HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969 Planning Commission Minutes1
I'
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
VAIL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
HELD JANUARY 14, 1969
The Meeting was called to Order by the Chairman, Robert Parker on
Tuesday, January 14, 1969, at 7:30 P. M.
ROLL CALL: Roll Call found the following Members present:
Robert Parker, Chairman
John Dobson
David Gorsuch
Albert G. White
Also present: F. Blake Lynch, Planning Director
r Rodney Katzenberg, Planning Consultant
1. CORE AREA BOUNDARIES
The Commission adopted the following boudaries for the Mill Creek
Core Area. The Forest Service property on the south, the road between
the Lodge and Riva Ridge Chalets on the west, Gore Creek on the north,
and Mill Creek on the east, with the exception that the Mill Creek Court
Building should be included as part of the core area.
2. The Commission spent a great deal of time discussing the core area
parking problem and whether or not accommodations should continue to
be a conditional core area use. No decision was reached.
3. The Commission agreed that the accommodations District should be
limited to hotels, motels and Lodges providing typical hotel services.
Condominiums would not be an allowed use for this area.
4. The Commission appointed Harmon, O'Donnell & Henninger as the
Town's Planning consultant for the 701 Planning Grant recently awarded
the Town.
5. The Commission set February 25, 1969, as the date for its Public
Hearing on the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the Commission decided
to meet at 7:30 P. M. on January 28, February 11 and 18, 1969.
OFFICE COPY- -
DO NOT REMOVE
VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MEETING HELD AUGUST 4, 1969
The meeting was convened at 12:00 noon at the
Holiday Inn on August 4, 1969.
ROLL CALL: Roll call found the following members
present:
Robert Parker
John Dobson
Gerry White
John Donovan
Absent: Dave Gorsuch
Also present: Blake Lynch, Terry Minger.
1. The Commission discussed the possibility of the annexa-
tion of a parcel of land owned by Warren Pulis to the Town
of Vail. R was agreed that such an annexation would be
desirable if large enough not to be piecemeal. legislation.
Mr. Lynch was authorized to negotiate further with Mr. Pulis
on this matter.
2. Mr. Lynch pointed out that the recently annexed Lion's
Head area must be zoned according to state statute within
90 days. The Commission suggested that a letter be written
to Vail Associates asking for their ideas and guidelines on a
possible Planned Village District zone designation for this area.
Mr. Lynch was authorized to approach Vail Associates on
this; and, in the interim, standard zoning would be applied to
the area.
3. Mr. Minger briefed the Commission on a meeting held
with Vail Associates in Denver concerning the proposed sub-
division regulations. The Planning Commission felt the
following considerations should be incorporated:
a. The developer should be required to pave all streets
in accordance with town specifications.
b. A performance bond will be required of all developers
to insure the if }stallatioti or required improvements.
c. At least a 5-10 parkland dedication will be required
of all developers.
Mr. Munger was asked to research various alternative
approaches to providing land dedication, plus a compilation
of existing green spaces in the town.
4. A letter from Eagle County Development Corp. was read,
acknowledging the refusal of the Vail Water and Sanitation
District to supply domestic water without the annexation of
the area to be served.
With no further business to be discussed, the meeting
adjourned at 3:00 p. m.
k OFFICE COPY -
j- : ' DO NOT REMOVE
r
MINUTES CF THE MEETING
VAIL PLANNING C0MMISSICN
SEPTFMBER 15, 1969
Minutes of Meeting Tbursday, September 4: ?plat 5B was approved
with the exception of some loading and service requirements- -
George Beardsley is to get back to the Commission on this..
The Meeting was called to order by F. L lake Lynch at 10 :20 A. -M.-
ROLL CALL: Roll Call found the following members present:.
Chairman Robert Parker
Director J ohn Dobson
Director Gerry Whtte
Director John Donovan
•
1 p,
Absent: Director David Gorsuch
Others present: F. Blake Lynch
Terrell J. Minger
I. Subdivision Regulations.
A. On page 32, Section I of Article VI, it was brought out that alter-
native 2. c. (performance bond) was not feasible and should be de-
leted. 7 hat Vail Associates would like to see in its place is a con-
tractual agreement regarding the completion of these improvements,
providing that the 'Manning Commission feels sure of the developer's
ability to carry it out. Chairman Parker inquired as to what
Attorney Robinson thought about the feasibility of a contract. It was
his conclusion that the performance bond should be left in becaase
it is common and necessary; c. will be retained as an alternative.
At the discretion of the °fanning Commission and the Board of
Trustees, a recommendation of the Planning Commission could be
presented to the Board for approval of a waiver.
B. Re Section II of Article VI, Street Improvements. Improvements
should be made prior to final plat approval. It might be appropriate,
through a performance bond, to require improvements (rough
grading, etc. ) of streets by the developer until so many lots are
occupied or for so many years, at which time paving would be
required. Chairman Parker asked how to set a time factor for
paving of a development - -by the number of horses occupied or by
the percentage of land leased or sold. Mr. Dobson asked at what
stage it was financially feasible to pave a project; it might be ad-
visable to query developers regarding this question. Larry
Robinson brought up the maintenance of roads in these projects- -
can the Town accept maintenance before the roads are paved? Mr.
Parker noted that in a ;mountain community we have to count on one
winter of non -paved roads due to the short building season. Builders
usually have to pave during the summer subsequent to erection of
their buildings. Mr. Parker also mentioned that it is risky to leave
the maintenance of waads to individual developers. Blake noted
that if we make these restrictions too stringent, we will perhaps
discourage adjacent developments from annexing. Larry brought out
that some developers cannot even obtain a bond- -this would eli-
minate undesirable businessmen. Gerry Thite suggested that devel-
opers have subcontractors put the bonds up for their individual
activities; but this could only be done if a developer had firmed up
his subcontractors at time of bond posting. Mr. 'Parker suggested
that we draft some sections of the regulations on the establishment
r
•
•
1�1
Cj
-)f tin laoses allowal•:le '��efore pav - Af-y nc , °i: ' e e-)x plete<i. t was
su that when 50% of the 'laAd had been sold or leased, then
the paving must be comoleted in addition t) graOinn and drainage,
etc. *,ire also need to e^tablish minimum. preliminary standards.
Mr. ` su- estei that the language of the regulations be tight
enough to insure that proper fill and gradinf�, etc. , are completed
orior to paving. He alvo awygested that Xttorney R - reco-
�r:xnend as to whether he thinks a contract would provide the
assurances we need-- :.ratter who the developer is. I arry
noted that there are some cities where they do the having, but
require the developer to pay for it.
A r and 5. of Section
C. Ca page 33;- Vail .,- sociates, want, . ,
II deleted as required irrproverr!ents by a subdivider- -this involves
streetlights, street name aims, and street trees. mr. r,�bson
noted that if a developer were required to complete underground
work pri or to paving, thiC Yx ould elirrAnate ^ treet cuts after paving.
It would be better if t "'own controlled erection of street lights...
it would prevent each developer from having; a different kind of
streetlight. Gerry White suf;aested that streetlight standards be
v,ritten into the subdivision P.Pgu lations so that the contractor can
finish the corrolet , 6:project. Stich minor things aren't a financial
burden to the developer, he said. It was generally agreed that 4.
and 5. should he deleted at this tirre, but that the streetlight
section should be retained- -and it should tie n ore specific as to
the type of light.
L. Regarding ,Section 6, ?"t iites, Vail ^ - �sociates raised
the question regarding the selection of open. space, feeling it
should be entirely tied to the 1V Aster Plan. lso, they hoped that
final plats could be staged so as to dedicate open space required
on a total land basis -not a plat by plat designation. Vail Associates
doesn't like the "cash - in- lieu -of- aspect " - -they don't want us to say
that we will take someone's money if they don't want to give us their
land. Mr. Parker brought out that when undesirable land is offered,
we have no recourse other than to require cash. Flake pointed out
that if, in a large development, there are small portions of land which
are undesirable and the developer pays for them., the Town can then
purchase land suitable for parks etc. in one area with that money.
Terry Minger noted that the percentage figure of land to be dedicated
was not based on density. He also distinguished between usable land
and open sn:ace- -such as a hillside. There was much discussion on
the percentage that could be required if it were understood that the
tract along Gore Creek 7 ,.'' ould be dedicated. 1vir. 'Parker suggested
that we ask Vail _ Jsociates if they intend to include areas like the
stream tract in their percentage. There was some thought to making
the dedication of this tract a prerequisite to annexation. Mayor
Dobson reiterated that we want to preserve the stream tract and
have 5 - 8 54 in Ad4it%n for Town needs.
II. Core Traffic.
Acting Chief Knuth presented his proposed core circulation pattern.
The primary changes from last winter's traffic pattern are: Gore
Creek Drive will be one way frorrm west to east; Willow Road will
be one way from west to east; the new bridge west of the Sitzmark
will be two way; Gore Creek Drive, from the Gray and V bite
condominiums to the tennis courts --V Al Valley Drive - -will be
one way south to north and east to west. The new flow pattern,
approved by the Planning C ?m=ission, is attached as Fxhibit A.
There will be short -term parkin; from the Mill Creek Bridge to
the Vahalla, with motor- running parking .from the Liquor Store to
Mill Creek Fridge on the south side of Gore Creek Drive and
from Gorsuch to the -post Cffi.ce on the north side of the street.
This will provide 25 to 30 short term (30- rr:inute) spaces in the
_Z_
core area. The Arcade Building to the Casino will be for Continental
Trailways buses only. Mr. 'Parker suggested that the Town hire
someone - -an older man or possible a young woman with knowledge
of the immediate area - -to direct traffic at the corner of The Lodge.
Plake noted that signs would be more economically feasible- -and that .:.
.a warn -up but would be necessary for this e-mployee's comfort, not -
withstanding his or her salary. Instead of a full -time position, it
was suggested that a part -tirre would be adequate for peak hours of
traffic (Christrr as /weekends /everyday from. 3 : ?0 to 5:30 p.rr. ). Mr.
'�'irker suggested an older rran who is friendly and talkative, to work
on a part -time basis. The p arking area north of the Covered Bridge will be
one way and controllable by plowing. ?f ° hen queried as to how we would
enforce 10- minute parking, Chief Knuth said that there will be two
rn on duty in the daytime during the winter. Regarding the inter-
section near the tennis courts. Mr. Donovan suggests installing
poles With reflector lights at the pavement boundary on each side of
the road to preclude motorists from making a fast turn on the
presently wide shoulder.
III. International Traffic '"i ns.
Per. robson stated that he doesn't think international traffic signs
are particularly legal or applicable.
IV. i oninq of tion's Head.
if Vail Associates can't give us their recommendations for zoning
by November 15, the '''anning Commission will proceed with the
conventional zoning of the area. Vail Associates will then be required
to apply for a rezoning.
There will be one more 'Tanning Commission meeting before the
Subdivision Regulations are presented to the Foard of Trustees
for approval. Vail Associates will attend that meeting,.
With no further buisness to discuss, the meeting was adjourned
at 2:05 P. M.
•
•
- -......._ _.. :•-A a t q = a'` # - .r �' E:r !'.
r r �� •.ry s3 •. «» n� i as r�'� `f "' whl st r , 1 x rjf •: r ... a�.. p,•�.
y n .�"� it � [ 1 ■61,f � ' �`y� rfr i � �.9 t,.
A ; v � � } t � � 4 `I dnnfiO[sxyt.,i� j �� I � ��� ' l i J� l l • • /�,. f {� � � �' �.,• .. _
J' � r � P r �.v.�. > � X11 V� .L.�. �T° a ..f � t: '� "� •��I.` ,e ._ � .- i
0 _ ...
' ! 7F 'A�n ` ,, !� ;;�� e ' ivy H� � „✓..; ° ..t ?' � ,, �.,
.. � • '� � } I 1 , y � V ��:'� 1� ' k' i!��,` 4 1�• � +�' Y t i 1E / �� / ,� F y .
5 - i� f � E - � }} l •- � Tr•1'4 k � r y a }S} s � y �d r•�� 7F
Tn
i ,4
'i f r yr 1� a.., r�t�� .J`� -,� ;
+ ! h 1 0 € �_ - a _ � -�� .ate'► t� :: k s- � � , � � ti. � r r % - ,
A
I
kS
r ,� `' " . —�.>; � ,s ti "" r✓` , Ea r $ .rl'r J I f �` ��� P ' 3 .
1 x'11 'f
fi
1 y ` ' l i t � •wt; � _fu i�.r •tr. S t 1 i . I = - - } •r - ' ti
_ o
y 14
- � S � t � •, I t ,. � { 9 ni �3:' � �,� � .t' ' E� � .! / r r ;i. I n . `� �t�' � � s- '
t �� .i E "!!• ` I ift �' }„ n'4, ! 411 �' �r. r, �7�
�o S 1' , .� j. .,.., - V] � ,f i.
;t,J` tI •i r ,t ���-''i +l - ,v }'Y "� ',j. ,: r ,1 r �. a ' ° l t
6� '{ r U° r1`1t �S �4�`r � li yl! ,+,� t:14' 4:f �` •_° c
.r.
^1W �� r; i'Yli �� i r 1- ' tt i t �,� �t�, � ''. ��• r r 1 -
r
�` � } 3 � ^ `��, � � _ ��� 4 , tk � ,, we 9 �• J � �� �� , F ,
�,?,�
r i Sl f.i,�'
Q
it r i1t t ... !•� + t � V F .^ sr S, � i � •�ti � � � �.. s t
4
1 1
•�,' .. `�i 4 � 5� � fi t,. � `J- '' �� „��� �4 S, �• _ 1 .., . �.
'� ! : J � r s � � s � ( ♦', i , t,: JET .
+1Y�'�'°
lk �, X Hf�177
. - .
MINTUTES OF THE MEETING
VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 30, 1969
The h Meeting as called to order by F. Blake Lynch at 2:14 p.m.
g
in the Holiday Inn Conference Room.
ROLL CALL: Roll Call found the following members present:
Chairman Gerry White
Dave Gorsuch
Robert Clark
John Donovan
John Dobson
Also present: F. Blake Lynch
Terrell J. Minger
Clay Simon - ''Vail Associates, Inc.
I. Blake began by reviewing the minor proposed changes to the
Fourth Draft of the Subdivision Regulations.
.A . Page 15 , Section Z: Eliminate preliminary hearing.
B. Page 19, Item 2 :. Typographical error, lines 3 and 5.
(Don't think it is - -the scale applies to both descriptions).
C. Page 22, Item J: Should read something like "a form for
certification" rather than certification as such.
D. Page 25, Item D: Outside diameter should be sixty-five
(65) feet instead of $4 feet.
E. page 36, Item 2: "The potable water system shall be connected
to the water system of the Vail eater and Sanitation District, ... "
shoi.ild be changed to read something like "The potable water
system shall be connected to a water system approved by
the Vail Planning Commission." This would infer that
the developer should connect to a Water and Sanitation
District, but it wouldn't necessarily mean the Vail Water
and Sanitation District.
'. Page 18, Item 3: D-.ve Gorsuch suggested that it would be
appropriate to incorporate an avalanche clause. Some pro-
vision should be made for avalanche pads, considering
windblast from. avalanches. The other Planning Commission
Members concurred.
G. Page 31, Item 2: End line "multiple ".
H. Page 32, : First line "An eight ".
II. Two Major Areas of Proposed Ch ange to Subdivision Regul
Terrell J. Minger then introduced Trafton Pean, Vice - President of
Harmon - O'Donnell- Henninger of Denver, who is considered an
expert on Subdivision Regulations in Colorado. In reviewing the basic
functions of the Planning Commission, Mr. Bean stressed that the
Subdivision Regulations are the most important product of a Planning
commission, and that within the Subdivision Regulations the areas of
Y improvements and public land dedication are the most often debated.
There must be a guarantee that improvements will be made; there
are three methods of doing this:
(1). Have improvements made before plat acceptance;
(2). Have money in escrow to insure improvements are made; and
0 (3). post performance bond or enter into agreement with Town.
Blake suggested that if it were decided to go the performance bond route,
we not require a performance bond for water and sanitation improvements;
or, if we did, make it minimal. Mr. Bean continued to discuss the
dedication of public land, saying that it should be selected at the time of
platting on a specific percentage basis. Blake queried Mr. Bean as to
his comments regarding the timing of improvements in relation to final
plat, i.e., water, sewer, drainage and road grading and paving. Chair-
man White asked if it were common to post performance bonds, as opposed
to an agreement for improvements with the developer, Mr. Bean said
that agreements are a very risky business -- because they guarantee
nothing. He stated that performance bond cost is usually based on the
reliability of the developer and the development itself. He added that in
a city like Denver, it is not unusual for a developer to acquire a bonding
agent to post his performance bond, rather than posting it himself. At
this time Mr. Dobson asked Mr. Bean for comments on public land
dedication. Mr. Bean strongly recommended that private land be counted
toward the total public land requirements, and that the conditions out-
lining the provision of private open space in lieu of public open space
should be left entirely up to the Planning Commission. Mr. Donovan
suggested that soroe type of guarantee would be necessary to insure
that private open space remained open. Mr. Bean stated this could be
done at the time of platting; and that the Planning Commission should
choose those particular sites at that time also. Mr. Donovan then
inquired whether Mr. Bean thought 8 17 /6 was a high percentage -of -open.
space figure. Mr. Bean replied that 5 0 /6 is normal, but low; and he feels
that 8% is appropriate for Vail. Chairman V71 inquired if an area such
as the Gore Creek tract could be set aside completely, and not included
in the open space percentage. Mr. Bean explained that some cities have
what is called a development easement, which basically states that the
landowner gives up any rights to ever develop such an area. The owners
of the land in question would, of course. have to agree to do this. Chair-
man Vrhite asked if the Town could designate the property to be dedicated,
Mr. Bean pointed out that, if the Town knows what areas it wants, it is
in the best bargaining position at the time of annexation- -if its powers
are clearly stated in the Subdivision Regulations. Sites selected for
public open space should not come as a great surprise to the developer- -
they should be included in the Master Plan and be fairly common know-
ledge. If sites are not pre - selected, it weakens the position of the
Planning Commission and the Town. At this time Mr. Donovan sug-
gested that it would be timely to develop a green area plan for the entire
Valley. This suggestion was well received. Blake Lynch proposed dis-
carding pages 33 and 34; and he suggested requiring a performance bond
for street grading and paving, with grading and drainage being installed
one year after final Olat. Paving must be done within a certain time
period after that. In order to preclude posting costly performance bonds
for a development, Mr. Bean suggested platting in small increments,
Under Blake's water and sanitation proposal, the Town would recover the
cost of installation on water and sanitation by not rebating 50 0 /6 of the
tap fee- -as we are currently doing- -of the developer defaulted on his
agreement, It was concluded that Blake should draft up a proposal along
these lines - -and we should obtain an idea of the cost of several re-
presentative performance bonds.
Regarding public sites, it was suggested that the Town designate
priority sites at the time of platting, and developers could choose from
those. Cncerning the G re Creek tract, Clay Simon noted that, if
Pete Seibert were approached regarding certain areas of the tract, he
might agree to deeding parts of it to the public. Mr. Simon stated that
-2-
there will be land dedicated by Vail Associates, Inc. to the Town of
Vail.
0 Conclusions:
Rewrite required improvements section of Subdivision Regulations along
lines Blake outlined. 'Per Clay Simon's suggestion, item on public
buildings counting as part of total public land dedication will be incor-
porated in the Subdivision Regulations.
The Planning Commission must approve the Subdivision Regulations be-
fore the Board of Trustees approve them. This is the only area where
State statutes give the .Planning Commission this authority; all other
functions of the Planning Commission are purely advisory.
U1. Residential i oning
(Messrs. Gunther Hofler, Siegfried Krauss, and Roger Brown in
attendance. ) Blake reviewed Attorney Stew Brown's letter of advice
regarding the renting of rooms in two - family dwellings. Our existing
zoning ordinance seems to leave the situation open to rooming houses --
Blake queried the Planning Commission as to their views on possible
change of the ordinance. The zoning ordinance says that there cannot
be in excess of two families in a two- fann.ily zone; but it doesn't say
anything about rooming houses. Definition of rooming- house; rental
of more than two rooms without kitchens. Mr. Roger Brown appeared
briefly to request that the Commission wait until the Homeowners'
Association meeting has been held so that their views can be incor-
porated. VTe will proceed to regrite the ordinance - -in the meantime
if the Homeowners' Association has anything they want added or changed,
they should submit it to the Commission. Mr. Brown indicated that
the Homeowners' Association would have a recommendation as to the
changed wording of the ordinance. Mr. Bean said that in an area
zoned for two - family dwellings, there shouldn't be any more than two
families living there. Blake Lynch suggested that, while the ordinance is
being redrafted, we should consider elimination of existing non -con-
forming uses and gradual enforcement in the future.
frith no further business to be discussed, the Meeting was adjourned at
5:05 p. m.
•
-3-
•
y .}
v
t
OFFICE CJO PY --
DO NOT REMOVE
MINUTE. 3 CF THE MEETING
VAIL PLANNING C+CMMISSICN
r2CEMLER 8, 1969
Chairman Gerry White called the meeting to order at ?:20 p.m. in the
Manor. V iil Conference R oorr+..
JRCLL CALL found the following members present:
C I:.airrnan '` h.ite
Robert Clark
3 ^hn Tobson
John Donovan
Absent: David Gorsuch
('thers present: Trafton Bean, Stewart ' -rown, Plake Lynch,
and Terry Minger.
I. PARKLANL r F'DIC.ATICN /S REGULA
Attorney Stewart Frown reviewed his formal opinion. attached hereto
4- •
as Exhibit A. He stated that in Colorado it is unlawful for a munici-
pality to make plat approval contingent on a specific percentage of
parkland dedication. Trafton Pean noted tbat, although many towns
and cities in Colorado had written this condition clause into their sub-
division regulations, none had had it contested. To date there has
been no court ruling in the State on this matter. Ve added that the
advantages to the community of land dedication make it worth the risk
of possible litigation initiated by the developer. It was suggested by
Frown that the land dedication clause in the prepared regulations be
eliminated. After some discussion, the C ^rnmission unanimously
agreed to insert the following modified T?ublic Sites Section of the :7ub-
division Regulations where Prawn advised would. have a better chance
of survival in the courts than the •dedication requirervent originally
prepared: A requirement of 8 11 /6 dedication subject to modification or
waiver by agreement of the '?fanning Commission and the developer,
r,ai.d agreement to be reached under powers vested in the Manning
Commission under CR.S 139- 59-15. Attorney Frown also recommends
that the subdivision regulations be written as an ordinance. He added
that he would check into the possibility of providing a specific legal
variance procedure to be incorporated in the regulations.
II. iV.iUNIC CC`MPLF
?er Clay Simon's letter o.f l \4f�vembex, see attached Exhibit 1', we are
offered ?. g acres just north of the 1 Inn and south of I 70
Interstate Highway for n_ urposes of building a rr:unicipal complex.
Flake Lynch requested that the Pfannh)g Commission give the Board
of Trustees a recommendation on the desirability of the site, noting
that it is an ideal site for police and fire accessibility. Terry Minger
reviewed his Town Co� -.plex Space Requirements, with the exception
of fire house renuiremeats. Excluding the fire station, about 10, 000
square feet are needed for a municipal building. The Post Office will
require around 1/2 acre or ?.0, 000 square feet. It was remarked that
if the proposed ?.8 acres are not adequate for the next two decade'
needs, then another site should be contemplated. Terry noted that the
"village center" concept could be considered if the space between the
fire house and the chapel were available. He added that soave "facili -
ties of the T -own might be incorporated in the convention center planned
for the area west of the Wedel Inn leaving the fire and water and sani-
tation functions at the proposed site, along with the police. It might
be desirable to have police sub-stations at other locations in town,
perhaps on a shared manning basis with VRA, to assist in very routine
rnatters.
!i A
III, NEW NE F TI NG DAT F PLANNING CCMMISSIGN.
Per the unanimous agree. - iment of the Planning, Commission members,
meetings will henceforth be held on the third � of each rnonth at
•,)0 p.m. � "+aecial t will be posted as they occur.
'V itb. no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at
5: 10 rr .
•
•
•
-T-
{ ,
t �
j'
F.
November 25 1969
Board of Trustees ,
TOWN OF VAIL
Vail, Colorado 81657'
Attn: Mayor John Dobson '
6'
Gentlemen:
Vail Associates, Inc., would like to explore the feasibility
of a proposed dedication of land for municipal purposes
with the Board of Trustees.
The land in question is just north of the Holiday Inn site;
it is bound on the south by the South Frontage Road the
g ►
north by the 1--70 Eastbound exit, and the east and west by
highway property. It contains 122,540 square feet or
approximately 2.8 acres.
On this site the following municipal functions could be J1.
located; town offices, police offices, jail facilities,
VRA information center, permanent post office facilities,
and a permanent fire station. This is an ideal site for
these functions clue to its central location between Vail
Village and Lionshead in addition to its close proximity
to Vail's main I -70 interchange.
In view of the dedication several considerations should be
conveyed with the land:
1. The land area should be credited against the
required subdivision.public site dedication
for LionsHead• s'
2. A mutual agreement as to a restriction on the
allowed square footage and type of commercial
t
development to be permitted on the tract
(i.e., leases for professional offices, civic
functions permitted, whereas boutiques and other {`
straight commercial operations such as
restaurants to be prohibited)
AREA CODE- 303 476 -5601 ONE WALL„ STREET, VAIL, COLORADO 81657
t -
J '
•
I*
3. Either, a) Vail Associates, Inc. to reserve
up to 20,000 square feet at $3.00 per square
foot for the permanent post office site, or
b) Vail Associates, Inc. to be equally
reimbursed (outright monies or lease), if
the master plan incorporates the post office
in a multi -level building.
4. The fire station building to be either vacated
or moved at no cost to Vail Associates, Inc.
within 5 years from its present location on Lot 1,
Vail Village, First Filing.
As a suggestion, the Town should contact the Federal
Bureau of Roads to determine whether a portion of their
property, which abutts the east end of the proposed
dedicated lands, could be used by the VRA as an information
pull -off area. This would increase the effective utilizati
of the 2.8 acres.
CRS /san
cc: Mr. bale McCall
Mr. Blake Lynch
Yours truly,
VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Clay R. Simon
Assistant to the President
t .
�h
•
•
0
.err. F. Blake Lynch
Town Cocrdinator
Vail
,D�.O1"'QC�4
ubdivisim Regulations
he;
Dear Blake
t
an
, r' "hP cn ner of land r; eaQh subcia vision shall
ha
a 1.0 cr. t,e ,,and convey f our ''Percent . of the area
of the in his subdiuisicjn,,' for park s,
ou
pl_ayt rounds, recx eational. o airna,lax public
to
- M1 1 dS �.:S . - . at sl.!ch Iocationo as ( l\w , .l�igi \a li eU
.:A,
by the city.1'
, r' "hP cn ner of land r; eaQh subcia vision shall
a 1.0 cr. t,e ,,and convey f our ''Percent . of the area
of the in his subdiuisicjn,,' for park s,
pl_ayt rounds, recx eational. o airna,lax public
- M1 1 dS �.:S . - . at sl.!ch Iocationo as ( l\w , .l�igi \a li eU
.:A,
by the city.1'
: uch provi-,53-c;n.s are authorized by statute In some states ,
c: where the validity of such statutes has been tes t:ed t;!.ey
ve been upheld. No Mich statute eyliStS .iri Colorado
By the greater weight of opinion a municipa is with
A.
t the Power to enforce siich' a regulate .on unless author�. ea
do so by statute.
�
"The power given, to a .fwnigjpal.ity .t� impose .
Conditions upon a ae.vel.oper in' O.Qfihsction with
the ap��roval of is StUbdiv .s� o' � � + x n items from
st,3tutes relating to the approval of.. su`adivions..
,
Conditions rot. 'authorized by .such statutes :wi.11.
not be .enforced," 2 YokleZT Zoning Law and
Practice 7 Y nn • 49
,
z 1
f
"Conditions arrposcd by mun3cipall planning
P
Boarda upon subd'iVido-xls must : be
�.
.authorised
by constitution, statute or charter;,
1 Antieau: Muzrici al ' Con oration Law,
Section $007.
f ,
g �
�i
}
3
T he v eneral_ rule wa , invoked in the f oil " owing cases:
i fis
,fix
Ayons Inc. v. Z oni.W7 and Planning Go Sion. of Avon,
215 A. 2d. 4 (Corm. I965 ) (`rFrq red fee ; b sed upon per-
1
C' enta.L,e: Of the cost of construc,tin streets he il.leFal
3
as iri exces., of townts ,;ta.tutory authorizati Ile st Park
i
Ave
_ Inc. v. ocean'o�ansili.t� 48 R.J. 1. 22 A: 2d,
-- —
,
(N.J. 1966) (required fee of $300.00 per house site for
s c pool development illeF -al) ; Gordon v. i 7la e of Wayne
,
r
121 Iv .W. 2d. 823 (i4ich. 1963) ( vi llace held to be with
n
authority to require subdividers to donate property for pare;.
t
purposes, or to donate cash ec,ui Val ent; :subdivider having
paid the required sums under duress was.pntitled. to receive
back the payments so made) ; Han en V. Gleason:," 359 P. 2d.:'
"
,,�
£3 Ore, , 37.50 per
( ) (f' Iot he,Id :illegal
10 . takation) ; Midtovm
'
Pro perties , es Inc. ve Madison T ., 68 N.J..`Super 197
.�,
17 A. 2d 40 ( municipality May'.not cont2°act in : connection
with a subdivision beyond 'povrers` conferred by, the subdivision.
:
statute; muncipality .may not, by` contract, withhold final
plat approval_ because deveiorex defused to contribute to
I,
'
and pay for school, and school. facilities) ; Develo -
ment Co. v McPherson,. 36$ P:`2d ' "''51 (Kan.) (fee equivalent
R
`
to 10% of a ppraised value beyond'` the scope of th s
These are only a few of the recorded cases, They illustrate
the point that attack may be made upon such a'reulaton
upon a variety of grounds.'
ra ,
An exception to the .general rule. has beeh in
Calif crnia. The California courts have held that municipal,
Q 5
J,
hies have the power` to impose any reasoxble ' cozxdit an not
inconsistent with state statute.' , A fi v. Los Angeles
es
34 Cal 2d, 31 207 P 2d I (1949 There is no: reason to
suppose that Colorado would follow: the California 'rulings...
2.
"
}
s
}�Tr;
f
y
The issue is untried in Colorado 1n one case stzt..h a
rer °ul:atiori w�.is contested. See City of Cblorzido S rin �s
YittHawk Ilev. Co.? 392 P. 2d 467, 154 Colo :5350 rl'f
t
issue having been determined un:f "avorably to the :conte =tin
at the trial court level, appeal. was had to the. state
Suprerrle Court. The question raised was the constitutionality
of the Colorado Sp ings regulataon ca ted above.' Rather than •
0 .
,
reach the constitutional is sue,:howevE the co urt decided
the ease on a lesser ground. �SUstl ce Sutton° wrote a strong
dis dent asserting the cor�stxtutonal 3-6 s:ua Which :he said
a
should be determined against.: the:. regu I at ion. ''in 'qu�. sty on.
A
The . inference to be drawn from this decision, is that such
regulations raise constitutional questions the solution to
which noses practical difficulties at this time. -: It i s to
be noted that such regulations mposing:canditions to plat
a have become standard faures of pr �.nances thrauPa�- �
�<
out the stage.
Upon authority ;it : must be concluded that "such` provisions
are not enforceable in 'Colorado. New law fplaovaing Californa a
r.
rulings is not an impossibility., . It would be a novelty, how -
ever, and its development is not''to counted upon.
F
Questions What guarant acre available assure that
required improve ents'ta.be installed at the
developer's. expense will be installed as re--
quired?
Answer: Principally, .a perf ormance band.
z
#.
A v<<riet of su
y ggestiors appear t ha e been made,. including.
a cawh escrow arrangement, pledging of the real property involved
denial of building permit ,. anon Per formance bond. ' Of these ` the
performance bond is the standard ;'device.. The .muni cipal'ity
f y.
x
r
2a -
111
•, - ..
appears to hav ve the dower nheentlr to requ re; such a
`
bond. "While statutes usuall ro.vide that; suc a :bond
Y P
iY
a k.
shall be required, a "munic..pa#ty would; doubtless have
the power to require , a bond wi,�hh aril ec f ,c grant of
authority. �� P�CQUallalp..`: Mun: c3 ..a1.." or ?o ,at -ions, ,Sec.. .`•
37.x.93. Such a band 'operates �asitive3:y to assixye ' "full
ff
'performance.
"Generally �'lhere bond. =�s:: even° to a
g public
`
body as ,a condit.znri for ;.comps ance . .w. - Zaw,
the full penalty' may Abe a,
recovered "'s in the
nature of liquidated- 6ma es; -in tkre,.'ab6once
of express or implied-'conditions tpr the °con-
;
trary in the statute.: or ordinance;; or in the
bond itself." 12 American' 4uris rudence 2d,
Bonds, Sec • 44•
:
No legal re, suggests itsel why t ie - 'performance
bond should not be `, the routinely , required guarantee Of
'
course an escrow under a properly craw . a4. ment would
serve eqi.ally well. By compar :son, a mortgage arrangement
is" cumbersome and. uncertain. A1.1 e] se fa l ng,. 'there is
A .
t"
no legal objection to the Town? simply refusing to a ssue
y`.
building permits for an unapproved ,subd vision;.advanc'e
_
notice to purcha.sers of :l6ts "w ' ld appear" "to, be 611" that
is necessary to prevent harm "fling ,upon innocent .persons.
A typical performance band "`requirement � to' be' found
in the ordinances of the .city ,.of Lam4r, q�16rado 'as f o 11 ow :
;
tTl3efore acceptance of .a plat by the I�l.anning
Gommissiori the . subaivic'eir "shall" . haVP, designated
all streets and alleys " "in the " prop osed subdivi -`
'
sion togeth,�r with s.dewals curbs, gutters,
in accordance with the requirements of the
Planning Commission may `impose and spe.dify, as
to grading, paving, width, location, drainage,
ctits, cu_lvorts, bridges, and other necessary
r.eauirements, the subdivider shall enter into
a written agreement �dth.the Planning Commi:asion
,S
..
builda n� S and pre set W thln, the auhdiir on: Such agree
-.i
j
r, i li I „tv d
t
�'u P
¢!3 y
for final approval. W4here n e c.e ssary to' thernpemsntatn
t E
of d particular agreement the planning;`commission to empowered
i ° 4 i t
,fi I a
i
the ciG su'fi c enj
f
of iraproveme'nts.
ance bond Qr "° esrM
cost estim -ltes as" .�
to west in the municipal p.l.anni,rig agent" a meastrr.e of incle
fg d o ov or the. cos
e amqunt cif perfori
Which enjightened
y �..
t -;
Under authcrity vested i
r
Pe di E l oV.6'. ?
town planning commissions are
ments with developers in. res
f'
r
bulk and. other requirements
,S
..
builda n� S and pre set W thln, the auhdiir on: Such agree
-.i
j
r, i li I „tv d
t
�'u P
>•. r
for final approval. W4here n e c.e ssary to' thernpemsntatn
t E
of d particular agreement the planning;`commission to empowered
i ° 4 i t
,fi I a
i
i kl l
f
S y
emphasis ?rpon municipal planning activity, the intend being
to west in the municipal p.l.anni,rig agent" a meastrr.e of incle
fg d o ov or the. cos
e amqunt cif perfori
Which enjightened
y �..
detOrimined t otn
4
Pe di E l oV.6'. ?
�`
4° n+ L1
a:
P 1 -�
I Y
f_
V .
arrce would constitute experimental :1ega sleti'on. Essential
to success would be the energet Participation of planning;
l Y 3
4,NDAT16
of a cor�pr ehens:ive corxriunzty plan.
4
- y
them ;.day l3 -59-� 5
r, a :
epowered p enter a nrto agree
1.
,
�t r to the u5.e, laeght, area,
�r :restrzctions - ;overnirig" the
,S
..
builda n� S and pre set W thln, the auhdiir on: Such agree
-.i
j
meets are req.ired tai be submitted " "to= one Btiard of `True; tees.
r
for final approval. W4here n e c.e ssary to' thernpemsntatn
of d particular agreement the planning;`commission to empowered
to recommend zoning changes. 4
The statutory authority ca ted 16 of `the ;,type' that carne '
r
into being si.multaneod,sly W3, n or "as a ;result of, ihcreased
emphasis ?rpon municipal planning activity, the intend being
to west in the municipal p.l.anni,rig agent" a meastrr.e of incle
pendence from the usual legall restrictions b
Which enjightened
y �..
aim; had been hampered traditionally, Reco�nitio is iven
t the bargaining- between municipality and developer yahich
inevitalDl_y, or ideally, pr ecede.s subdiv Mon, approval. Tide
author ity has been u3ed. infrequently in`o�her ,jurisdictio rs
xs� }rri -1 simi -lar legislation, and J. .belie ved not' to have been
u30o in Colorado at a.11,, Systematic imp] _ementat on by ordin -',
arrce would constitute experimental :1ega sleti'on. Essential
to success would be the energet Participation of planning;
caramission merd-)ers impartially dedicated to the real.i _ati.i�n
F
of a cor�pr ehens:ive corxriunzty plan.
4
s w _Y.- -
�_: �,,-
��: ;':�