' 9,153 100,000 ! , 100 000 Landscape Medians j 570,000 ! , 570 000 Turf To dresser ~ - 12,000 , 12 000 Bear Proof Containers ~ ~ 180,000 i , 180 000 Sibert Circle 745,706 ! 46,611 699,095 699,095 i , 699 095 Greenhouse 100,000 ' , 100 000 Tennis Center Improvements ! i 56 000. . , 56 000 Subtotal Capital Maintenance 1,535,641 309,008 1,226,635 ~ 1,178,000 1,212,814 , , 2,388,814 _ __ Art in Public Places (AIPP) _ I ~ ~ Public Art 261,578 102,505 :; 159,073 75,000 ' 185,909 260 909 Project Management _ ' 58 732 59 747 ' _ 1 015 66 000 ' , 66 000 Subtotal AIPP 320,310 ~ 182,252 158,058 141,000 185,909 328,909 1st Supplementa12007 ORDINANCE NO. 13 SERIES OF 2007 AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND AND REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND OF THE 2007 BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 2007 which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it enacted Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2006, adopting the 2007 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Town Manager has certified to the Town Council that sufficient funds are available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not otherwise reflected in the Budget, in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it should make certain supplemental appropriations and budget adjustments. as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO that: 1. Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations and budget adjustments for the 2005 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the expenditure or (reduction) of said appropriations as follows: General Fund $ 1,311,021 Capital Projects Fund 7,311,256 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund .3.207,351 Total $11.829.628 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2007 - 1 3• The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4• The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 5• All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repeater shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 17th day of April, 2007, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 1st day of May, 2007, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the town. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this 1~ day of May, 2007. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2007 - 2 TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS April 26, 2007 Sales Tax Sales tax collections for the month of March are incomplete at the time of this report. A verbal update will be provided at the Town council meeting on May 1, 2007. Ski Lift Tax Although ski lift tax collections for the month of March are down slightly from the previous year (1.4%), year-to-date collections through March are up 4.7% from last year. The ski season to date. (November -March) is up 3.4%. Construction Permit Fee Revenue Construction permit revenue, which can be considered an indicator of redevelopment activity, is offto a good start in 2007. Year-to-date construction permit fees of $601,515 include $427,759 from major construction projects: the Arrabelle at Vail Square, Forest Place, Four Seasons, Lodge Tower, Lodge at LionsHead, Manor Vail, Mountain View (formerly Apollo Park), Ritz Carlton, Vail Plaza Hotel, Westhaven Condominiums, and the Willows. This is a 27% increase in total over the first four months of 2006, with the major projects accounting for approximately 71% of the fees in 2007 and 75% in 2006. Construction permit fees include building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing and sprinkler permits. Real estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Year-to-date RETT collections through April 23, 2007, total $1.7 million compared with $1.6 million for the same time period last year, an increase of 6.1 %. Major redevelopment projects including Gore Creek Place and Forest Place contributed $202,500 or 12% of the total in 2007 while no major redevelopment projects closed in the first four months of 2006. 070403 Revenue Higlilights - 1 - ~'~ ~ tirq ',~ _. -~ ~; --~ ~ rw c. w ~ t. , - -. ~' ..~: _ ~=„ r E; } I s 4 ti J '1 t1 ~ ., 7.~ . . ~ _ ~ _ 1. `lam - A ~,~ ~ +y~r r ~ ~ it ~ t X11,'+ ,q 'f"~.~Ir. ~~ t a~~+1 ~ ~_~ I 1 r; ~ ~,t _ - Y ~~~,~• ~ ;~~ ~;~ ~ ~;,~ ~j~a doh ` ' ~ _ ~ ~, ,., ~,, ~ , >~~ ", ~'; i; 1 ~~ 1 '~~ ~ , ~ ?~ ~s ~` 1, '~} ~^~=~, ~ / ~. ~ ~: ~~ - - ~ \ ~ '" "~ ;~., ~ ~~.-~:, ,~ . . ~~ - <. ~- ~i ii ~~ ~ X~ S ~~ ~ _ _ _ - *:.. ,,,y_ ~'_ r ~~ i 12-7B-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL: A. Definition: The "basement" or "garden level"shall be defined as that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade. 12-7B-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: A. Definition: The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level. 12-7B-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND. FLOOR: A. Permitted Uses; Exception: The following uses shall be permitted on the second floor above grade within a structure.; provided, however, that a conditional use permit will be required in accordance with chapter 16 of this title for any use which eliminates any existing dwelling or accommodation unit or any portion thereof: 12-2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS: When used in this title, the words and phrases contained in this title shall have the specific meanings as defined in this section. GRADE, EXISTING: The existing grade shall be the existing or natural topography of a site prior to construction. GRADE, FINISHED: The finished grade shall be the grade proposed upon completion of a project. Page 2 of ~ J __ 759 P.2d 748 Page 1 759 P.2d 748 (Cite as: 759 P.2d 748) H Burns v. City Council of City and County of DenverColo.App.,1988. Colorado Court of Appeals,Div. III. Franklin F. BURNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY COUNCIL OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; The City and County of Denver, a municipality and body corporate and politic; Josephine R. Englander, Rose M. Flint, Harry M. Flint, Edna S. Alexander, Lloyd Duckworth., Iris Mae Duckworth, Victor J. Veatch, Mark Lee Levine, Mary Swanson, Marion C. Engle, Kathryn L. Engle, Aaron Bregman, James L. Webb, Paul L. Webb, Robert R. Hollenbeck, William A. cheitler, T.J. Hackworth, M.L. Sandos, Stephanie A. Foote, Paul L. Swaim, John J. Silchia, Neives Perez McIntire, Hiawatha Davis, Jr., Salvadore Carpio, Cathy Donohue, William R. Roberts, Cathy Reynolds, and Robert Crider, individually and as members of the City Council of the City and County of Denver; Cherry Creek Partners, a general partnership; Cherry Creek Housing Associates; Ken Peterson; and Morton Zeppelin, Defendants-Appel lees. No. 85CA0698. members for passage of the ordinance, and (2) inclusion of city-owned streets in the calculations did not deny owner due process of law. Affirmed. West Headuotes [1] Statutes 361 X190 361 Statutes 361 VI Construction and Operation 361 VI(A) General Rules of Construction 361k187 Meaning of Language 361k190 k. Existence of Ambiguity. Most Cited Cases When statutory language is clear and legislative intent appears reasonably certain, court wi"1 not resort to other rules of statutory constructi~~~:. [2] Municipal Corporations 268120 268 Municipal Corporations 268IV Proceedings of Council or Other Governing Body 268IV(B) Ordinances and By-Laws in General 268k120 k. Construction and Operation. Most Cited Cases Feb. 4, 1988. Rehearing Denied March 3, 1988. Certiorari Denied Aug. 8, 1988. Property owner sought judicial review of approval by city council of rezoning ordinance. The District Court, City and County of Denver, Gilbert A. Alexander, J., granted summary judgment in favor of city council. Owner appealed. The Court of Appeals, Babcock, J., held that: (1) city-owned streets, which were located within 200 feet of perimeter of area proposed for rezoning, could be included in calculations to determine whether owner, who filed petition protesting proposed rezoning, owned 20% of 200-foot legal protest area and whether owner's protest was "legal protest" requiring favorable vote by ten city council Statutes 361 X185 361 Statutes 361 VI Construction and Operation 361 VI(A) General Rules of Construction 361k180 Intention of Legislature 361k185 k. Implications and Inferences. Most Cited Cases Courts will not interpret statute or ordinance to mean that which it does not express. [3] Statutes 361188 361 Statutes 361 VI Construction and Operation 361 VI(A) General Rules of Construction © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream. aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split&... 2/8/2007 Page 3 of 5 759 P?d 748 Page 2 759 P?d 748 (Cite as: 759 P.2d 748) 361k187 Meaning of Language 361k188 k. In General. Most Cited Cases In interpreting statutory language, courts must effectuate plain meaning of words used by legislative body. 200-foot legal protest area and whether owner's protest was "legal protest" requiring favorable vote by ten city council members for passage of proposed rezoning ordinance. ~6] Constitutional Law 92278.2(1) ~4] Municipal Corporations 26858 268 Municipal Corporations 268II Governmental Powers and Functions in General 268k58 k. Construction of Charters and Statutory Provisions. Most Cited Cases Municipal Corporations 268 X120 268 Municipal Corporations 268IV Proceedings of Council or Other Governing Body 2681V(B) Ordinances and By-Laws in General 268k120 k. Construction and Operation. Most Cited Cases Statutes 361190 361 Statutes 361 VI Construction and Operation 361 VI(A) General Rules of Construction 361 k187 Meaning of Language 361k190 k. Existence of Ambiguity. Most Cited Cases Clear, plain, and unambiguous legal protest provisions of municipal charters and ordinances will be applied as written. 15~ Zoning and Planning 414198 414 Zoning and Planning 414III Modification or Amendment 414III(B) Manner of Modifying or Amending 414k198 k. Number of .Votes Required. Most Cited Cases City-owned streets, which were located within 200 feet of perimeter of area proposed for rezoning, could be included in calculations to determine whether property owner, who filed petition protesting proposed rezoning, owned 20% of 92 Constitutional Law 92XII Due Process of Law 92k278.2 Zoning, Building, and Planning Regulations 92k278.2(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases Zoning and Planning 414198 414 Zoning and Planning 414III Modification or Amendment 414III(B) Manner of Modifying or Amending 414k198 k. Number of Votes Required. Most Cited Cases Property owner was not denied due process of law by inclusion of city-owned streets, which were located within 200 feet of perimeter of area proposed for rezoning, in calculations by city Department of Zoning Administration to determine whether owner, who filed petition protesting proposed rezoning, owned 20% of 200-foot legal protest area and whether owner's protest was "legal protest" requiring favorable vote by ten city council members for passage of proposed rezoning ordinance; nothing in nature of city's title to streets rebutted presumption of integrity, honesty, and impartiality accorded those serving in quasi-judicial capacity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. *749 Goldstein & Armour, P.C., Alan A. Armour, Darrel L. Campbell, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant. Stephen H. Kaplan, City Atty., Robert M. Kelly, Asst. City Atty., Denver, for defendants-appellees Denver City Council, Individual City Council Members, and The City and County of Denver. Holme Roberts & Owen, Lawrence L. Levin, Clifford P. Jones, Englewood, for Non-City defendants-appellees. BABCOCK, Judge. Plaintiff, Franklin L. Burns, appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants on his ©2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2. westlaw. com/print/printstream. aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split&... 2/8/2007 Page 4 of ~ 759 P?d 748 Page 3 759 P.2d 748 (Cite as: 759 P.2d 748) C.R.C.P. ]fl6(a)(4) petition for review of the approval by the Denver City Council (council) of a rezoning ordinance and for declaration of that ordinance's invalidity. We affirm. The relevant facts are undisputed. In October 1983, defendant, Cherry Creek Housing Associates, for itself and on behalf of defendants, Cherry Creek Partners, Ken Peterson, and Morton Zeppelin, applied to the Denver Department of Zoning Administration (department) to rezone the. subject property. Burns owns property across the street from this property. In December 1983, Burns filed a petition protesting the proposed rezoning ordinance. The petition was signed only by Burns. The department determined that the petition was not a. "legal protest" because Burns' property consisted of less than ?.0% of the area within 200 feet of the perimeter of the area proposed for zoning change. In making this determination under Denver City Charter B I. ] 7 and Denver Revised Municipal Code 59-647(8), the department included city streets in its calculation. Denver City Charter B1.17 provides: "Such regulations, restrictions and boundaries may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified or repealed. In case, however, of a protest against such change, signed by the owners of twenty per cent or more, either of the area of the lots included in such proposed change or of the area to a distance of two hundred feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change, such amendment shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of ten of the members of the council of the City and County of Denver...." (emphasis added) This charter provision is iterated in Denver Revised Municipal Code 59-647(8). Burns' protest would be a legal protest by these charter and ordinance sections if the city-owned streets within the 200 foot protest area were excluded from the department's calculation. Consequently, ten favorable council votes would have been required to approve the rezoning and the rezoning would have failed on the 9-3 council vote at the January 1984 hearing. The primary issue presented to the trial court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment was whether the department and council correctly interpreted and implemented Denver City Charter B1.17 and Denver Revised Municipal Code 59-647(8) to include city streets within the 200 foot legal protest area in determining that Burns had not filed a legal protest. Such an interpretation renders effective the council's passage of the rezoning ordinance by a vote of less than ten. [1][2][3][4] When statutory language is clear and legislative intent appears reasonably certain, a court will not resort to other rules of statutory construction. People v. District Court, 713 P.2d 918 (Colo.1986). Courts will not interpret a statute ,G~r , 3U .. A.r~1ix1211Ce_ to- tneau that ~lu~skl t -' Win; express. Dawson v. PERA, 664 P.2d 702 (Colo.1983); Rancho Colorado, Inc. v. City of Broomfield, 196 Colo. 444, 586 P.2d 659 (1978). In interpreting statutory language, *750 courts must effectuate the plain meaning of words used by the legislative body. People v. Deadmond, 683 P.2d 763 (Colo.1984). And, clear, plain, and unambiguous legal protest provisions of municipal charters and ordinances will be applied as written. See Pfaff v. City of Lakewood, 712 P.2d 1041 (Colo.App.1985). [~] The charter and ordinance provisions that the protest area be defined as "the area to a distance of 200 feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change" are clear, plain, and unambiguous; accordingly, they must be applied as written. See Pfaff v. City of Lakewood, supra; Hittl v. Buckhout, 13 Misc.2d 230, 176 N.Y.S.2d 401 (1958) (village ordinance requiring favorable vote of 3/4 of trustees to amend zoning ordinance, where protest is made by the owners of 20% or more of the immediately adjacent land, was clear and unambiguous, and contemplated al] owners, even in situations where an adjacent owner was the municipality); BRM Realty Corp. v. Flynn, 39 Misc.2d 1049, 242 N.Y.S.2d 338 (1963) (zoning ordinance requiring passage of rezoning amendment © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw, com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split&... 2/8/2007 Page 5 of ~ 759 P.2d 748 759 P.2d 748 (Cite as: 759 P.2d 748) by 3/4 vote of council if protest is made by owners of 20% or more of adjacent land within 200 feet of land in question, required inclusion of streets within the 200 foot radius to determine whether protest had been made by owners of 20% of the area). Therefore, the method of computation here was neither arbitrary nor capricious; consequently, it was not erroneous. See Pfaff v. City of Lakewood, supra. [6] We also disagree with Burns' contention that application of Denver's charter and ordinance. provisions, as written, denies him due process of law. Burns concedes that he was afforded a right to protest and exercised his opportunity to be heard and to present and rebut evidence at the rezoning hearing. See Denver Revised Municipal Code 59-53 and 59-647(7)(9). However, he argues that inclusion of Denver streets makes Denver a party to the rezoning proceeding and, thus, denies him a hearing by an impartial tribunal. Burns can point to nothing in the record that overcomes the presumption of integrity, honesty, and impartiality that is accorded those serving in a quasi-judicial capacity. See Scott v. City o~ Englewood, 672 P.2d 225 (Colo.App.1983). There is nothing in the nature of a city's title to streets that rebuts this presumption. See Colorado Springs v. Weiher, 110 Colo. 55, 129 P.2d 988 (1942) (title to city streets is in trust for the use of the public); BRM Realty Corp. v. Flynn, supra. Application of the charter and ordinance provisions at issue here, as written, do not deny Burns due process of law. Judgment affirmed. STERNBERG and TURSI, JJ., concur. Colo.App.,1988. Burns v. City Council of City and County of Denver 759 P.2d 748 END OF DOCUMENT © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Page 4 http: //web2. westlaw. com/print/printstream. aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split&... 2/8/2007 Page 2 of 7 V~~~S~~dW. 931 P.2d 517 p ;.cit.®~" C~7 Page 1 931 P.2d 517 (Cite as: 931 P.2d 517) P Anderson v. Board of Adjustment for Zoning AppealsColo.App.,1996. Colorado Court of Appeals,Div. V. Donald E. ANDERSON and_Marilee Anderson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, . v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR ZONING APPEALS, City and County of Denver; the City and County of Denver; Richard K. Kaufman; and M. Elaine Kaufman, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94CA2209. Oct. 10, 1996. 414VI Nonconforming Uses 414k321 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Nonconforming use of real. property is use which lawfully existed prior to enactment of zoning ordinance and which is maintained after effective date of ordinance, although it does not comply with zoning restrictions applicable to district in which it is situated. [2] Zoning and Planning 414321 4l4 Zoning and Planning 414VI Nonconforming Uses 414k321 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Properxy owners sought judicial review of decision of city board of adjustment for zoning appeals permitting nonconforming accessory use of neighboring property, requested issuance of cease and desist order by zoning administrator, and filed separate action for declaratory judgment against nonconforming use of such property. The District Court of the City and County of Denver, Warren O. Martin, J., consolidated actions, upheld administrative determination, and dismissed action for declaratory judgment as frivolous and groundless. Property owners appealed. The Court of Appeals, Sternberg, C.J., held that: (1) city zoning ordinance governing nonconforming uses did not permit expansion of nonconforming filling station to include accessory use consisting of similarly nonconforming automated car wash; (2) board's interpretation of such ordinance was not entitled to deference on judicial review; and (3) property owners were not required to delay seeking declaratory relief until after rutirig by zoning administrator on their request for cease and desist order. Reversed and remanded. West Headnotes (1 ]Zoning and Planning 414321 414 Zoning and Planning Zoning and Planning 41.4329,1 414 Zoning and Planning 414VI Nonconforming Uses 414k329 Enlargement or Extension of Use 414k329.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Nonconforming use of real property is entitled to protection under law; such use may continue, but right to continue does not include right to extend or enlarge use. [3] Zoning and Planning 41.4321 414 Zoning and Planning 414VI Nonconforming Uses 414k321 k. In General. Most Cited Cases .Zoning and Planning 414329.1 414 Zoning and Planning 414VI Nonconforming Uses 414k329 Enlargement or Extension of Use 414k329.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Right to extend, enlarge, or even to continue, nonconforming use of real property may legally be restricted. [4] Zoning and Planning 414321 © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.west]aw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split&... 2/8/2007 Page 3 of 7 931 P?d 517 Page 2 931 P.2d 517 (Cite as: 931 P.2d 517) 414 Zoning and Planning 414V1 Nonconforming Uses 414k321 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Nonconforming uses of real property should be reduced to conformity as speedily as possible. (5] Zoning and Planning 414321 414 Zoning and Planning 414VI Nonconforming Uses 414k321 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Zoning ordinances should be interpreted strictly against allowing indefinite continuation of nonconforming use; zoning provisions permitting nonconforming uses to continue should be strictly construed, and provisions restricting nonconforming uses should be liberally construed. [6] Zoning and Planning 414 X329.1 414 'Coning and Planning 414V1 Nonconforming Uses 414k329 Enlargement or Extension of Use 414k329.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases City zoning ordinance governing nonconforming uses of real property did not permit expansion of nonconforming filling station to include similarly nonconforming automated car wash, which would have been accessory use of filling station as of right if filling station had been located in zone in which it would have been conforming use; interpreting zoning code to allow such expansion would ignore rule that such ordinances should be interpreted strictly against allowing indefinite continuation of nonconforming uses and reverse rule of law that provisions allowing nonconforming uses to be continued are strictly construed and zoning provisions restricting such uses are entitled to liberal construction. Denver, Colo., Revised Municipal Code § 59-631(b). and zoning body are entitled to deference. [8] Zoning and Planning 414 0231 414 Zoning and Planning 414V Construction, Operation and Effect 414V(A) In General 414k231 k. Construction of Regulations in General. Most Cited Cases Reviewing court is not bound by interpretation of zoning ordinance by administrator and zoning body if there is no competent evidence to support such interpretation or if decision misconstrues or misapplies law. [9] Zoning and Planning 414329.1 414 Zoning and Planning 414VI Nonconforming Uses 414k329 Enlargement or Extension of Use 414k329.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Zoning and Planning 414 0676 414 Zoning and Planning 414X Judicial Review or Relief 414X(C) Scope of Review 414X(C)3 Presumptions 414k676 k. Decisions of Boards or Officers in General. Most Cited Cases Interpretation of zoning ordinance governing nonconforming uses of real property by city board of adjustment for zoning. appeals to permit expansion of nonconforming filling station to include similarly nonconforming automated car wash was not entitled to deference on judicial review, as such deference would permit amendment of ordinance in guise of interpretation. Denver, Colo., Revised Municipal Code § 59-631(b). [10] Zoning and Planning 414 X328 [7] Zoning and Planning 414231 414 Zoning and Planning 414V Construction, Operation and Effect 414V(A) In General 414k231 k. Construction of Regulations in Genera]. Most Cited Cases Interpretation of zoning ordinance by administrator 414 Zoning and Planning 414VI Nonconforming Uses 414k328 k. Particular Cases as Involving Change of Use. Most Cited Cases Zoning and Planning 414329.1 © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw. com/print/printstream. aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split&... 2/8/2007 Page 4 of 7 93l P.2d 517 Page 3 931 P.2d 517 (Cite as: 931 P.2d 517) 414 Zoning and Planning 414VI Nonconforming Uses 414k329 Enlargement or Extension of Use 414k329.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Installation of automatic car wash in one service bay of filling station constituted change or expansion in use of station impermissible under zoning ordinances governing nonconforming uses of real property; while cars which had been repaired at station in past were washed by hand. using hoses and sponges, cars never lined up for washing, and owners were not charged for washing, new automated car wash would increase number of vehicles washed each day and car wash facility was needed to make filling station more competitive and economically viable. Denver, Colo., Revised Municipal Code § 59-631(b). [11~ Zoning and Planning 414332 4l4 7,oning and Planning 414V1 Nonconforming Uses 414k332 k. Use of New Instrumentalities. Most Cited Cases "Modern instrumentalities doctrine" allows nonconforming uses of real property to expand by replacing older methods of operation with newer, modern means. X121 Declaratory Judgment 118A~209 118A Declaratory Judgment 118AII Subjects of Declaratory Relief 118AII(K) Public Officers and Agencies 118Ak209 k. Counties and Municipalities and Their Officers. Most Cited Cases Property owners were not required to delay seeking declaratory relief against nonconforming use of neighboring property until after ruling by zoning administrator on their request for cease and desist order with respect to such nonconforming use; issues in cease and desist proceeding were same as in earlier building permit hearing concerning proposed expansion of filling station to include automated car wash, and property owners thus had prior notice of zoning administrator's position on permissibility of contested use. 229 15A Administrative Law and Procedure l SAIII Judicial Remedies Prior to or Pending Administrative Proceedings 15Ak229 k. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. Most Cited Cases Exhaustion of available administrative remedies is not always prerequisite to filing suit; where plaintiff has notice of administrative body's interpretation of pertinent law, to await another and. different answer on same question would be exercise in futility and would not serve purposes underlying exhaustion doctrine. *518 Gilbert Goldstein, Denver, Darrel L. Campbell Englewood, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Daniel E. Muse, City Attorney, Thomas Bigler, John Stoffel, Assistant City Attorneys, Denver, for Defendants-Appellees Board of Adjustment for Zoning Appeals and the City and County of Denver. Beimford & Gleason, P.C., Richard. J. Gleason, Denver, for Defendants-Appellees Richard K. Kaufman and M. Elaine Kaufman. Opinion by Chief Judge STERNBERG. Plaintiffs, Donald and Mary Lee Anderson, appeal the order of the trial court upholding a decision of the defendant Board of Adjustment for Zoning Appeals of the City and County of Denver (the Board). That decision allowed defendants Richard and Emilene Kaufman to install an .automated car wash on their non-conforming filling station property. Plaintiffs also appeal the trial court's order concluding that their declaratory judgment suit was frivolous and groundless. We reverse. Plaintiffs own an apartment building located adjacent to property on which the Kaufmans own and operate a filling station. The Kaufman property is located in a B-1 zone, which does not allow a filling station as a permitted use; however, because the station has been in operation since before the time of adoption of Denver's present zoning code, it has the status of a legal non-conforming use. Filling stations are a use by right in a B-2 zone. [13~ Administrative Law and Procedure 15A~ *519 The Kaufmans obtained a permit allowing the ©2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw. com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split&... 2/8/2007 Page 5 of 7 931 P.2d 517 Page 4 931 P.2d 517 (Cite as: 931 P.2d 517) installation of an automated car wash in one of the three service bays of their filling station. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to delay installation of the car wash in order to allow time to appeal the issuance of the permit to the Board. An order delaying issuance of the building permit was granted and plaintiffs duly appealed to the Board. The Board conducted an evidentiary hearing. Neighborhood residents in favor pointed to the convenience of the car wash in that location. Those opposed objected to increased traffic, noise and air pollution. The zoning administrator testified that the Kaufmans' station "is non-conforming and by virtue of being non-conforming, goes by B-2 rules. An automobile gasoline filling station can do all things that a B-2 gasoline filling station is allowed to do." to non-conforming uses, that the Board's decision amounts to an unauthorized rezoning of the Kaufinan property, and that the installation of the automated car wash constitutes an illegal expansion of the Kaufmans' non-conforming use. Defendants, on the other hand, assert that the Board's conclusion that the car wash did not constitute a change or expansion of use is binding on review. They also argue that, while the Kaufmans' station is located in a B-1 zone, "their legal non-conforming use is that of a B-2 filling station" which allows car washes as a permitted accessory use. Defendants contend further that accomplishing an existing use (washing cars by hand) by a different means (automatic machine washing) does not constitute a change in the character or an expansion of the use. We agree with the plaintiffs and disagree with defendants. The Board upheld the decision of the zoning administrator allowing installation of the automated car wash. It ruled that the change did not constitute an expansion or alteration of the structure. In so ruling, the Board adopted the view of the zoning administrator and reasoned that, because a car wash is allowed as an accessory use by right in a B-2 zone filling station, anon-conforming filling station located in a B-1 zone was entitled to the same use by right. Plaintiffs sought review of the Board's decision pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Thereafter, the plaintiffs wrote to the zoning administrator, asking her to order the Kaufmans to cease and desist the use of their property as a non-conforming gas station, and also filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment, The two district court actions were consolidated. The court upheld the decision of the Board allowing the Kaufmans to install the automatic car wash, dismissed the declaratory judgment claim, and held that claim to be frivolous and groundless. The court awarded attorney fees to defendants Kaufman and to the city. This appeal followed. Plaintiffs contend that the Board erred in its interpretation of the portion of the city code relating [1] Anon-conforming use is one which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of zoning ordinances and which is maintained. after the effective date of the ordinance, although it does not comply with the zoning restrictions applicable to the district in which it is situated. 1 K. Young, Anderson's American Law of Zoning § 601 (4th ed.1995). [2] Non-conforming uses are entitled to protection under the law. The use may continue; however, the right to continue does not include the right to extend or enlarge the use. See Bird v. Colorado Springs, 176 Colo. 32, 489 P.2d 324 (1971); Anderson's American Law of Zoning, supra, at § 6.45. [3][4] The right to extend or enlarge, or indeed, even to continue, anon-conforming use may legally be restricted. Bird v. Colorado Springs, supra. Further, non-conforming uses should be reduced to conformity as speedily as possible. Wasinger v. Miller, 154 Colo. 61, 388 P.2d 250 (1964). [5] Zoning ordinances should be interpreted strictly against allowing indefinite continuation of a non-conforming use. Wyatt v. Board of Adjustment-Zoning, 622 P.2d 85 (Colo.App.1980). Provisions permitting non-conforming uses to continue should be strictly construed, and zoning © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream, aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split&... 2/8/2007 Page 6 of 7 931 P.2d 5 ] 7 Page 5 931 P.2d 517 (Cite as: 931 P.2d 517) provisions restricting*520 non-conforming uses should be liberally construed. Hartley v. City of Colorado Springs, 764 P.2d 1216 (Colo.1988). The language of the zoning code of the city, Denver Revised Municipal Code § 59-631(b) (1988), recognizes these limitations on non-conforming uses. That code section states that "no change whatsoever in any aspect of and feature of or in the character of the non-conforming use is permitted if the non-conforming use is to continue." (emphasis added) [6] Without citing any authority, defendants argue that, because the ftlling station is located in a B-1 zone and is non-conforming and filling stations are conforming uses in a B-2 zone, they are, as a matter of right, entitled to all of the uses for filling stations located in a B-2 zone. They argue similarly that an ordinance that specifically amended the zoning ordinance permitting filling stations located in B-2 zones to install car washes as an accessory use applies to this non-conforming use located as it is in a B-1 zone. We are aware of no authority for these propositions. To the contrary, interpreting the zoning code as urged by defendants ignores the rule that such ordinances should be interpreted strictly against allowing indefinite continuation of non-conforming uses. See Wyatt v. Board of Adjustment-Zoning, supra. Indeed, defendants' interpretation reverses the rule of law that provisions allowing non-conforming uses to be continued are strictly construed and zoning provisions restricting such uses are entitled to liberal construction. See Hartley v. City of Colorado Springs, supra. ordinance in the guise of interpreting it. [10] The defendants also contend that installation of the automatic car wash does not constitute a " change or expansion in the use of the station." Undisputed evidence in the record is contrary to this contention. Defendant Richard Kaufman. testified that cars which had been .repaired at the station in the past were washed by hand using hoses and sponges, that the cars never lined up, and that the owners were not charged for washing. The new automated car wash, on the other hand, would increase the number of vehicles washed each day since every gas purchaser would be entitled to a free wash. and the facility would be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. He also testified that the car wash facility was needed to make the filling station more competitive and economically viable. As explained in Anderson's American Law of Zoning, supra, § 6.47: The addition of new facilities or the enlargement of existing ones seems most likely to be regarded as an extension of use if the non-conforming use is thereby rendered more incompatible with permitted uses, if the volume or intensity of use is increased .... (emphasis added) We also conclude that, contrary to the zoning administrator's interpretation and the defendants' contention on appeal, the amendment of the accessory use ordinance, Denver Revised Municipal Code § 59-277(1)(c)(10) (1988), does not apply to a non-conforming filling station use. By its language, it applies only to uses accessory to a use by right in a B-2 zone. [7][8][9] Lt is correct, as defendants urge, that interpretation of a zoning ordinance by an administrator and zoning body are entitled to deference. See Humana, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment, 189 Colo. 79, 537 P.2d 741 (1975). Nevertheless, a reviewing court is not bound by such a decision if there is no competent evidence to support it or if, as here, the decision misconstrues or misapplies the law. Judicial deference to the decision of the zoning official and the Board cannot extend to allowing those officials to amend the [11] Finally, we reject defendants' alternative argument that we adopt the "Modern Instrumentalities Doctrine." That rule, adopted in Pennsylvania, allows non-conforming uses to expand by replacing older methods of operation with newer, modern means. See, e.g., Chartiers v. William H. Martin, Inc., 518 Pa. 18 i , 542 A.2d 985 (1988). Under that doctrine, a .change from hand-washing of cars to machine-washing probably might be allowed even if the volume or intensity of use would be increased. But see *5211MS © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2. we stlaw. com/print/printstream. aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split&... 2/8/2007 Page 7 of 7 931 P.2d 517 Page 6 931 P.2d 517 (Cite as: 931 P.2d 517) America, Ltd. v. Zoning Hearing Board, 94 Pa.Cmwlth. 501, 503 A.2d 1061 (1986). In any event, this doctrine is inconsistent with Colorado jurisprudence, as discussed above, and we decline to adopt it. C.R.S. (1996 Cum.Supp.). Colo.App.,1996. Anderson v. Board of Adjustment for Zoning Appeals 931 P.2d 517 For these reasons, the decision of the Board, and that of the trial court upholding it, must be reversed. II. [12] The plaintiffs next contend that the trial court erred in holding that their declaratory judgment claim was frivolous. In light of our holding above, we conclude that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiffs had to delay seeking declaratory relief until after a ruling by the zoning administrator on their request for a cease and desist order. The issues in the cease and desist proceeding were the same as in the earlier building permit hearing; thus, the position of the zoning administrator that the installation of the car wash was a permitted use was a foregone conclusion. It involved an erroneous interpretation of ]aw. See Trainor v. City of Wheat Ridge, 697 P.2d 37 (Colo.App.1984). [13] Exhaustion of available administrative remedies is not always a prerequisite to filing suit. See Gramiger v. Crowley, 660 P.2d 1279 (Colo.1983). Here, inasmuch as plaintiffs had notice of the zoning administrator's interpretation of the pertinent law, for them to have awaited another and different answer on the same question would have been an exercise in futility and would not have served the purposes underlying the exhaustion doctrine. See Golden's Concrete Co. v. Colorado, 937 P.2d 789, 1996 WL 317002 (Colo.App. No. 95CA0069, June 13, 1996). The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ROY and TURSIFN`, JJ., concur. FN* Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of the Colo. Const. art. VI, Sec. 5(3), and 24-51-1105, END OF DOCUMENT © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split&... 2/8/2007 yl Y.3d 383 Page 1 of 7 65.or.o~ ~~ ~~ West Reporter__Image___(P_DF) 91 P.3d 383 Briefs and_Other Related Documents Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. Les NORMANDIN, Petitioner v. The PEOPLE of the Town of Parachute, Respondent. No. 03SC227. June 7, 2004. Background: Defendant filed notice of appeal 29 days after entry of judgment of convictions in municipal court of record. The District Court, Garfield County, Thom_as__Osso. l_a_, J., dismissed appeal, and defendant petitioned Supreme Court for certiorari. Hol_din.g The. Supreme Court, Kourl_is, J., held that specific statute, municipal court rule, and rule of criminal procedure combined to create 30-day opportunity to file notice of appeal from judgment entered in municipal court of record. Reversed and remanded. vVest Headnotes 1tC, [_1 ]_ KeyCite Notes <;~:: 1._.1.0. Criminal Law 3~--y110XIII Nonjury or Bench Triat and Conviction <=:~->110k260 Appeal and Trial De Novo >110k260.5 k. Time of Taking Appeal. Most Cited Cases Specific statute, municipal court rule, and rule of criminal procedure combined to create 30-day opportunity to file notice of appeal from judgment of conviction entered by municipal court of record, which was presided over by attorney judge, and where official record of in-court proceedings was maintained, and tangential reference to municipal courts of record in more general statute referred only to fees required for preparation of record on appeal. West's C. R.S.A. §§ 13-10-1162), 13-10- 117; Rules Crim.Proc. Rule 37. I4 1•?1 KeyCite Notes ~~_>..36_1.. Statutes ---361VI Construction and Operation ~361VI A General Rules of Construction t~~361k180 Intention of Legislature ~•-~361k181 In General _<--~r36_lki_8.1(1_) k. In General. Most Cited Cases Supreme Court must interpret all statutes so as to give effect to legislative intent. [_3..]. Ke.y...Cte..._Notes._. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?blinkedcitelist=False&rs=WLW7.01 &... 2/12/2007 yl Y.3d 3~3 -36,1 Statutes 361VI Construction and Operation 361VI A General Rules of Construction := 361k187 Meaning of Language ~>361k188 k. In General. Most Cited_Cases Page 2 of 7 its 361 Statutes KeyCite Notes 361VI Construction and Operation ---36.1VI_r_A~. General Rules of Construction ~:-~ =36.1k204 Statute as a Whole, and Intrinsic Aids to Construction __~ ~361_k206 k. Giving Effect to Entire Statute. Most Cited Cases 14~ ~~ 361 Statutes KeyCite Notes 361VI Construction and Operation ~~>36.1_VI(A~ General Rules of Construction _.. °~:~~~361k204 Statute as a Whole, and Intrinsic Aids to Construction ~~~-=361k207 k. Conflicting Provisions. Most Cited Cases To discern the underlying legislative intent, Supreme Court affords the language of a statute its ordinary and common meaning, giving effect to every term and provision, including legislative definitions, while harmonizing potentially conflicting provisions, if possible. t~G j4] .KeyCi_te_ N_otes._ ~- -3.6_..1.., Statutes =.36.1VI Construction and Operation =~3.6.1VL(A) General Rules of Construction __ . 361k187 Meaning of Language :a--361k190 k. Existence of Ambiguity. Most Cited Cases When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, Supreme Court does not resort to interpretive rules of statutory construction. [5]. KeyCte..._Notes. <r~>361 Statutes ~:~=r36.1V Repeal, Suspension, Expiration, and Revival ~- ~36_ik1,60 Implied Repeal by Act Relating to Same Subject ~a~~36.1_k163 k. Repeal of General by Special Act. Most. Cited..__Cases x~ ~- 3.61. Statutes Ke.y_Cte_Notes_ f 3.6,1VI Construction and Operation 3.6.1VI_(A~ General Rules of Construction =~~361k223 Construction with Reference to Other Statutes ~.-361k223.4 k. General and Special Statutes. Most Cited Cases When two statutes attempt to regulate the same conduct, the more specific statute preempts the general one, but only when there is a manifest inconsistency between the two statutes, because statutory repeals by implication are disfavored. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?blinkedcitelist=False&rs=WLW7.01 &... 2/12/2007 yl Y.3d 383 U KeyCite Notes Page 3 of 7 ~:~ 361 Statutes 361VI Construction and Operation ~~ 361VI A General Rules of Construction ~F~ _3.6.1k2.04 Statute as a Whole, and Intrinsic Aids to Construction ~~-=361k207 k. Conflicting Provisions. Most Cited Cases In all cases, Supreme Court will favor a statutory construction that avoids potential conflict between the relevant provisions. j7] Cite Notes ~:-==-1.10. Criminal Law =~~110XXIV Review ~~ 110XXIV(A) Nature and Form of Remedy 110k1005 k. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions. Most Cited Cases Statutes bestowing the right to appeal are liberally construed in furtherance of justice, and an interpretation which will work a forfeiture of the right to appeal is not favored. *384 Gordan.,P..,,_..G...a_I_lag_her, Grand Junction, Colorado, Attorney for Petitioner. Carter & Sands, P.C., Stephen L Carter, Rifle, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondent. Justice KOURLIS delivered the Opinion of the Court. I. Introduction In this case, we deal only with a procedural issue, and not with the underlying merits of the case. The district court here dismissed an appeal taken from a conviction entered in a qualified municipal court of record. Relying on section._13-10-.117, 5 C.R.S. (2003), the district court concluded that the appellant's failure to file the notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of the judgment of conviction rendered the appeal untimely. We now reverse the district court's ruling and hold that because the conviction originated in a municipal court of record, the appellant had thirty days following the judgment of conviction to file the notice of appeal, pursuant to section 13=10-11~2~, 5 C.R.S. (2003), Colorado Municipal Court Rule (C._M._C.R,)__237, and Cri_m.__P._.37. The appellant in this case filed his notice of appeal within thirty days following the judgment of conviction, and therefore the appeal was timely. II. Factual and Procedural Background On October 7, 2002, Les Normandin was convicted of two separate municipal criminal violations by two separate juries. Judgment was entered for each conviction on October 7, 2002. On November 6, 2002, twenty-nine days after the judgments of conviction were entered, Normandin filed a notice of appeal for both convictions with the District Court for the Ninth Judicial District. The cases were consolidated for purposes of appeal On January 27, 2003, the prosecutor for the People of the Town of Parachute ("Parachute") moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the notice of appeal was untimely filed. Parachute argued that secti_on__1.3__-_1.0=_1.17. required Normandin to file notice of the appeal within ten days of the judgment of http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?blinkedcitelist=False&rs=WLW7.01 &... 2/12/2007 yi r..sa .~~~ Page 4 of 7 conviction. Because he filed the notice twenty-nine days after the convictions were entered, Parachute contended that the district court was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Normandin countered that section__13-10-1.16,(2_)_ and, by extension of that statute, C,_M,_C.R,.__2_37 and Crim. P. 37 govern the time for appeal. He argued that the statute and those rules afford a defendant convicted in a municipal court of record thirty days in which to file an appeal to the district court following the judgment of conviction. Because he filed the notice of appeal twenty-nine days after the convictions, Normandin argued that his appeal was timely filed. The district court dismissed the appeal on March 7, 2003. In its order, the court noted that it perceived a conflict between the rules deriving from section 13-10-116 and section 13-10-117. Specifically, while Crim. P. 37 *385 and section 13-10-116(2) granted Normandin thirty days to file an appeal, s_ecti_on._13._-_1.0.-_11.7 afforded him only ten. The court noted that "the Municipal Court is created by statute and that these statutes governing the Court control where the statutes are in conflict with the rules of procedure." Accordingly, the court concluded that because the statutes required Normandin to file the appeal within ten days of the convictions and because Normandin failed to do so, the court dismissed the appeal. Normandin then petitioned this court for certiorari pursuant to section..._13..-,6.-310_(4,)., 5 C.R.S. (2003). We granted that petition and now must decide whether a defendant convicted in a Colorado municipal court of record has ten days or thirty days within which to file a notice of appeal with the district court. III. Analysis Both parties to this case agree that if section 13-10-1i~ is controlling, Normandin's notice of appeal was timely filed. They also agree that if secti_on_13=10.-117 governs, Normandin's notice of appeal was not timely filed. There are two categories of municipal courts in this state: (1) municipal courts of record, which are presided over by an attorney judge and are required to maintain an official record of in-court proceedings, and (2) the balance of municipal courts. Both the appeal procedure and the timing for such an appeal differ between the two types of courts. Normandin's convictions were entered by a municipal court of record; we therefore conclude that section 13-10-116(2 controls and the district court erred in dismissing Normandin's appeal as untimely. A. Statutes and Rules Governing Appeals Taken from Municipal Courts 1. Municipal Courts The procedures governing municipal courts are generally found in a_rtcle___10:._0. f._ti_tle..._13 _of__the_Colora..do Revised Statutes § 13-10-103, 5 C.R.S. (2003). Section 13-10-102, 5 C.R.S. (2003), sets out the definitions for the governing provisions and provides that a " `[m]unicipal court' includes police courts and police magistrate courts created or existing under previous laws or under a municipal charter and ordinances." >~ 13-10-102(1. It then further defines a " ~gJua/ified municipal court of record" (emphasis added) as a municipal court established by, and operating in conformity with, either local charter or ordinances containing provisions requiring the keeping of a verbatim record of the proceedings and evidence at trials by either electric devices or stenographic means, and requiring as a qualification for the office of judge of such court that he has been admitted to, and is currently licensed in, the practice of law in Colorado. 13-10-10~~. These definitions provide crucial distinctions that apply throughout the article governing municipal courts. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?blinkedcitelist=False&rs=WL W7.01 &... 2/12/2007 I - yl Y.3d 3~3 2. Sectio_n._13-_10-1.1.6 Page 5 of 7 Secton_1_3_-_10-_116. sets out the rules governing appeals of judgments entered by the various municipal courts. Subsection (1) governs appeals of municipal court judgments and states that "[a] ppeals may be taken by any defendant from any judgment of a municipal court which is not a qualified municipal court of record to the county court of the county in which such municipal court is located, and the cause shall be tried de novo in the appellate court." Subsection (2) governs appeals from qualified municipal courts of record and provides that [a]ppeals taken from judgments of a qualified municipal court of record shall be made to the district court of the county in which the qualified municipal court of record is located. The practice and procedure in such case shall be the same as provided by section 13-6-310 and applicable rules of procedure for the appeal of misdemeanor convictions from the county court to the district court, and the appeal procedures set forth in this article shall not apply to such case." (emphasis added). Section, l3._6-3.10 provides the appellate procedures to be followed .when appealing a judgment of the county court. Broadly stated, it provides that appeals from county courts are to be made to *386 the district court and that the district court is to review the appeal on the record made at the county court level. ~__ 13_-.6..._-3.1.0_(1.). 3. C.M.C._R.. 237. and the Time for Appeals Taken from Municipal Courts C.M_,C.R. 237 ("Rule 237") pertains specifically to municipal court appeals. Rule 237 a states that [a]ppeals from courts not of record shall-be in accordance with sections 13-.10-1.6 to 13-10-~25, C.R.S." Part of the confusion in this case stems from the fact that section 13-10-1.17 generally states the time for appeals from municipal courts, without distinguishing between municipal courts of record and not of record. It provides that "[a]ppeals may be taken within ten days after entry of any judgment of a municipal court." §__.._13..-,10.-_1.17, Rule 237(b), however, then explicitly provides that "[a]ppeals from courts of record shall be in accordance with Rul__e..37. of_the__Co.lorado..._Ru_les.._of__Crim_in_al__Proced_ure." Thus, judgments entered in a qualified municipal court of record are to be appealed according to the rules governing appeals of county court convictions, which are in turn governed by Crim. P. 37. 4. Crim. P. 37 Crm..__P.. 37 ("Ru.le.._3.7."), entitled °Appeals from county court," provides, as pertinent here, that "[t]o appeal the appellant shall, within thirty days after the day of entry of the judgment or the denial of post trial motions, whichever is later, file notice of appeal in the county court••••"Thus, Rule_ 237 and Rule 37 combine to provide athirty-day opportunity to file a notice of appeal from a judgment entered by a municipal court of record. Hence, the impact of these various provisions is that appeals from municipal courts NOT of record go to the county court, are tried de novo-because of the absence of a record-and must be filed within ten days. To the contrary, appeals from municipal courts of record, like appeals from county courts, go directly to the district court, are reviewed on the record, and must be filed within thirty days. B. Perceived Conflict between the Rules Governing Appeals Taken from ]udgments Entered by a Municipal Court of Record and Section 13-10-117 ~~ 11.] In its order dismissing Normandin's appeal, the district court ruled that a defendant appealing a judgment from a municipal court-whether a municipal court or a municipal court of record-has only ten days to file his notice of appeal following the entry of judgment. The court based its ruling entirely http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?blinkedcitelist=False&rs=WLW7.01 &... 2/12/2007 yl Y.3d 383 Page 6 of 7 upon section 13-_10-1.1.7, which, according to the court, mandates aten-day window within which to file an appeal from all municipal courts and conflicts irreconcilably with each of the rules and statutes described above. Parachute now asks this court to affirm that ruling. However, Parachute does not dispute that the plain language of s...ecti..on_._13_-1_.0.._-_1_.16(2_? and its associated rules of procedure provide Normandin and similarly situated appellants with athirty-day opportunity to file an appeal. Instead, it argues, as the district court held, that 13-10-117 conflicts with section 13-10-116 and that because section 13-10- 117 is the more specific statute of the two, its ten-day time limit controls. We reject this argument- and, therefore reverse the district court's order of dismissal-because we perceive no conflict between section 13-10-117. and section 13-10-116 and its associated rules of procedure. 1. Standard of Review N[G' ~ ~C I21 [3.1 L4] As with all statutes, we must interpret a statute so as to give effect to legislative intent. Concerned Parents of Pueblo Inc. v. Gilmore, 47 P.3d 311, 313 (Colo.2002)_. To discern that intent, "we afford the statutory language its ordinary and common meaning, giving effect to every term and provision, including legislative definitions, while harmonizing potentially conflicting provisions, if possible." Telluride Resort & Saa, L. P. v. Co% Dep't of Revenue, 40 P.3d 1260, 1264 ~Colo.2002). Where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we do not resort to interpretive rules of statutory construction, Peop/e.._v.__Lut_h. er, 58__P.3d_ 1013_,_10__15_ (Col_o.2002)_. KC, ~~. _ *387 [5_J L61. LZl. We have held that "where two statutes attempt to regulate the same conduct, the more specific statute does preempt the general one." Showpece_Homes_Corp._ v, Assurance_Co. ofAm., 38 P.3d 47 53 (Colo 2002. We so hold, however, only when "there is a manifest inconsistency between the two statutes because statutory repeals by implication are disfavored." Id. In all cases, "we will favor a construction that avoids potential conflict between the relevant provisions." PeoA/e v. Mojica-Simenta/,_ 73 P.3d 15, 17-18 Colo 2003 (internal quotation marks omitted). We are also aware "that statutes giving the right of appeal are liberally construed in furtherance of justice, and that such interpretation as will work a forfeiture of the right is not favored." Wi ton v. Wi ton 69 Colo. 19 22 169 P. 133 134 Colo.1917 . Bearing in mind these interpretive principles, we now turn to the alleged conflict between section 13- _._....-_1.17 and .s...ection_..._13.-_1.0._-.._1.1.6 and its effect, if any, on the otherwise applicable rules governing the appeal at issue in this case. 2. Section 13-10-117 Se.cton.._13-_i_0..-_11.7. declares in relevant part: Appeals may be taken within ten days after entry of any judgment of a municipal court. No appeal shall be allowed until the appellant has paid to the clerk of the municipal court one dollar and fifty cents as a fee for preparing the transcript of record on appeal. If the municipal court is a court of record, the clerk of the municipal court is entitled to the same additional fees for preparing the record, ••• as is the clerk of the county court on the appeal of misdemeanors•••• Parachute contends that by virtue of the reference in this statute to "any judgment of a municipal court" and the later specific reference to a "municipal court ••• of record," the statute creates aten- day appeal timeframe for all municipal court appeals. Accordingly, Parachute argues, all other statutes and rules affecting the appeals from judgments of municipal courts of record-in particular, section 13-10-116, Rule 237, and Rule 37-are rendered invalid. We are not persuaded. Section 13-10-116 specifically covers appeals taken from judgments of municipal courts of record and http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?blinkedcitelist=False&rs=WLW7.01 &... 2/12/2007 91 P.3d 383 Page 7 of 7 exempts those appeals from the otherwise applicable procedures governing appeals from municipal courts that are not of record. § 13-10-112) ("[T]he appeal procedures set forth in this article shall not apply to such case."). Rule 237, implementing that mandate, similarly bifurcates the appeal procedures, stating that "[a]ppeals from courts not of record shall be in accordance with sections 13- 10-11.6 to 13-10-125" and "[a]ppeals from courts of record shall be in accordance with Rule 37." C M._C.R 237(a) &.. _(_b). Rule 37, which applies to appeals from courts of record, provides athirty-day window In which to file a notice of appeal. Crlm __P.._ 37.(a_). A plain-language reading of section 13-10-117, on the other hand, indicates that it deals only with the fees associated with preparing a record on appeal from a judgment entered in a municipal court of record. It comports with Rule 37 and provides that "[i]f the municipal court is a court of record, the clerk. of the municipal court is entitled to the same additional fees for preparing the record ••• as is the clerk of the county court on the appeal of misdemeanors." See C.. r.i_m_.__P.....37 ("To appeal the appellant shall ••• file notice of appeal in the county court, [and] post such advance costs as may be required for the preparation of the record••••"). Contrary to Parachute's contention, we view section 13-10-116(2) and its associated rules as by far the more specific on the issue of time for appeal than any tangential mention of municipal courts of record in s_.ection_._1._3.-_i_0_-__1.17_. We view se_ction,._1.3...-1.0_-_...1..1.6(2). as directly applicable to appellate court procedures both for judgments entered in county courts and for judgments entered in municipal courts of record. This interpretation is supported by the mandatory language contained in both Rule 237, and Rule 37. C._M.C.R...._2.37 ("Appeals from courts of record shall be in accordance with Rule 37.") (emphasis added); Crm..,...._P.._ 3.7 ("To appeal, the appellant sha/l, within thirty days after the date of entry of judgment or the denial of *388 posttrial motions, whichever is later, file notice of appeal in the county court.") (emphasis added). - IV. Conclusion In summary, we are able to harmonize the specific rules governing appeals taken from municipal courts of record with the mention of municipal courts of record found in section 13-10-117 by applying the plain language of the applicable statutes. S.e...ction,_._13.-_10..-.._1_.1.._..6...(2_)_ and the associated rules govern those appeals generally, while section 13-10-117 merely dictates the fee that must be paid to have the record prepared. This interpretation gives effect to legislative intent and avoids a repeal of section 13-10-116(2 by implication. Because we see no conflict between section 13-10=1160, including its implementing rules, and section 13-10-117, we conclude that section 13-10-116(2), Rule 237, and Rule 37 all combine to provide a defendant appealing a judgment entered in a municipal court of record thirty days in which to file that appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order of dismissal and remand this case back to the district court for further proceedings. Colo.,2004. Normandin v. People 91 P.3d 383 Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top) :m: • 2003 WL_24172923 (Appellate Brief) Respondent's Reply Brief (Oct. 10, 2003) Original _Ima_ge_of this Document (PDF) • 2003 WL 24172922 (Appellate Brief) Opening Brief (Sep. 16, 2003) ~ Original Image of this Docu..m... ent..with.._A.p.pe_ndix__.(PDF) END OF DOCUMENT :`= West Reporter Image (PDF~ (c) 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?blinkedcitelist=False&rs=WLW7.01 &... 2/12/2007 as. ~ ~.b~r '~ MEMORANDUM May 1, 2007 To: Vail Town Council Stan Zemler Pam Brandmeyer Judy Camp From: Sally Lorton Re: March Sales Tax On the reverse side please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll collect another $75,000.00 in March sales tax to bring March collections to $2,980,020.00. If so, we will be up 9.2% or $251,475.00 from budget and up 4.5% or $127,066.00 from March 2006. The ski season (November -March) will be up 7.1 % or $798,645.00. March lift tax is down 1.4% or $10,417.00 from March 2006. The ski season (November -March) is up 3.4% or $90,577.00 from the same period last season. ~s.oc.n~ ~/~ Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Community Development -William T. Carlson Date: Apri130, 2007 Subject: 2007 Town Clean-Up Day Summary I. PURPOSE The purpose of this memo is to provide the Town Council with an update on the annual clean-up day held on Apri128, 2007, and staff recommendations for future events. The annual clean-up day has been occurring for approximately 30 years in the Town of Vail to clean the Town after the spring melt and promote greater community involvement. II. EVENT OVERVIEW • Total participation: 48 community volunteers • Estimated amount of garbage collected: 18 tons • Clean-Up Day Team: Sean Koenig, Bill Carlson, Bill Gibson, Lynne Campbell from Community Development. A crew of 6 from Public Works staff supervised by Jose Prieto, which included Danny Martinez, Jake Higbe, and Jake Fresquez, and two town buses driven by Kevin Berga and Rich Matsundaka made the event successful • Contributors: Sonnenalp Resort banquet facility ,City Market, Westside Cafe, Conoco Gas Station, KNUT, KDKE, and JACK Radio Stations, Vail Daily, Town of Vail Public Works, Donovan Pavilion, Town of Vail Community Development, Honeywagon ($700), and Eagle County Landfill. *** All Food and Drink was donated by the above sponsors *** • Total Event Budget: $2,050.00 • Total Event Cost: $1,000.00 - T-shirts and BBQ contribution , Newspaper Ads $1506.06 -Radio Ads $400.00, Total Cost $2,906.06 III. RECOMMENDATION In an attempt to return to the original intent of fostering community spirit during the annual clean up, the town discontinued the charitable contributions to participating groups and organizations for the 2006/2007 clean up day events. This change resulted in 49 and 48 volunteers participating in the 2006 and 2007 respectively, which on average is a 53% decrease in volunteer participation from past events. Staff recommends council not re-instate the charity contribution aspect, but continue combining the Town Clean Up Day with the Eagle River Watershed Council sponsored I- 70 highway clean up with a joint Community Pride BBQ lunch at 4 Eagle Ranch.