Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 Planning Commission Memos & Minutes July to December, 1977• �n MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 7 JULY 1977 3:00 P.M. Members Present: Chairman Drager Ron Todd Sandy Mills Dudley Abbott Pam Garton Gerry White Members Absent; Hanlon Staff Present: Toughill CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - VAIL INSTITUTE TENT Concerning the Vail Institute tent, an informal request for approval had been made at a previous meeting of the Planning Commission. At this meeting an official vote was required. Abbott moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit request; White seconded the motion; all voted in favor; and the motion carried. APPROVED. REQUEST FOR GRFA VARIANCE - ANTLERS Bud Benedict, manager of Antlers, was present representing W. P. Seibt, owner of Unit #411. According to the staff memorandum of this date, the contractor had begun work illegally without a building permit and is not licensed to work within the Town of Vail. Mr. Benedict requested that the Commission approve the variance so as not to cause a hardship to Dr. Seibt. After much discussion, White moved to deny the variance request according to the criteria set forth in the July 7, 1977 staff memorandum; Garton seconded the motion; all voted in favor to deny; and the motion carried. DENIED. MINUTES 6 30 77 After considering the Minutes of June 30, 1977, Abbott moved to approve them; Mills seconded the motion;.all voted in favor; and the motion carried. APPROVED. As there was no other formal business, the meeting was adjourned. I* AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1977 3 :00 1. Vail Institute - approval of Conditional Use Permit for tent 3:10 2. Antlers - Request for Gross Residential Floor Area Variance - Unit #411 Bud Benedict 4:00 3. Recommendations to Council on Growth Management Sub - Committee Report 4:30 4. Discussion of Planning Commission Work Project Sub - Committee meeting schedule 5. Approval of Minutes of June 23, 1977 and appointment of Council representative for July 12 meeting. is • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: July 7, 1977 RE: ANTLERS REQUEST FOR GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA VARIANCE UNIT #411 Bud Benedict, representing Dr. and Mrs. Wolfgang P. Seibt, has applied for a gross residential floor area (GRFA) variance in order to allow completion of loft area of approximately 210 sq. ft. The existing Antlers is presently a legal non - conforming building; allowable GRFA is 41,400 and existing building contains 51,216. With the addition of 210 more sq. ft. of GRFA, the building is approximately 24% over the maximum allowable. There are extenuating circumstances or hardship that should be considered; however, they are of an economic nature which may not be considered by the Planning Commission. The project was. started without a building permit by an unlicensed contractor. The remodeling came to the attention of the Building Inspector who put a 'Stop Work" order on the job. Before the "Stop Work" order was issued, the contractor had completed most of the neces- sary work and had been paid a substantial sum by the owner. The loft area, as installed, does not meet Uniform Building Code requirements. A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS (18.62,060) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested variance would make no modification to the exterior of the building. There are 10 more identical units in the Antlers building alone, which could potentially add 2,500 additional square feet of GRFA if this variance were approved. A number of other buildings in the Lionshead area have existing loft areas which could be enlarged or high vaulted ceilings that could allow lofts to be added. 250 sq. ft. does not seem to be a great deal of floor area; however, it is the approximate size of a standard lodge room and multiplied by many similar GRFA additions to short -term units, could mean additional people. There have been no other GRFA variances granted for short -term units, nor any GRFA variances granted in the Lions -. • head area. The only GRFA variances ever granted have been for making a long -term unit more liveable, and many others have been denied. Antlers Page 2 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or li +eral 40 interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. Due to the extent that this variance will exceed the GRFA permitted, we do feel that this would be a grant of special privilege. Denial of the variance would be necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment as no other GRFA variances have been granted in the vicinity. B. FINDINGS: 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of.population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. We foresee no adverse impacts on these factors. 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties calssifed in the same district. • See Item 2 under Consideration of Factors. There have been no other GRFA variances granted in this area, and no variances granted for additional short -term space. 2. That the granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. See Item 1 under Consideration of Factors. The granting of this type of variance could lead to a proliferation of additions to non - conforming buildings. 3. That the variance is not warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforce- ment of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hard- ship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, b. That there are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforce- ment of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. LJ r� u • Antlers Page 3 The only extraordinary circumstance, or practical diffi- culty is a financial one and the.Zoning Ordinance specifically states that "Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance." The Building Official has stated that in order to make the construction meet the Building Code, the entire new loft would have to be removed and reconstructed using either steel or concrete rather than wood as now exists. The Department of Community Development strongly recom- mends denial of the requested variance on the basis that no hardship exists. 'it NTLERSD LION5HE D 10 Box 280 Vail, Colorado 81667 Phone (303) 476 -2471 Town of 'Vail, Vail, Colorado 81657 June 14, 1977 We respectfully sutra -it the following information in our request for variance in Unit #411, Antlers Condominiums, 680 W. Lionshead Place, Vail, Colorado: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential, uses and structures in the vicinity - Zn our building there are ten other comparable units with the same problem, that being the units are rated as a two bedroom --two bathroom condominium when in reality they consist of one loft bedroom and living roco/dining room area. These units have approximately 720 square feet on the main floor which consists of a living room, dining room, kitchen, and bathroom, and with approximately 250 square feet in the existing loft area which consists of one loft bedroom, closets, and a second bathroom. These units are two story units with a very high open ceiling over the 720 square feet area. The only obvious way to use the wasted space and to make these units conform to the standard concept of the two bedroom -two bathroom condominium would be to remove the sleeping area from the living room and to transfer this sleeping area to the loft. There are, to my knowledge, no other condominiums in Vail constructed in this manner. 'Therefore, T can see of no other complexes requesting variance of this type in the future. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compat- ibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of the zoning ordinance without grant of special privilege. - in order to achieve the idea of a two bedroom -two bathroom combination it is imperative that we be granted thisivariance thus bringing about the true two bedroom concept and enabling this unit to be a more livable and more productive condominium. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety - Due to the fact that we would not be housing any additional people than would normally be staying in a two bedroom -two bathroom condmAn,ium, T feel we would have no effect on the above mentioned. AT qAL 0 PAGE 2 4. Such other factors or criteria which 'ay aPP1y to the requested variance _ .. Unfortunately, the contractor started this construction prior to requesting a variance. The internal portion of the condominium consisting of a plastic folding partition, the existing closets and stairway, carpeting and electrical omponents have been removed and the loft and closet and stairway framing have already been installed. An estimated cost of what has already been done and what it would take to restore the unit to its original condition would be approximately $3,500.00. The original work was to have been done by Mr. Paul Keller and the owner had instructed Bud Benedict of the Antlers to help Mr. Keller apply for and hopefully secure a variance so that this work could be done. The contractor that ultimately did the work started this work without securing either a variance or a building pe= t which was contrary to the owners instructions. The contractor slid the bulk of this work while Mr. Benedict was out of town and without his knowledge. T realize that this is a somewhat self - imposed problem. However, T do not feel that the owner of the unit should be penalized because of the inadequacies of the general contractor and it is hoped that due to the extreme hardship, this variance will be granted. Please note that the renti=ng of this type of unit has been difficult and the gross incmie has been negligible in respect to the initial investment and by changing this unit to conform more nearly to the concept of a two bedrom would greatly enhance the rentability and thus the return to the owner. Respectfully, u,4 &,,, L.* Bud Benedict Manager Antlers condominium Association t E AGENDA E PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1977 300 .1. First of Denver Mortgage Investors - approval of final plat, resubdivision of Sunburst 3:30 2. Gore Creek Associates (Special Development District 4) Preliminary presentation of development plan Andy Norris, Jay Peterson, John Ryan, THK Associates 3. Preliminary Recommendation on Bus barn site - Council has requested a vote on a preliminary basis. 4. Appointment of representative to Council on July 19 and approval of minutes of June 30, 19.77 I• 1 .: .. U'j I* IW, MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commission From: Department of Community Development Date: July 13, 1977 Re: Requirements of Special Development District 4 Gore Creek Association Preliminary Proposal In order to clarify the preliminary.proposal, the following is a brief outline of the SD 4 requirements and summary of the parcels and allowable densities: 1. The district is 97.52 acres and is divided into four development areas with these densities. DEVELOPMENT AREA PERMITTED DENSITY. Owned by Mansfield Corp, A 16.82 acres 252 Units Owned by Gore Creek Assoc. B 20 plus acres 240 Units ++ C 57 plus acres 171 Units ++ D 3 plus acres 10,000 square feet Business or Professional Offices 2. Approval Procedure A. Submission of overall conceptual development plan for all areas within SD -4. B. Submission of a.speci�fic development plan for each individual development area. C. Both conceptual and specific development plan submitted to Zoning Administrator, reviewed by Planning Commission with recommendations to Council who shall enact an ordinance amending SD-4 to incorporate development plan. • Gore Creek Associates Page 2 D. Subsequent development must be in accord with development plan and each phase require Design Review Board approval. 3. Development Plan Contents A. General Environmental Impact Report for all of SD--4 supplemented by specific sections for each Development Area. B. Site plan with contours; grading plan; site plan with conceptual building locations, landscaping, recreation, pedestrian areas, roads and parking. 1. A specific plan for each development area incorporating all of the above information. C. Building plans for each development area including elevations, sections, floor plans. D. Transportation and traffic circulation plan for needs generated by each development area. (Conceptual covered by Environmental Impact) E. Volumetric site plan indicating form and mass for each development area, F. Architectural model for each building phase as development occurs, G. Phasing plan for buildings, transportation and amenities. H. Land dedication proposed for area and adjacent to Gore Creek. 4. Conditional Uses _ The ordinance has a special provision for an educational /learning center in Development Area A. 5. Gross Residential.Floor Areas permitted is .35 in Area A, .30 in Area B and .25 in Area C. 6. Conservation controls as technology exists are required. 7. Developer must provide private transportation and bus shelter. T I •, . • I* I* Gore Creek Associates Page 3 The foregoing summary is a brief description of the SDD4 requirements and are not meant to be all inclusive. The substantial density reduction being proposed by Gore Creek Assoc appears to be very much in line with the Growth Management Plan.; however, we must recognize that the 33,000 to '36,000 range which has been discussed assumes that this parcel will be.acquired.by the Town of Vail. One of the primary reasons. why this particular piece of land was of a high priority in.terms of acquisition was the significant reduction in density it made possible. It seems that we may be achieving part of our goal without expenditure of Town funds. If the Town feels strongly about acquisition they should move fairly soon before a great deal of money has been spent for site development plans. Overall, the preliminary plan seems to be in keeping.with the Town goals and objectives and acceptable; We do not feel we can make specific recommendations until further progress has been made both on the Environmental Impact Report and the site plan. • • PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda July 21, 1977 }, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL discussion of 2. Review of the Hazard Zoning Ordinance _ Motion to postpone consideration of 3. Approval of Minutes of July 7, 1977 4. Appointment of Planning Commission representative for August 2 Council work session and night meeting i • • MINUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION 14 JULY 1977 3:00 P.M. Members Present: Chairman Drager Ron Todd Sandy Mills Dudley Abbott Gerry White Bill Hanlon APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT -F'DMI Members Absent: Garton Staff Present: Toughill Upon presentation of the Final Plat concerning the resubdivision of Sunburst, adjoining neighbor Gordon Pierce commented that he had reservations about multi- family housing adjacent to Vail Valley Second Filing. He asked that.careful attention be given to siting and design in the area. Abe "Shapiro, also a resident of the area, agreed with Mr. Pierce's comments. Hanlon.then moved to approve the plat subject to correction of technical difficulties by Kent Rose, town engineer; Todd seconded the motion; the'vote was unanimous in favor; and the motion carried. APPROVED. Gore Creek Associates (SDD #4) - Preliminary Presentation Andy Norris began the presentation by explaining the history of the 97 acres involved in the special development district, annexation to the Town, creation of the SDD and exceptions to it. He then outlined possible development plans. Parcel A 1. CMC and Vail Mountain School have been consulted about putting an educational facility on a portion of this parcel. 2. 100 unit lodge. 3. Remainder to be MDMF - 150 units. i Page 2 14 July 1977 Parcel B & C 1. MDMF - 6 acres 2. Open space - 3 acres 3. Duplex - 40 acres Norris commented that there would be a direct access road to the South Frontage Road from the project, a bike path and bridge, and that construction is planned for the summer of 1978. With regard to the development of Parcel A, two alternatives will be studied and designed: the combi- nation of educational facility and MDMF and all MDMF. Norris noted that he had received a letter from UEVSD indicating their ability to handle the sewer for.the project; he will petition for inclusion into the VWSD for water only. Dudley Abbott commented that he is concerned with the impact of the development on current growth management objectives. Diana Toughillnoted that the Public Hearing will be held on September 1; further hearings will take place during October, with final approval to be given by the end of October. • John Ryan, economic consultant for the project, then outlined subjects and issues to be studied in the environmental impact report required for the project. Areas to be covered will include: 1) description of setting and proposal; 2) impacts - social, economic and physical; and 3) ways to mitigate impacts. Drager commented that emphasis should be placed on energy and water saving devices. The town should have enforcement powers to ensure that the third party follows through with developer's plan. Discussion followed concerning heating either by gas or electric, including availability and costs. Norris remarked that the Town staff wants the E.I.R. to cover Parcel A,although it is not owned by Gore Creek Associates, in order to make a legitimate evaluation of SDD #4. White noted his concern with controls on the use of each parcel of land and asked Ryan to use a checklist to indicate growth impact which the planning commission designed, � 40 r Jay Peterson, attorney for the project, asked the commission if they felt the developer is headed in the right direction especially in the area of downzoning. White commented that the voluntary downzoning is good and in keeping with growth management. Mills stated her concern with control of densities. Page 3 14 duly 1977 Abbott said that ha would like to see more single family residential lots; he also stated that a transportation re- quirement would be unrealistic and that transportation should be done by the Town. Todd commented that the voluntary attempt to downzone and the E.I.R. are commendable. Drager said that he liked the project and is in favor of the develop- ment plan. Preliminary Recommendation - Bus Barn site Toughill explained that the Council ..had requested a preliminary vote on site alternatives for the bus barn. Alternatives include the Selby -Tofel site, New Electric site, V.A. site and the Pulis site. It was noted that a comparative study of the sites has been made for light industrial use of the property. After some discussion, a straw vote was taken. Hanlon,,. White, Abbott and Mills voted for the Pulis site; Todd and Drager abstained due to possible conflicts of interest. Minutes of 6/30/77 Hanlon moved to approve the minutes; White seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; and the motion carried. APPROVED. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned. • r; l PLANNING COMMISSION SUMM.�A.RY March 24,1 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT; Dudley Abbott Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Sandy Mills Gerry White HAZARD ZONING ORDINANCE The Planning Commission met at 1;00 pm to go over the Hazard Zoning Ordinance. As they needed more time to work on it, a meeting was set up for Tuesday, March 29 to complete their draft. 1- SITE 9 -- REVIEW OF POSSIBLE REZONING At the direction of the Council, the Planning Commission was asked to review the possibility of zoning that parcel of land either 2- family residential or residential. cluster. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant Bob Lazier, Ron Todd, the architect, and a member from the Vail Associates surveying crew were on hand to give the presentation. Ron Todd had drawn up some comparative drawings for that parcel of property; one drawing showed 11 residential lots with driveways and house sizes (comparable to what is already existing in Town); the second drawing showed what the applicant originally proposed (three buildings housing 60 units). The discussion then went on to the amount of road cuts necessary to house either duplex dwellings or 4 unit complexes in comparison with the 60 -unit proposal. (No drawing of residential cluster was submitted at this time.) Some residents of the Sandstone area, represented by Dr. Maryland and Kit Abraham were present and they voiced a definite preference for residential cluster zoning on that parcel of property. Attached is a letter from many of the adjoining property owners to that affect. On polling the Planning Commission, Hanlon, White, Abbott, and Garton were in favor of their previous recommendation to the Council of MDMF zoning with a 60 -unit maximum; Sandy Mills favored residential cluster. She felt that the difference of open space , less paving and less body could were not that significant from the MDMF proposal and the possibility of residential cluster. The Planning Commission asked the architect, Ron Todd, to come back to them next week with a schematic plan of residential cluster before going to the Council. Dudley Abbott made a motion to defer consideration of rezoning the property; Gerry White seconded the motion. A 4 -1 vote was recorded in favor of the motion (Mills against). VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB -- ACQUISITION OF PARCEL B Fitzhugh Scott, the applicant, was present for the hearing. Attached is a letter outlining 3 options for acquisition of Parcel B. It was noted that they needed this land in.order to place their underground parking. Dudley Abbott made a motion to recommend Option C as outlined in the staff memorandum (attached) deleting any reference to amount. He felt that the Council should decide that with the applicant. Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. 0 • 10 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 24'1 1977 RE: Comment on Fitzhugh Scott's request for acquisition of Parcel B for the Vail Athletic Club In reviewing the applicant's letter of March 16,1977 outlining the various options to his corporation in obtaining use of Parcel B, we have the following comments: Option A is not satisfactory, for obvious reasons. Option B also is not satisfactory, due to the fact that the applicant needs this parcel of land for a permanent use (placement of their underground parking). If the Town became a landlord in this case, it might become their responsibility to maintain the property as well as relocate the existing easements, which could constitute a great expense and hardship to the Town which is not necessary. It is also felt that since this land is to be used for a permanent structure, not to the general benefit of the Town of Vail, that it should be placed back on the tax roles of the community in order to reep some benefit. It is for the above - mentioned reasons why the Department of Community Development recommends Option C as the only viable one. As noted by Kent Rose, Town Engineer, the only purpose this parcel of land has to the TOV is its function in releaving the burden of excess snow build up, If Option C is acceptable to the Planning Commission and the Council, then we recommend that an easement.; be granted to the Town in order to give us the right to put excess snow on 'E the property, which.whould not interfer with the applicant's use of Parcel B-as an underground parking structure. The applicant's offer of $1,500.00 for the land, should have its merits judged by the Council. It should be noted that there are many easements running through the property, and we recommend that if the land is deeded to the applicant, that it would become his sole responsibility to relocate all easements to the satisfaction of the individual companies (i.e. water, phone, etc.) and the Town of Vail at his own expense. The cost of relocating these easements will be great, so that the offered price of $1,500.00 may well be a fair one. A duel purpose will be ae.hieved.by..:.deeding the land, one is that the property will be placed back on the tax roles and revenue generated, and secondly the Town will be relieved of all responsibilities . of maintenance, VA#IP5 AThlETIC CLUB DRAWER 573 VAii, ColoRAdo 81657.- 1 3031476.1304 March 16, 1977 Town of Vail Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: VAIL CLUB Gentlemen: In order that we may build the foundations for covered pa rkinghrequired ched on by the subject project, we must acquire survey. Any of the following methods of transferring the property from the Town of Vail to the Scott - Martin Corporation is satisfactory so far as I am con- cerned: A. Since the land is not needed for street purposes, the Town could vacate the land and it would automatically revert to the Corporation. B. The Town could lease the land to the Corporation for 99 years for $1.00 a year. C. The Town-could deed the land to the Corporation for the.sum of $1,500.00, cash at closing, a precedent set by Vail Associates in that the Plandldeededdby B to thetTownowouldtnot belusedltoScom e putethe that GRFA requi cements. I am grateful for your continued cooperation in permitting us to proceed with this project. Sincerely yours, OTT- MARTIN CORPORATION Fitzhu h Scott, President and Sole Stockholder �. FS /jm 1 Enclosure 0 OL • MEMORANDUM- TO: Town Council FROM Planning Commission and Department of Community Development DATE: July 19, 1977 RE: Sunburst - Review and Recommendations Regarding the Contractual Agreements At the direction of the.Planning Commission.and Town Council, the Department of Community Development. staff met with Blair Ammons and Bob O'Donnell, who represent First of Denver Mortgage Investors, to attempt to resolve the various contracts which are a part.of the Sunburst Special Development District. The.following are our recommendations and also incorporate previous suggestions from the Town Council, 1. A new landscaping plan must be submitted for Building A and time commitments for completion should be agreed upon. Plans must be submitted to indicate completion of exterior of Building A. (Design Review Board has reviewed preliminary proposals) 2. The requirement for a private transportation system, should be eliminated. 3. Open space being dedicated with Vail Valley Third Filing would satisfy the 8% dedication requirement for both resubdivisions (11.4 acres). Further, the FDMI minor resubdivision does not require the dedication. 4. Previously platted road has been vacated and a new right -of =way with a minimum width of 40' will be dedi.cated.from Vail Valley 2nd Filing to Vail Valley 3rd Filing as part of the final plat for Sunburst Filing 2. The improvement and realignment of this road is to be at the expense of FMDI. Subdivision regulations require completion of roads prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Underground parking in the building contains.more than the required number of parking spaces. FMDI agrees as long as it is in a position of control the use..of addi:ti,onal.parking. They will encourage the developer of additional land to locate .the overflow parking under the existing building. a M L .J 6. FDMI should have the ability to relocate the existing recreational amenities and where.approprate_.r.emove.the existing facilities and replace the facilities that FDMI and the Town might find more appropriate. 7. A new drainage plan must be submitted which reflects the revised building plans. 8. FDMI should not be required to build a new bridge. 9. The Department of Community Development staff recommends that FDMI not be required to submit a letter of credit or bond guaranteeing the construction of amenities; however, FDMI should be required to restrict by covenant certain types of recreational amenities as a condition of building permit approval of future building, The covenants are required for final plat approval. 10. FDMI should not be required to provide, build, or pass on to an eventual land developer the requirement for on -site employee housing units. 11. FDMI will be required to have the Fire Department prepare a . Fire Safety Report on the existing building which must meet uniform fire code. FDMI will also be required to have the building inspected and approved by the Town Building Official.. 12. The Town should not.require the realignment of utilities as both new subdivisions work with the utilities as they presently exist. 13. The Town of Vail has agreed to purchase Lot 3 for parking for Golf Club House and to complete construction and landscaping of parking lot. 14. FDMI has agree to pay Recreational Amenities Tax in the amount of $67,320. 15. When the above conditions have been satisfied, the Town of Vail agrees to issue a certificate of occupancy for the existing build 'ing . • MINUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1977 3:00 P.M. Members Present Drager White Todd Mills Hanlon Abbott The Mark SDD #7 Members Absent Garton Staff Present Toughill To be considered was an amendment to the approved development plan to reflect a new conceptual design for the project. Architects Cooney, Moore and Ruoff presented the design to the commission. Hanlon moved to approve the new development plans with a change in the wording of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1977, to read as follows: (Insert #4) (4) In the event that Phase II of the project is not commenced within two years of the completion of Phase I, the surface parking required.for Phase I shall be placed entirely underground within two years. White seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; and the motion carried. APPROVED. As there was no further formal business, the meeting was adjourned. If MLddu, *71 ± ►iowl u TO: Town of Vail FROM: Eldon Beck RE: The Maxk Design Review DATE: August 2, 1977 Meeting in Mill Valley with Kaiser t1arcus and Bill Ruoff. 1. Building Massing is a significant improvement over previous submittals and is acceptable. The heights are within the range of previous approvals. The notches between components and the angled roof forms work very well with the mountain forms and various views. 2. Site Plan: A. The site arrangement provides adequate space for a substantial land- scape. Approvals should be conditioned upon submittal of an overall site landscape plan. B. The entrance design and changes to West Lionshead Circle look promising but require further detail study. It would be good to study a reversal of the access (from the west) and evaluate which direction of access is best. The traffic load and safety of access to the frontage road become critical considerations. C. The surface parking south of the covered tennis courts is workable but not necessarily desirable. The space seems best used for either tennis or landscape. Three courts on the southside appear to be better than four courts, but further design study is needed. D. The Town should jointly study the development of landscape, bike paths and walkways along Gore Creek below the project. This is an important area and a logical connection from the westerly parking area to the Gondola. 3. Phase One: A. The building bulk and scope of work is reasonable. The building form respects sun orientation and scale of the pool area. B. Surface parking is acceptable from the standpoint of design and is a political rather than a design desicion. The first Phase should include,conditions for some landscape to screen parking, complement the building entrance, and ensure the environmental quality. If Phase 2 follows quickly it may be possible to word the condition affording some type of flexibility, that is, require temporary land- Phase 2 is delayed by more than one year. scape only if the Y Memorandum to Town of Vail: 0 August 2, 1977 -- Page 2 C. The service area remains a critical visual element. Detailed design must proceed, the service area must be screened in some way. 4. Building Elevations: The initial concept of a staggered facade is very good and successfully modifies the scale of the building. The feeling is both contemporary and surprisingly Alpine. Much refinement is needed. Further review of design is recommended. 5. Building Interior: A. The interior was reviewed primarily to understand circulation and views outward from the building. Although food delivery to the Convention Center is distant it appears to be workable. Minor change is possible near the elevators to avoid conflict with the stairway to the lobby. B. Flexibility of connection from the convention space to the enclosed tennis courts was discussed. There is space for an enlarged coffee area and larger scale stairway access. 6. Conclusion: I recommend that approval be given to the Special District Plan Modification in accordance with the model and drawings submitted. Conditions should be listed requiring further detail submittals, landscape plans, and material clarification. Respectfully submitted: Eldon Beck Royston, Hanamoto, Beck & Abey • • M7MORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 2, 1977 RE: SUNBURST - REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS At the direction of the Planning Commission and Town Council, the Department of Community Development staff met with Blair Ammons and Bob O'Donnell, who represent First of Denver Mortgage Investors, to attempt to resolve the various contracts which are a part of the Sunburst Special Development District. The following are our recommendations and also incorporate previous suggestions from the Town Council. A MOTION should be made to void all contracts between the Town of Vail and Shamrock Vail, Ltd. and the Town Attorney directed to draw up a new contract covering the following points: 1.) A new landscaping plan must be submitted for Building A and time commitments for completion agreed upon. Plans must be submitted to indicate completion of exterior of Building A. 2.) The improvement and realignment of Sunburst Drive is to be at the expense of FDMI. Subdivision regulations require completion.of roads prior to issuance of future building permits. 3.) Underground parking in the building contains more than the required number of parking spaces. FDMI agrees as long as it is in a position of control the use of additional parking. They will encourage the developer of additional land to locate the over- flow parking under the existing building. 4.) FDMI should have the ability to relocate the existing recreational amenities and where appropriate remove the existing facilities and replace the faci- lities that FDMI and the Town might find more appropri- ate. Covenants submitted as a part of resubdivision specify approximately 2 acres be set aside for recreational amenities. V � 5.) A new drainage plan must be submitted which reflects the revised building and landscaping plans. 6.) FDMI will be required to have the Fire Department prepare a Fire Safety Report on the existing building which must meet uniform fire code. FDMI will also be required to have the building inspected and approved by the Town Building Official. 7.) The Town of Vail has agreed to purchase Lot 3 for parking for Golf Club House and to complete construction and landscaping of parking lot for a sum of $67,320. The Metropolitan Recreation District should by formal motion void their contracts with Shamrock Vail, Ltd. 8.) FDMI has a reed to pay Recreational Amenities Tax in the amount of 67,320. 9.) When the above conditions have been satisfied, the Town of Vail agrees to issue a certificate of occupancy for the existing building. C: PLANNING COMMISSION 0 AGENDA AUGUST 11, 1977 1. Gore Creek Associates prelimenary presentation of plat and development plan for Special District 4, 2. Uihlein Residence - discussion of 3 dwelling unit on 2 lots, 3. Snow Lion - discussion of possible compromise. 0 r� 1� Minutes VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 1977 . Members Present: Chairman Drager Ron Todd Sandy Mills Bill Hanlon Gore Creek Associates p relim development plan for Special Members Absent: Dudley Abbott Pam Garton Gerry White Staff .Present: Toughill stric esentation of plat and A preliminary plan was presented which included 42 residential lots and approximately 50 multi family dwelling. On approximately 77 acres. A one -way road systme is proposed to serve all except 3 of the residential lots and a private road to serve 3 lots in order to avoid the use of cul-de-sacs. The Planning Commission generally felt the plan was a good one as density has been cut by about 2/3 Uihlein Residence - discussion of 3 dwelling units on 2 lots, A preliminary discussion was held pertaining to an easement between Lots 4 and 6, Block 2, Vail and allowing a duplex residence plus a detached caretaker apartment above on the two lots. The in a "straw" vote had no problem with the propo Snow Lion - discussion of possible compromise. abandonment of Village 3rd Filing garage with a Planning Commission Sal. A report on the staff negotiable with Coursheval was given outlining the proposed changer in the Snow Lion II plans. The Planning Commission felt the density reduction was a step in the right direction but the building is still too large and would rather see nothing there. • MINUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION ':AUGUST 25, 1977 3:00 P.M. Members Present: White Mills Hanlon Todd Abbott Garton Discussion of Amendments to Zoning Ordinance to reflect growth Management: White discussed alternatives for the Mall specifically handling deliveries and delivery trucks. Discussion of remote deliveries and traffic problems. Could long term housing be appropriate for Bighorn Junction Parcel. Planning Commission recommended the following General Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: Ski lifts in residential zone should not be allowed. Mirror imaged duplexes should not be allowed. 50' frontage should be required for residential lots Generally approved the Amendments and rezoning on a preliminary basis. Abbott requested hazard units be indicated for: parcels to be down zoned. PRELIMINARY STAFF REVIEW GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION August 29, 1977 Present: Rose Gerste'nberger Toughill J. Ruoff 1. Legal description needs to except the Robbins, /McDaniel parcels. 2. Access must be provided for the Robbins /McDaniel parcels. 3. Must have easement for bike path across Robbins /McDaniel parcels. 4. Road width must be 22' with two - way traffic, and signed for no parking on one side. 'S. Must submit road profiles and cross sections. Effective width reduction could be realized through ditch and shoulder width reduction. 6. Utility easements must be indicated especially for sewer line which crosses several lots. 7. Utility Plan must be submitted indicating easements for gas, electric, cable T.V. and telephone. 8. Consider using two different names for Westhaven to facilitate street numbering for Fire Department. Change Greenhill Place to Greenhill Court to indicate dead -end street. 9. Key plan must be shown on preliminary plat. 10. Show proposed cut and fill for roads, Centerline road profiles and retaining wall details. 11. Indicate.water line size. We suggest that line be oversized to allow inter-connect with Vail Village West Water District. Line should be engineered for correct sizing -- probably 10" or 12". 12. Use bike bridge for additional water line to provide loop to serve Mansfield property. 13. Provide bridge details for automobile bridge, pedestrian bridge, and for utility crossing. 14. Provide water tee and stub on access tract south of Park Meadows for future inter -- connect. 15. We suggest that dedicated public road be multi- family parcel, provided within the .. Page 2 Preliminary Staff Review Glen Lyon Subdivision 16. Fire hydrants must be indicated so that no building will be more than 600' from a hydrant. (We have indicated suggested locations on plat). 0 • • MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM; DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 25, 1977 RE: SUMMARY OF ZONING AMENDMENT TO IMPLEMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT We have decided to divide the Growth Management Amendments into two parts, general amendments and downzoning of specific parcels, By doing this we hope to avoid delaying the general amendments if the rezoning of specific parcels proves to be extremely controversial. The following is a summary of the general zoning amendments by section numbers: ARTICLE 1: General Provisions 1.201 - Zoning Districts Established 1* (2) Two - family primary /secondary residential 1.600 - Definitions Accommodation units - add to definition: Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one -half (ffl) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. ARTICLE 2: Single - family Residential No Change NEW ARTICLE 3: Two- family Primary /:secondary Residential New Zone District - see attached Article 3 ARTICLE 3 :- Two- family Residential 3.501 -- Lot area and site dimensions Minimum lot area increased to 17,500 sq.ft. ARTICLE 4; Low Density Multiple Family 0 4.100 - Purposes Reduce density from 12 dwelling units per acre to 9 dwelling units per acre. Page 2 Summary of Zoning Amendment To Implement Growth Management 0 ARTICLE 5: - Medium Density Multiple Family 5.100 - Purposes Reduce density from a range of 15 -30 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre. ARTICLE 6: High Density Multiple Family 6.100 - Purposes Reduce density from a range of 25 to 50 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre. ARTICLE 7: Public Accommodations 7,100 - Purposes Adds a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre. ARTICLE 8: Commercial Core 1 No Change -( Planning Commission sub - committee had deadline of Sept. 25 for making recommendation to ARTICLE 9: Commercial Core 2 Council) Adds IIorizontal zoning and sets a maximum density 9.100 - Purposes Adds a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre. 9.300 - Permitted and Conditional Uses Specific Permitted and conditional uses ".spe.ci.fic shall be the same as those permitted and conditional in the Commercial Core 1 District as prescribed by Section 8.200 of this ordinance, Retail stores and establishments shall not occupy more than 8,000 sq.ft. of floor area. • • • 0 Page 3 Summary of zoning Amendment to Implement Growth Management ARTICLE 10: Commercial Service Center 10.605 - Density Control Add maximum density: In no event may the density exceed 18 dwelling units per acre. ARTICLE 11 & 12: Heavy Service and Agricultural No Change ARTICLE 13: Special Development Districts Chapter 3 -- Bighorn Junction The current allowable density is 15.28 per acre maximum which falls in the MDMF range. It seems fair to reduce this density to the current LDMF standard of 12 units per acre since all other comparable properties are also being downzoned approximately the same percentage . Below is a chart of allowable and proposed new densities: GENERAL DENSITY PLAN Development Development Development SD3 Area A Area B Area C Total Developable Area Maximum number of dwelling units Units per Acre Proposed maximum number of dwelling units Proposed units per acre 3.0 acres 1,5 acres 3.09 acres 7.59 acres 54 36 46 116 18 24 15 15.28 max. 42 21 43 91 14 14 14 ..12, 0 max Page 4 Summary of Zoning Amendment to Implement Growth Management S 13.705 -3 Dwelling units shall not exceed the following provisions: Although the aggregate amount of the maximum totals of floor area, dwelling units, and gross residential floor area within Development A,B and C in the above General Density Plan exceed the SD3 totals, in no event shall the aggregate amounts actually developed in all the Development Areas combined exceed the above SD3 totals; the purpose of this arrangement is to permit limited flexibility in the creation of a development plan while restricting the maximum areas and units to the SD3 totals. Our general recommendation has been to not reduce GRFA; however; we believe this SDD warrants another look as the allowable GRFA in development area B is .50 which is very close to HDMF. The GRFA for areas A & C is .35 which does not pose a particular problem, SDD6 - Vail Village Inn - The allowable density is in line with proposed reductions. SDD7 - Mark - The allowable density is approximately 5 units per acre in excess of the proposed reduction. At the time the Mark was being considered, the proposed ratio was 2z accommodation units for each dwelling unit; this has now been reduced to 2 which . creates the average. This is one project which must be considered separately - is it worth allowing approximately 21 excess units to get a much need Town Convention facility at private expense? • PARCELS PROPOSED TO BE REZONED OWNER OR LEGAL AREA CURRENT ZONE UNITS PROPOSED ZONE UNITS Amen /Wolinsky 6.733 acres MDMF w/97 97 LDMF 60 units max, Gore Range 7.971 LDMF w /60 60 RC 47 units max. Jackson, Cook, Zabinsky 3,0 LDMF 36 RC 18 Timberfalls Voluntary downzoning proposed Vail Investment Properties 6.4 LDMF 76 RC 38 Ward 1.5 LDMF 18 RC 9 *Racquet Club 13.0 MDMF 283 MDMF 234* (county approval) Lots 3,4,5,6,& 7 Blk.1, Bighorn ' 3rd 2.905 LDMF 32 RC 16 Lots 1,2,3, Blk 3 Bighorn 3rd 2.465 LDMF 28 RC 14 Lots 1,2,3, Blk 7 Bighorn 3rd 1.386 LDMF 16 RC 8 Lots 2,3, Blk 8 Bighorn 3rd .674 LDMF 8 RC 4 Lot B -7, Lions - Ridge Filing #1 1,541 LDMF 18 RC 9 * 128 existing units, 45 units under construction = 173 or approximately 13.3 units per acre which is in excess of current LDMF standards. Negotiations should be undertaken with the owner to voluntarily reduce density as much as possible. Walter Kirch has stated that he would be willing to reduce additional units by 30% or from 110 approximately to 77 additional units which would total 250 units - our suggestion is that reduction be to 18 units per acre. • Page 2 PARCKLS PROPOSED TO BE REZONED CONTINUED is OWNER OR LEGAL AREA CURRENT ZONE UNITS PROPOSED ZONE UNITS Lot A -7, Lions - ridge, Filing #1 1.234 LDMF 14 RC 7 Lot 6, Blk.2, Potato Patch 3.91 MDMF 60 LDMF 35 Lot 34, Blk 1 Potato Patch ,997 MDMF 15 LDMF 9 Vail Valley 3rd Filing - 21 lots from R to R primary /secondary Block 1, Lots 1 -190 Vail Village lst from R to R primary /secondary Block 7, Lots 1--14, Vail Village 1st from R to R primary /secondary Vail Village 3rd Filing - 36 lots from R to R primary /secondary Vail Village 6th Filing - 23 lots from R to R primary /secondary Vail Village 7th Filing - Blocks 4,5,6,7, & 8 -31 lots from R to R primary/ secondary Vail Village 8th Filing - 11 lots from R to R primary /secondary *ail Potato Patch -- 54 all residential lots from R to R primary /secondary Bighorn 5th, Blocks 4-7 - 51 lots from R to R primary /secondary Bighorn 2nd - 16 lots from R to R primary /secondary • • t AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1977 3:00 P.M. (1) Vail Associates - request for conditional use permit to allow field office on unplatted parcel West of Lionshead 3rd Filing on present shop location. 3:15 P.M. (2) Tom Leroy - request for setback.variance Lot 21, Vail. Meadows 1st Filing. 3:30 P.M. (3) Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to allow private clubs as a conditional use in Low Density Multiple - Family and Residential Cluster Zone Districts. 3:30 - 4:00 P.M. (4) General Business a. Sub - committee deadline - Sept. 25th set up meeting schedule. b. Appoint Council. Representative c. Sept. 13th all day Tour Boulder Malls and Greenbelt Program. 4:00 P.M. (5) Gore Creek Associates.- amendment to Special Development District #4 and Resubdivision. Motion for postponement and tour of property. WMINUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1977 3:00 P.M. Present: Ron Todd Gerry White Pam Garton Ed Drager Bill Hanlong Dudley Abbott Absent: Sandy Mills Staff Present: Allen Gerstenberg Diana Toughill Sunburst Blair Ammons, representing the Sunburst project, explained his landscape plans for the completion of the project to the Com- mission. They included a new road into Sunburst, a new walk- way system, and the planting of trees. Harmon, O'Donnell and Henninger have also designed the Golf Club parking lot, includ- ing the landscaping. Vail Associates - Conditional Use Permit Tom Campbell of Vail Associates requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow their field office on unplatted parcel west of Lionshead to remain through the winter. It is used as a meet- ing house in the morning, keeps the maintenance people in one location, and eliminates many cars from the Lionshead park- ing lot. His temporary permit expires at the end of September. (It was approved on a six -month basis.) He wants to make the shop a permanent fixture. A motion was made by Gerry White to let the shop stay at its present location for twelve months. After that time, plans for the permanent building will be sub- mitted. The motion was seconded by Ron Todd and was approved unanimously. Leroy Variance - Lot 21, Vail Meadows Tom Leroy requested a setback variance for Lot .21, Vail Mead- ows. He is building a house on an avalanche lot, and asked for a variance of 4 feet; setback is 6 feet. He needs this setback because this is the only way the lot can be built on. He is building a single family dwelling rather than a duplex C7 LJ MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1977 PAGE 2 which is in line with the new hazard ordinance. The motion to grant the variance was first made by Rod Todd and seconded by Gerry White and was approved unanimously. Zoning Amendment - Private Clubs An amendment to the zoning Ordinance to allow private clubs as a conditional use in Low Density Multiple Family and Residential Cluster Zone Districts was proposed. This would allow-recre- ational amenities such as tennis courts to be open for public use on a limited basis. The Racquet Club had a similar amend- ment to allow their clubhouse. The problem of parking was brought up by Gerry White, but the Commission decided that it would be discussed on an individual basis. The words "Private Club" will be added as: Item F of 18.14.030, Municipal Code and Item F of 18.16.030, Municipal Code. Dudly Abbott made the first motion for approval; Gerry White seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. General Business Three items were discussed: 1. Subcommittee. deadline - September 25, 1977. Set up meet- ing schedule. 2. Appoint Council representative. 3. September 13 - All -day tour of Boulder Malls and Green- belt Program. Gore Creek Associates - Glen Lyon Subdivision Gore Creek Associates showed a preliminary outline development plan to the Commission. Andy Norris made the presentation, and Graham Woodhouse and Jay Peterson were present. The items discussed were: Redesign of the office site; building of a single lane road instead of a two lane road for environmental reasons; condominium sites; duplex primary /secondary zone lots, boundaries (open space still exceeds 50 percent of the total); the protection of aspen trees; gullies., (debris flow); and a small avalanche area were discussed. A motion to open hearing and table was made by Gerry White and seconded by Pam Garton. It was approved unanimously. MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1977 PAGE 3 Gore Creek Associates - (continued) The Commission went over to the proposed area to examine the land. Introduction of New Fire Chief Mr. Gordon Swanson, Vail's new fire chief, was introduced to the Commission The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1977 RE: VAIL ASSOCIATES REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ERECT A FIELD OFFICE AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN A HEAVY SERVICE ZONE DISTRICT. Vail Associates has applied for a Conditional Use Permit in order to locate a field office at the Vail Associates Maintenance Yard, which is located just West of Lionshead. The purpose of the field office would be as a check -in point and headquarters for Vail Associates' mountain maintenance crew. This field office has been on the site during the summer months, having received a temporary permit from the Zoning Administrator. This temporary permit is soon to expire, and Vail Associates wishes to continue use of the field office on the site. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS Upon review of "Criteria and Findings ", the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed use has little or no impact on the development objectives or the other factors. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located in relation to surrounding uses. PAGE 2 Vail Associates request for Conditional Use Permit. The Vail Associates Maint.enance'Xar.d.is. well screened by fences from direct view. The addition of a field office will hardly be noticed. What it will do is enable the yard to be used more efficiently. 5. Such other factors.and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. The Building Official should check the structure in which the field office is to be located to make sure it is safe for occupancy. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved based on the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions-.under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1977 RE: REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE -- TOM AND VIRGINIA LEROY LOT 21, VAIL MEADOWS FILING # 1. The applicants have requested a six foot side setback instead of the required 10 feet on the Easterly side of their lot. The variance has been requested so that a single - family residence can be built on the lot outside of an avalanche zone. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.62.060 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The distance between the proposed house.on Lot 21 and the existing house on Lot 20, the lot directly to the East, is approximately 60 feet. The minimum required distance between buildings is only 20 feet, so that the distance between the structures on the side where the setback variance is being requested is 3 times what is required. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. The reason for the requested variance is so that a single - family residence can be built outside of an avalanche zone. Over i of the lot is in either a high or.moderate hazard zone (mostly in the high zone), and this makes the lot very difficult to be built upon. The back side of the lot, the remaining part outside of the avalanche zone, is very steep which dictates the proposed location of the house. The applicant has proposed to put only a single - family residence on the lot which is �n accance the - purchased hazard ordinance. Due to the unusual circumstances -- — - described above and the owners _proposal. t_o deal with theses__. -described - - - circumstances we do not feel that it would be a rant of _sl2eia1_ T- privilege to issue this variance. ti. • PAGE 2 LEROY VARIANCE 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,. transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We do not foreseen any adverse effects upon these factors. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The Department of Community Development finds that: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege in- consistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. There are very few properties in avalanche zones.facing the difficulty presented by this lot. Because of the development limitations in these zones, efforts should be made to allow reasonable development, if possible. The proposal of the applicant requests only a setback variance of 4 feet to allow construction totally outside of the hazard area. This should not be considered a special privilege. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (See number 3 under CRITERIA AND FINDINGS) 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical hardship inconsistant with the objectives of this ordinance. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The avalanche zone on this property causes difficulties and extraordinary circumstances not commonly experienced by property owners. For this reason, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested setback variance. MINUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1977 3:00 P.M. Present: Gerry White Pam Garton Ed Drager Bill Hanlon Dudley Abbott Sandy Mills Ron Todd Staff Present: Diana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger Jen Wright - McAllister Property Mr. Jen Wright, owner of the McAllister property, asked for a Conditional Use Permit for a private club in a Residential Cluster Zone. The site plan will be submitted in 45 days. Dudley Abbott made the motion that a Conditional Use Permit for a private club consisting of approximately 7 tennis courts, a clubhouse and a swimming pool on the McAllister property be approved under Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 22.300 with the ability of the Planning Commission to approve the site plan when it is finalized. The motion was seconded by Pam Garton. It was understood that this is a preliminary ap- proval, with the Commission having the right to approve the site plan at a later date. It was unanimously approved.by all except Ron Todd, who was late in arriving to the meeting. Spa - Review of Environmental Im act Report The motion to postpone this item on the agenda until September 22 was made by Gerry.White and seconded by Dudley Abbott. Gondola I and Gondola II Terminals - Preliminary Discussion of Proposed Renovation Plans Phil Ordway of Vail Associates Commercial Development and Gordon Pierce came to the Commission to get comments, reactions and suggestions about the renovation plans for the Gondola I and Gondola II terminal buildings. Gondola I. There are two main objectives for the Gondola I, building: Use it as a support facility for mountain operations; and use it to make money for VA. Ski school, ticket windows, public toilets and commercial space are to be located on the 1 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1977 1. Spa -- review of Environmental Impact Report 2. Jack Carnie - preliminary discussion of density variance for one additional unit on a portion of the McAllister property. 3. Gondola I - preliminary discussion of proposed renovation plan. 4. Discussion of Eagle County Planning items. Ll s MINUTES -2- September 8, 1977 main floor. The upper two floors will have expensive condo- minium units (eight to ten units). Parking and storage for VA would be in the basement. VA assures that the structure will be pleasing because VA is concerned about the'core area remaining a "pedestrian experience." Gondola II. The main purpose of renovating the Gondola II termina uilding is to reinforce the commercial area and to make the back of the building more attractive. Approximately 11,500 feet of new space will be added {2 for VA and , for commercial use). Gore Range II - Preliminary Discussion of Proposed Down-Zon- ing and Possible Lon Term Housing Project. (Bob Warner, Pat Mulberry, and Dean Was sc e were present.) Bob Warner would like to build a 60 unit complex for long- term housing which would include an amenity package. He pro- poses to build eight buildings and needs 60 units to make the rentals reasonable and to attract tenants (Less units would raise the cost.) The Commission is concerned about whether the Town is in dire need of rental units; and, if an.acception is made to the zon- ing, will it snowball. The Commission decided to wait until next week to make a final decision on this proposed project after the members look at the site. Boulder Trip A trip to Boulder to look at the malls will be on Tuesday, September 13. A bus will leave Vail at 7:00 a.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /DIANA TOUGHILL DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 RE: PROPOSED GONDOLA I PROJECT Allen Gerstenberger and I met with Phil Ordway of Vail Associates August 31, to discuss the redevelopment of the present Gondola I site. The following is a summary of the pertinent data: Zone District - CC1 Site area - 20,434 square feet Allowable GRFA - .8x2O,434= 16,347 Allowable Commercial - no limit except height, building bulk, site • coverage and required landscaping Height limit - 35' Building Bulk - maximum wall length 125', offset a minimum of 1' for each 5' of wall length for each wall over 50' long. Maximum distance between any two corners 1601 . Site Coverage - .Maximum of 80% of the site may be covered by building. Landscaping - Minimum of 20% of site must be landscaped (minimum dimension 10' and 300 square feet). Vail Associates has proposed 16,300 square feet of GRFA in luxury condominiums; approximately 4,000.square feet for VA use as ticket office, locker rooms etc.; 9,300 square feet of commercial space, or a total of approximately 25,600 square feet. The basement area could be parking, storage or an alternative as the Council determines. It appears that a great deal of our %Cl" delivery and storage problems could be solved by incorporating a "joint use" delivery and storage area into the proposed new building. Page 2 Proposed Gondola 1 Project September 5, 1977 As the Council has directed the staff to prepare an F.A.R. maximum for CCl of 1 to 1 and the project is approximately .5,000 square feet in excess of the proposed maximum, we have suggested that V.A. pursue the project under a Special Development District so the Town can maintain control over the project. It appears that the early variances necessary will be parking and possibly building bulk. The conceptual plans indicate that all other requirements can be met. Vail Associates will make a preliminary presentation to the Council on October 4. 0 • I i• 1� MEMO is TO: THE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 30, 1977 RE: VAIL DAS SCHONE FILING # 4 These are just some preliminary comments from the Staff regarding the proposed subdivision of the 6.6,acre tract directly East of the Vail das Schone Condominiums. This subdivision will be coming before the County for review in September. 1.) The information provided is inadequate and does not meet the specifications of the Eagle County Subdivision Regulations for either sketch or preliminary plan. a. 401.01(a). Tract boundary, block and lot pattern with the area and use of lots indicated by note (In the information provided, there have been no definite uses given for four of the five lots. A bank has been designated to go on Lot 1. To say that two of the lots could be used for either "smaller shops and /or apartments" is not defining uses). b. 4.01.01(b) Street system with gradients and widths indicated by note; the relation- ship of proposed streets to existing streets, both on and adjoining the sketch plan site, shall be shown; (There is no street system or parking layout shown on the information received). c. 4.02.01(f)(4) Landscaping plans - at a minimum by a licensed architect or a landscaper architect. (The landscape plan as submitted is totally unreasonable for a commercial subdivision of this size. It does not even attempt to break -up the site or screen it in any way). 0 Page 2 Vail Das Schone Filing # 4 August 30, 1977 d. 4.02.01(h) Approximate area and use of each lot (There is again no specific or even general information given for the uses on four out of five of the individual lots). e. 4.02.01(j) Common open space not reserved or dedicated to the public (There is no open space shown on the Preliminary.Plan). f. 4.02.01(k)(7) Brief description of proposed covenants; (No covenants'or proposed covenants have been recieved). 2.) Beside not complying with the Eagle County Subdivision Regulations, the Staff wishes to make the following comments: ia. To divide a key commercial site up into small lots without any overall concept is poor planning. For a commercial area to work successfully, there has to be an interrelationship both functionally and aesthetically between the different uses on the site. With as little information as has presently been provided, there is absolutely no way to evaluate this plan. b. A previous conceptual plan for this site included some housing for long term residents. There should be strong encouragement for the provision of this housing on this site. c. A complete plan with approximate building locations types of uses, and a complete parking plan should be submitted before subdivision approval is granted. • 1 z w DRAFT /August 24 1977 rt PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO as recommended by the-County Planning Commission A. A minor'subdivision is defined as a subdivision in which the following occur: A. All lots created lie within an approved and platted subdivision. B. The proposed subdivision of a parcel of land not greater P � than 40 acres in area, creates a total of eight (8) lots or less. C. The land included within the proposed.map is properly use. s zoned for the proposed ` D. Satisfactory evidence has been furnished to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners of the existence of an adequate and dependable water supply for each lot. E. Satisfactory evidence has.been furnished to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners as to the existence of a septic tank disposal site, or other lawful deans of disposing of human wastes, which complies with all applicable public health laws for each proposed lot. 1 F. Satisfactory evidence has been furnished to the Planning s Commission and the Board of County Commissioners concerning the geology, soil, topography, drainage, fire protection, and other conditions, so as to indicate the subdivision will not create any hazards and that all lots will contain safe, adequate building sites. G. All lots on the proposed map abut a County street or road which has been accepted for maintenance, and are physically accessible, or capable of being physically accessible, from the 'public street by conventional vehicle. tI, A site plan and final plat shall be submitted to the County Department of Planning and Development. A. The site plan shall be drawn'and submitted in accordance . with county site plan standards. B. The Final Plat shall be drawn and submitted in accordance with subdivision final plat requirements. (Section 4.03 of the Subdivision Regulations.) C. A plat which meets minor subdivision regulations and contains no public improvements shall not be required to include the title certificate on the final plat. D. -The final.plat shall be valid for a period of two years. III. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation either approving, or denying th-e proposed minor subdivision to the Board of County Commissioners, who may then approve the designation of the proposed map as a minor subdivision if it finds that all the requirements of Paragraph l above have been met without waiver. Upon final approval by the Board of County Commissioners the map shall be filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder upon payment of all required filing or recording fees. .IV. Applicability of a. proposed subdivision to the minor subdivision procedure is to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners based or:. a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Applications may be to not not be in accordance with the regulation and be directed through the full subdivision process.' • r AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1977 l.) Glen Lyon - Request for amendment to Special Development District 4 to reflect Development Plan and resubdivision of a portion of Development area B and C. 2.) Colorado Investment Services, Inc. - Request for rezoning of Lots 6, 7, S, 9, and a portion of Lot 10, Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1, from Residential Cluster to Special Development District 5A. 3.) Alfred Uihlein - Request for vacation of property line and easement between lots 4 and 6, Block 2, Vail Village 3rd Filing and request for variance to allow a dwelling unit over a garage separate from the 2 main dwellings. 4.) Abe Shapiro - Discussion of proposed down - zoning of Lot 26, 0 Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing. r 1 �J MINUTES VATL PLANNING SEPTEMBER 15, 2:00 P.M. Present: COA/HISSION 1977 Pam Garton Sandy Mills Ed Drager Dudley Abbott Ron Todd Gerry White Bill Hanlon Staff Present: Diana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger Glen Lyon Request foY Amen:dment' t'o 'S ecial`Devel`opment Dis- trict to ?le lect' Deue'lo' ment lan -an Res rzsiari o a Portion of Development Area-s T-and Tan C Mr. Andy Norris, the developer of Glen Lyon, showed the Board the preliminary outline development plan and discussed his re- . quests for amendment. Pam Garton made the first motion to ac- cept the amendments to the Glen Lyon Development as outlined in the memorandum from the Department of Community Development of September 15. Dudley Abbott seconded the motion, and it was voted on unanimously. Pam Garton made a motion to allow the resubdivision of a portion of development areas B and C. It was seconded by Ron Todd and voted on unanimously. (G. White and B. Hanlon did not vote as they were late.) Discussion of Proposed Down - Zoning of Lot '26, Block 2, Vail illage, t Filing e apr._ro Mr. Abe Shapiro wants consideration on down - zoning on Lot 26 and wants to put a maximum of 16 units on the property and keep Low Density zoning. A straw vote was taken:, and all members of the Board agreed that 16 units from 14 units was a reason- able compromise and found it to be an acceptable compromise. (B. Hanlon did not vote.) Request for Vacation of Pro Lots 4 an , Block 2, Vail Variance to AlloV a Dwel`lin the Two Main Dwellings - Al This item on the agenda was mal agreement was granted a aerty Line and Easement Between 11 age 3r ilin an Request for Uri it Over 'a Garage Separate from re' d—U-1-h le'in discussed previously, and an infor t that time. Ron Todd made the • MINUTES (Continued) -Z- September 15, 1977 first motion that the request for vacation of property line and easement between lots 4 and 6., Block 2, Vail. Village 3rd filing be approved. It was seconded by Gerry White and voted on unani- mously. Gerry White made the first motion to allow a variance to allow a dwelling unit over a garage separate from the two main dwellings. It was seconded by Ron Todd, and unanimously approved (except for Bill Hanlon). Postponement of the Growth Management Voting Amendment The Commission decided.to postpone the Growth Management Vot- ing Amendment until next week. Colorado Investment Service's, Inc. - Request for Rezoning of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and a Portion oT Lot 10, Bloc ck C, Lions-Rid Film No. 1 from Res? ential C1ustex to Special Development strict The architect for Vail Run representing Childless. Livaudias Architects discussed the proposed completion of the develop- ment. Mr. Bob Bird, Manager of Vail Run, discussed the his- tory of the development and the proposed completion (which is 61 units less than the original approved plan). Also, Mr. Tom O'Brien, President of Brooktree Condominium Association, spoke for the neighborhood and made comments in regards to the Vail Run project. A meeting of the neighbors was held, and the pro- posed developments in the area were discussed. The people who live in the Lions Ridge area are opposed to the large proposed developments and would like to see them stopped; however, they were pleasantly surprised with the proposed Vail Run project. A letter was written and read to the Commission summarizing why they approve the project. The neighbors feel that Vail Run ac- commodates the feelings of the people in the area. A motion to accept the amendments to a special development, District #5 qualified by the comments by the Planning Commis- sion in a memo dated September 15, 1977, was made by Dudley Abbott and seconded by Ron Todd. Six members of the Commis- sion voted in favor of it, and one member opposed (Sandy Mills). A motion to accept as part of the development plan the entitle- ment impact statement which has been filed by the C.S.I. for the completion of Vail Run was made by Pam Garton and seconded by Ron 'odd. Six members of the Commission voted for it, and one member voted against it (Sandy Mills). • MINUTES (Continued -2- September 15, 1977 Last week's minutes were adopted. Dudley Abbott made the first motion; it was seconded by Gerry White and voted on unanimously by the other members of the Commission. The meeting of the Vail Planning Commission adjourned at 5:00 p.m. September 15, 1977 0 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 4 AMENDMENTS 18.46.010 Purpose. No Change 18.46,020 Established, B. The district shall consist of four separate development areas as identified on the map, consisting of the following approximate size: Development Areas Acreage Roads 4.7 A 16.82 B 4.00 TOTAL 80 C 29.10 D 1.8 Dedicated Open Space 40.4 18.46.030 Development plan _ Required - Approval procedure. No Change 18,46.040 Development plan - Contents. B. 3. A conceptual site plan, at a scale not smaller than one inch equals fifty feet, showing the locations and dimensions of all buildings and structures with the exception of.single- family and two - family structures uses therein and all principal site development features, such as landscaped areas, recreational facilities, pedestrian plazas and walkways, service entries, driveways, and off- street and loading areas; 4. A conceptual landscape plan, at a scale not smaller than one inch equals fifty feet, showing existing landscape features to be retained or removed, and showing, proposed landscaping and landscaped site development features, such as outdoor recreational facilities, bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and walkways, water features and other elements for each development area; 7. A volumetric model of the site and the proposed development, at a scale not smaller than one inch equals one hundred feet, portraying the scale and relationships of the proposed development to the site and illustrating the form and mass of the proposed buildings for development areas A, B, and D. • Page 2 Special Development District 4 Amendments 8. An architectural model of each proposed building at a scale deemed appropriate to the development by the zoning administrator portraying design details for each phase in development areas A, B, and D, 18.46,050 Permitted uses. Single - family residential dwellings and two-- family residential dwellings shall be permitted uses in development area C, Two - family dwellings, residential cluster dwellings, and multiple - family dwellings shall be permitted uses in development areas A and B. Professional offices and business offices, with a total gross floor area not to exceed ten thousand square feet, shall be permitted use in development area. . 18.46.060 Conditional uses, No Change 18.46.070 Accessory uses, G A. 3. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. 18.46.080 Density- Dwelling units. The number of dwelling units shall not exceed the following: Development Area A, Two hundred fifty -two units; (252) Development Area B, Sixty -cave units; (65) Development Area C, One - Hundred Four units; (104) 18.46.090 Development standards, No Change 18.46.100 Setbacks, No Change 18,46.110 Distance between buildings . No Change ,' Page 3 Special Development District 4 Amendments 18,46.120 Height. No Change 18.46.130 Density -Floor Area, The gross residential floor area of all buildings in each development area shall not exceed .35 GRFA in area A, 65,000 square feet GRFA in area B, and .25 GRFA for the first 15,000 sq,ft. of site area, plus not more than .10 GRFA shall be permitted for each sq.ft. of site area over 15,000 not to exceed 30,000 sq.ft. of site area, plus not more than .05 sq.ft. of GRFA for each sq.ft. of site area over 30,000 sq.ft, in area C. 18.46.140 Coverage, No Change 18.46.160 Landscaping. No Change 18.46.170 Parking. iOff- street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52, except that seventy -five percent of the required parking in area A shall be located within the main building or buildings. In areas B and D, fifty percent of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. Onsite parking shall be provided in Development area A for common carriers providing charter service to the development. Bus parking shall be indicated on the development plan. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. If any portion of areas A and B is developed as an institutional or educational center, these limitations may be modified in accordance with amendment procedures specified in Sections 18.66.100 through 18.66.166. 18.46.180 Recreation amenities tax assessed. The recreational amenities tax due for the development with SD4 under Chapter 3.20 shall be assessed at a rate not to exceed twenty -five cents per square foot of the floor area in development area A and at a rate not to exceed fifty cents-per square foot of GRFA in development area B, and at a rate not • to exceed fifteen cents per square foot of GRFA in development area C, and at a rate not to exceed seventy -five cents per square foot in development area D; and shall be paid in conjunction with each construction phase prior to the issuance of building permit. Page 4 Special Development District 4 Amendments 18.46,190 Conservation and pollution controls. No Change 18.46.200 Recreational amenities. No Change 18.46.210 Additional amenities A. Developer shall provide adequate private transportation services to the owners and guests of the development so as to transport them from the development to the village core area and Lions /Head area as outlined in the approved development plan in the event development area A and /or B are developed as an institutional or educational center. • • MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 15 September 1977 RE: Colorado Investment Services Inc. Request portion of Lot 10, Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1. Colorado Investment Services, Inc., has proposed to rezone the undeveloped portion of subject lots, comprising 6.3 acres, from the existing Residential Cluster Zone to a Special Development District allowing 155 additional units. The existing building is 54 units on 2.54 acres. The total proposed development is 23.6 units per acres, with a proposed GRFA of .56. Prior to annexation to the Town, Eagle County had approved a total of 270 units. When the property was zoned by the Town, the staff and Planning Commission recommended a Special Development District; the Council, however, felt that there was not sufficient information on which to base a decision and instructed the owners to submit a development plan when they were ready to start the project. The owners then filed suit against the Town charging confiscatory zoning. No action has been taken on the suit with the feeling that a compromise could be reached. The existing density in the developed portion of Lionsridge is approximately 33 units per acre. Existing buildings in the area are zoned Medium Density and are legal non - conforming structures. The undeveloped lots in Lionsridge Filing No. 1 are zoned Residential Cluster and Low Density, with the exception of Snow Lion and LRB that were negotiated to resolve court decisions. Average allowable density for the un- developed parcels is 8.63 units per acre and average density for all land at full development would be 14.52 units per acre given current zoning. The proposed Vail Run development would increase average density to 15.04 units per acre. Growth management has given us the framework for controlling ultimate population and the ability to review each development proposal on its own merits. We can now assess the impact of each proposal with the knowledge that we are not eroding our long -range goals. Even though we would prefer fewer units than what is proposed, we would recommend approval of the proposed project. f Page 2 Colorado Investment Services, Inc. 0 We recommend approval of the proposed Special. Development District for the following reasons: 1. Special Development District provides for mitigation of major environmental impacts. 2. A Transportation System will be provided to limit the impact on traffic, parking and air pollution. 3. The existing commercial space and recreational amenities were constructed in reliance on County approval of 270 units. The proposed project represents a density reduction of approximately 2370 which is comparable to the proposed down zoning.. -4. View corridors have been - preserved and the visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood is negligible due to careful siting and topography. 5. Access to the proposed development is directly from the frontage road and does not impact the residential neighborhood. 6. The project is directly adjacent to the Public Transportation System. 7. The project with a time- sharing approach (interval ownership) promotes year- around-use which is an important Town goal. S. Natural t-esource conservation is required by the iSpecial Development District. r� LJ • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION September 22, 1977 1.) Spa - Discussion of Environmental Impact report Tom Briner and John Ryan 2.) Glen Lyon - Request fore °amendment to Special Development District 4 to reflect Development Plan and resubdivision of a portion of Development area B and C. 3.) Gore Range II MINUTES VAIL PLANNING SEPTEMBER 22, 2 :00 P.M. Present: Staff Present: COMMISSION 1977 Pam Garton Ed Drager Dudley Abbott Gerry White Ron Todd Absent: Bill Hanlon Sandy Mills Diana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger Spa - Discussion of Environmental Impact' Report Tom Briner anJ Jo n yan John Rynan made a summary of the Report for the Spa, which will be built in Lionshead. After a discussion by the Commission, Dudley Abbott made the first motion to approve the Environmen- tal Impact Report of the Vail Spa prepared by the John Ryan Company in July, 1977 with the stipulation that an attempt would be made to make the fireplaces heat efficient and to . consider the studies that the Department is making now on fire- place controls and emissions. It was seconded by Gerry White and unanimously approved (except for Ron Todd who was late in arriving to the meeting). Glen Lyon - Discussion of the Environmental Impact Report A summary of the Environmental Impact Report for the Glen Lyon development was made by John Ryan, Bob Giltner (THK), who pre- pared the technical data, also discussed the report and made a summary to the Commission. After` a discussion by the Com- mission, Gerry White made the first motion to approve the En- vironmental Impact Report for Glen Lyon including the appendix thereto. It was seconded by Pam Garton and unanimously approved. Gore Range e I I Bob Warmer The developers of Gore Range II brought their model of the pro- posed employee housing project to show the Commissioners and to get their comments. This development is to be a long -term rental project. A straw vote was taken, and the Commissioners, generally, were concerned with the architecture of the project, but were not opposed to the building of 60 units. This parcel was proposed for down - zoning from LDMF to RC, which would allow 38 units. • • MINUTES (Continued) -2- September 22, 1977 Ap2roval of Last Week's Minutes Ron Todd made the first motion and it was seconded by Gerry White to approve last week's minutes. It was voted unanimously. Postponement of the Growth Management Voting Amendment Ron Todd made the first motion to postpone the Growth Manage - ment Voting Amendment until next week. It was seconded by Gerry White and voted on unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. I* ILI 10 S: F., I, a' .I Y� ORDINANCE; NO. Series of 19 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6 AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING 51AP. WHEREAS, the Town established Special Development District 5, hereinafter referred to as "SDDS!',for the development on a parcel of land comprising 2,54 acres in the portion of the Lionsridge area more fully described as a portion of Lot 10, and Lot 11, Resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, which was annexed to the Town effective on the 16th day of December, 1975. WHEREAS, Colorado Investment Services, Inc., has submitted an application reque,ting that the Town amend SDD5 to include Lots 6, 7, S, 9 and a portion of Lot 10, Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1, comprising 6.3 acres in the Special Development District. WHEREAS, SDD5 will ensure unified and coordinated development and use of a critical site as a whole and in a manner suitable for the area In which it is situated. WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, in- habitants, and visitors to amend said SDD5; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title. This ordinance shall be known as the "Ordinance Amending Special Development District 5 ". Section 2. Purposes. Special Development District 5 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and the Planning Commission, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of standard zoning di- stricts on the area, _I. K' • 1 'LLry'J 1' t • fir. .d' �F. s z d' trt 3� i G' F Section 3. Special Development District 5 Established. (A) Special Development District 5 is established for the development, on a parcel of land comprising 8.84 acres in the Lionsridge area of the Town; Special Development District 5. and said 8.84 acres may be referred to as "SDD5 ". (B) The existing building consisting of 55 dwelling. {#{# units, approximately 18,000 square feet of commercial space, I' a swimming pool and three tennis courts, shall be known as Development A. The remainder of the property containing approximately 6.3 acres shall be described as Development Area B. Section 4, Approval of the Development Plan Required Prior to Development. (A) Before the developer commences site preparation, building construction, or other improvement of open space within SDD5, there shall be an Approved Development Plan for said distlrict. (B) The Proposed Development Plan for SDD5 in accordance with Section D hereof shall be submitted by the developer to the Zoning Administrator who shall refer it to the Planning Commission, which shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting, and a report of. the Planning Commission stating its findings and recommendations shall be transmitted to the Town Council r in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code. (C) The Approved Development Plan shall be used as the principal guide for all development within SIM .- (D) Amendments to the Approved Development Plan which do not change its substance and which are fully recommended in a report of the Planning Commission may be approved by the Twon Council by resolution. (E) Each phase of the development shall require the prior approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with f the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal Code. i • IE 10 e. f F f' ,t. i. 4kk. f i 's f s i r, s' I Section 5. Content of Proposed Development plan. The Proposed Development Plan shall include but is not limited to the following data' (A) The Yinvironmental Impact Report which shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof. (8) An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the demands generated by the development without undue burden on available or proposed public facilities. (C) Existing and proposed contours after grading and site development having contour intervals of not more than five (5)'feet it the average slope of the site is 20 per cent or less, or with contour intervals of not more than ten (10) feet if the average slope of the site is greater than 20 per cent. (D) A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller than 1 inch r 50 feet, showing tho locations and dimensions of all buildings and structures, uses therein, and all principal site development features, such as landscaped areas, recreational facilities,. pedestrian plazas and walkways, service entries, driveways, and off - street parking and loading areas. (E) A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale not smaller 1 inch = 50 feet, showing existing landscape features to be retained or removed,. and showing proposed landscaping and land - scaped site development features, such as outdoor recreational facilities, bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and walkways, water features, and other elements. (F) Preliminary building elevations, sections, and floor plans, at a scale not smaller than 1/8 inch = 1 foot, in sufficient detail to determine floor area, gross residential floor area, interior circulation, locations of uses within buildings, and the general scale and appearance of the proposed development. (G) A proposed plan of parking, loading, traffic circulation,, and transit facilities; and a proposed program for satisfying traffic and transportation need7,generated by the development -3- s a: (11) A volumetric model of the site and the proposed development, portraying the scale and relationships of the proposed development to the site illustrating the form and mass of the proposed buildings. (1) An architectural model of each proposed building, #' at a scale not smaller than l inch = 40 feet, portraying design ' details. F (J) A proposed program indicating order and timing of construction phases and phasing of recreational amenities and additional amenities, f ' Section S. Permitted Conditional and Accessory Uses. (A) In development Area A (existing building r.. and recreational facilities), the following uses shall be permitted: t (1) Multiple family residential dwellings; (2) Accessory retail and restaurant and service establishments not occupying more than 18,000 square feet including S., the following: Apparel Stores i Art supply stores and galleries Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios i i Candy stores 4, Chinaware and glassware stores Specialty food stores (� Florists Iig( Gift stores } Hobby stores „ Jewelry stores Leather goods stores a Liquor stores A Newsstands and tabacco stores ` Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Barber stores Beauty shops Travel and ticket agencies 10 10 Delicatessens with food service E. Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants Additional businesses or services determined to be €. similar to permitted uses in accord with the provisions y; of Section 21.200 of this ordinance. (B) In Development Area B the following uses shall # be permitted: 4g (1) Multiple family residential dwellings. F� (C) In Development Areas A & B the following conditional 1, uses shall be permitted, subject to issuans.e of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 hereof: (1) Public Utility and public service uses; (2) Public buildings, grounds, and facilities; 7f.. j' (3) Public or private schools; (4) Public park and recreation facilities; (5) Meeting rooms. (D) In Development Areas A & B the following accessory i. uses shall be permitted: (1) Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limi.ted.to, swimming pools, tennis courts, handball 1. and squash courts and similar recreational facilities, (2) Home occupations, subject to issurance of a home occupation permit in accord with the provisions of Section 15.58.130 hereof. (3) Other uses customarily incidental and r 6 accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation.thereof. P Section 7. Development Standards. i The following development standards have been submitted to the Planning Commission for its consideration and recommendations and are hereby approved by the Town Council; these standards shall f' be incorporated in the Approved Development Plan pertinent to each Development Area to protect the integrity of the development of SDD5; the following are minimum development standards and shall apply unless more restrictive standards are incorporated in the Approved Development plan. The standards set forth in this Article ty . • 10 s shall apply only to Development Area B. Development Area A may be modified provided that no such modification shall increase the discrepancy between the structure or site improvements and the development standards set forth in this Article for Development Area B, (A) Lot Area Development Area B shall consist of approximately 6.3 acres. ++ (D) Setbacks. '.f The required setb..oks shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plan, being a minimum of 20 feet from any perimeter property line of the total site. (C) Distances Between Buildings. The minimum distances between all buildings on the site shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plan. (D) Height. The maximum height of all buildings shall be 45 feet. (E) Density Control. The floor area of all buildings and number of dwelling units shall not exceed the following provisions: Development Development Totals Area A Area B SDD5 Existing Bldg. Maximum gross residential floor area (square feet) 43,000 155,000 195,000 I Maximum number of dwelling units 54 155 209 Maximum gross commercial floor area (square feet) 18,000 -0- 18,000 (F) Building Bulk.Control. Building bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions of building groups, and requirements for wall off -sets, shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plan. (G) Site Coverage. -- Not more than 15 per cent of the Development Area B shall be covered by buildings. 10 10 10 k. l i R' s� fi i r si (H) Landscaping and Site Development. (1) A minimum of 60 per cent of Development Area U shall be landscaped in accordance with the Approved Development Plan. (l) Parking and Loading. (1) Offstreet parking shall be provided in accord with Chapter 18.52 of this ordinance; at least 85 per cent of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings, or beneath accessory decks, terraces, plazas, or tennis courts and sliall be completely enclosed and screened from view. (2) No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area or on the south side of any building, and no parking or loading shall be permitted at any time in areas designated for recreation or open space use on the Approved Development Plan. (3) Driveways, passenger loading areas, and parking areas not located within a building shall be permitted only as indicated on the Approved Development Plan. (4) On site parking shall be provided for common carriers providing charter service to the development; said parking sites shall be Indicated on the Approved Development Plan. Section S. Recreational Amenities Tax. The recreational amenities tax due to the development within SDD5, shall be assessed at a rate not to exceed $0.75 per square feet of floor area and shall be paid in conjunction with construction phases and prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 9. Special Provisions. (A) Conservation and Pollution Controls. (1) If fireplaces are provided within the development they must be heat efficient through the use of glass enclosures, and heat circulating devices as technology exists at the time of development. (2) Developer's drainage plan shall include provisions for prevention of pollution from surface run -off. (3) Developer shall include in the building construction In Development Area B energy and water conservation controls as general technology exists at the time of construction. -7- if 10 10 i yR} f� f� r. s 1 4' FF4: S t T i i� o. i (B) rmploycc housing shall be provided for a minimum of 10 employees. (C) Recreational Amenities. The approved development plan shall include the following recreational amenities: (1) Five additional tennis courts (Development Area A presently has three tennis courts with two of them covered during the winter season). Said tennis courts shall be made available to the general public on a fee basis, subject to reasonable regulation in favor of owners or guests of the development. (2) Tot Lot -• Designed in accordance with existing Town facilities as to materials used in construction, play ground equipment, etc. (3) Bike and pedestrian path traversing property from east property line of Development Area to west site line of Development Area B shall be provided by developer with exact location to be mutually acceptable to developer and the Town. (4) Swimming pool (in addition to existing pool in Development Area A) of adequate size to reasonably serve the needs of Lhe development and shall be open to the public on a fee basis subject to reasonable regulation in favor of owners or guests of the development. (D) Additional Amenities. (1) Developer shall provide adequate transportation services to the owners and guests of the development so as to transport them from the developinent to Village Core area and Lionshead area, (2) Developer shall provide in its approved Development Plan a bus shelter of a design and location mutually agreeable to developer and Town Council. Said shelter to serve the Lionsridge area generally. Section 10, Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect five days after publication following the final passage hereof. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this and a public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the rogular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado on the at 7:30 P.M. in the Municipal Bui -cung of the Town. " - . _F, ca H H Zll 00 LO W Z LO m z A G? H c9 CA c'') �A 00 H 1--f C4 W r"j A x W 4-1 m co •rl G? U 0. Cd -H 0 0 P4 •r! .0 -N 0 9 0 A 4-) N a 4-3 Cd '0 N a bA U �-•a O N U.1 -H U 't3 U w 0 ;J Cd 04 � N f 0 H O o CD O m o z -r-( 0 O� A r(0 I 0 o w CV U' F-j N Ei > Qc ri •r( 0 M bA CA Cd cd 9 cq .��-4ri (D Q LO �. Z Cd +-) U d�9::H P4 Cd •w -� ao p 0) rz a0 +) Ca 4-) W U a a 01 a U -i cd cd 0 cq cvl H LO W -r[ 0 � N � Cc i (2) a+ V) F-, 00 0 Si U O A o c • 0 cq cq cd o CO p A A --zv LO o (D r-i CO r-1 x 4-30(n0 4-1 m co •rl U 0. Cd -H 0 N 91 U +-) •r! .0 -N 9 P, -H a 4-) O O A A --zv LO o (D r-i CO r-1 4-30(n0 4-1 m co U 0. Cd -H 0 N 91 U +-) •r! .0 -N P, -H a 4-) O O 4-3 Cd '0 N bA U �-•a O N U.1 -H U 't3 U w 0 ;J Cd 04 CH f 0 H O r-I 0 co 00 d+ -r-( 0 O� A r(0 I 0 o w CV U' F-j N Ei > Qc ri •r( 0 M cq .��-4ri (D + LO CD t- Cd +-) U d�9::H P4 Cd •w -� ao p 0) rz +) Ca 4-) W 01 U -i cd cd 0 cq cvl H LO W -r[ 0 � N � a+ V) F-, 00 0 Si U O w ul P� r 0 0 : O cq o o r-I o P, +-1 0 i (1) � r-I rd 00 � ul � -P W r-I ) co •rt M m x Z H Q W •,1 0 O r+ M O -rI P p 0 0 It H cq 0 04--)� 0 E P 'H � b.a m ri U H bk Cq P m Ua c�vso co •�o•HLO mm m� x0`�o� * -P +3 -J C'+) ri N 0 a 0 00 m d{ C9 di 00 d+ r-i H aim co r-I r I ca � •H 4 N x � cd 00 C3� O r-I r-I -H 4-) iE 0 00 -P . +) •r� ,x r-•E ,--I 04-) 0 0 IL, k 04 a) U U W U U U U P4 Tl N si N Cd 040 k q � •� U O 0 cd m +) 0 0 ca 0 Q, .01 Cd H W 0o CO 0 SD4 cq 00 cQ 00 0 w +-) ri 0 Ll- r q 00 U Cd m N H O U) d � N A A --zv LO o (D r-i CO r-1 4-30(n0 4-1 U 0. Cd -H 0 N •r! .0 -N a 4-) O O 4-3 Cd '0 N bA U �-•a O N U.1 -H U 't3 U Cd 04 CH f 0 H O U x ( t- 0 O� A r(0 A o w U' F-j N Ei > Qc �ir cq + LO CD t- 4-30(n0 4-1 U 0. Cd -H 0 •r! .0 -N a 4-3 Cd '0 N U.1 -H U 't3 S] 0 O -H U x ( t- A A A z D A o w d�9::H P4 Cd p 0) rz +) Ca 4-) W cq cvl H LO W -r[ 0 9 a+ V) F-, 00 0 w ul P� r A ¢, (n ca 0 (1) � r-I rd 00 � � � -P W r-I ) co •rt M m x Z H Q W M O -rI P p 0 0 It H cq 0 N 0 0 E P 'H � w 4-J m ri U H bk Cq P m Ua co U) mm m� x0`�o� -P +3 -J +-) bA 0 a 0 Cd O^ P 0 0 O •r-f W 4-) Z�R F4 N aim 00 0) r4 ca C11 (1) (n m - x cd 00 C3� O r-I Q) P-4.0 iE A W ZO 0 Ef =r 0 H H W N H -z Q) •7f• •M• O A rn f� E•+ m PC v �Z) N a) U) I•-I a) Cd a a U � � ri �h•i C) U) 0 w U U U E Ca o (d co oz a a x x A w a� fY. N o H 'd 4--) d o bA4 H U Cd Cd O 4-� O f U A 'd ,W co 0 O rA V) d w (1) H y-, .n I {.3 E-1 00 d+ 0 ,o dT Q a) cd Q) I (D O 10 •r1 H r-i H Q0 H CY) a) k F•I U) Cd 'd l:.," Z Q) ar �-q O 00 0 -P rc �4 0 o U w o� k ° Q) °r-i 4i N rl H k rC•, 00 a Q) r-i H O Q) t- 41 H 41 xi !M k ri FLI H Cd U) bA O C I Pa O c9 O -ri cd .r. (D E-1 a w asHE � � �; 0 W W w w W O U) U) I I Q) I 4i PQ ;J 948 m 1�4 o I~ H H cl+ 'd o 0 W O A A A A A to -ri co , ❑ N a a M (1) (ll +a +) (D +) U] -P U r -IN bA bA Q O rw O Q) O I~ (� O Cd Cd r-i r I 0 H r-i Q) 'w � U) r-I r- I rf O 0 •ri O H ri M> Cl) r! Q: ri ri •W O x . r I H H H i(7 m r-I cd N ii cd Dm i I I I I W I r-I •di N bp P�l O I r-1 r-i G CIi m r-I a) t}? f;.," N ri ri bp' w w u Q' to N m m o0 •ri a) NO cd Cd i." 9 0 A It I r1 � • H $-, > p! �:.' 'r7 H. •r1 •r1 r( LO R�tl U) r4 ri m ra -r-i cd i q r I: r-i r� rf r-, -P -P 0 W Cd ri ^ ^ ri r1 rl •ri I U) O O O U1 rd r I 67 r• W W W Fit t- I ti +� C rd •t-) O O I 1 b U O cD 4i a) ! I Cl) r-•I C) 'd H r-i -P •I•) i--) r-I rl O ca (1) M CO t- 00 Cd PQ Cd >� bA m co to U) P-r I A O O cq sQ s! • a) 0-- + 4-3 a) a) a) a) O .rA ri • U b4 •r1 >n O d bA bD U U O 4 � •,••I U) F4 a M -P 4-3 r•d Cd' : ' F-t N a a Cd. Cd Cd Cd 4--3 -I-� CO i-) •I-) +) rs Cd M cd M q O cd r-f r--I r1 ri r-I Cd U') cli •ri ^ to U) A Pa Pa r i r-I S r-I ^ r-i r-i rA H L� r-, r-1 ••r- r-4 •rl Cd r-I t` r-I ri •ri H 0 0 0 r1 x I 1 -0 �+ a 0 > o H > P P� ;-, k zs 0 m a) -:4 a) 0 i-) m -P N q-, :04. ,x x o 0'a •d a bA bA Cd Cd r-i 0 U H H ri H r-I sz' .vq : P4 d , 'd -P 10 +-) -N 1.2 +.) O O rA •-I r-i ri -r-I bA U U) c� d °•r-I°•°°as Cd H Q) r-i ca Cd Cd d; cd -H . (1) a s a N m d+ LO T to L— 00 m o r, m. TO: FROM; DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM PLANNING COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 1977 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE - TO PLACE THREE DWELLING UNITS ON TWO LOTS AND VACATION OF A PROPERTY LINE AND EASEMENT. DR. AND MRS. ALFRED UIHLEIN - LOTS 4 AND 6, BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE 3rd FILING. The applicants have requested a variance to place three units on one lot that was formerly two lots. Accompanying.this request is the vaca- tion of the property line and easement between the two existing lots. The reason for this request is that the placement of the main building is on the presently existing lot line between the two lots. The applicants wish to construct two units in this structure (one being an apartment), but also want to contruct a small apartment above a detached garage on the other end of the site. Since the two lots are being consolidated into one, a variance is needed to place 3 units on one lot in a Two Family Residential District. The lot sizes for Lots 4 and 6 are 21,200 and 198379 square feet 4. This would give a total of 40,579 for the whole site. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.62.060 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses.and structures in the vicinity. The area in which this request is located has a. combination of one family and two family dwelling units. Since without the vacation of the lot line, 4 dwelling units would be permitted on the two lots, the request should have no significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatability and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. The request to vacate the lot line, which makes this variance appli- cation necessary, was to enable the location of the main building near the Wnter of the site. Since the site contains over 40,000 square feet and was ormerly two lots, the issuing of a variance would not be a grant of special privilege. VARIANCE 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transpor- tation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We do not forsee any adverse effects upon these factors. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The Department of Community Development finds that: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege in- consistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. (See Item Number 2 under Consideration of Factors) 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. We do not forsee any adverse impacts.on these factors. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical hardship inconsistant with the objectives of this ordinance. The strict interpretation would allow the placement of only two units on this 40,000 + square foot site. The normal lot size in this area is between 20,000 and 25,000 square feet. The applicants with the existing lot line could construct four units, two on each site. By vol- untarily removing their property line.., the owners are in effect creating a hardship for themselves. The Department of Community Development finds no difficulty with this arrangement and recommends approval of the variance request and lot line and easement vacation. 10 MEMO TO: Terrell J. Minger /Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: 30 August 1977 RE: Summary of Zoning Amendments to Implement Growth Management The recommendations of th6 Citzens Growth Management Committee have been translated into (1) amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, and (2) downzoning of specific parcels. This Memo summarizes the proposed amendments and downzoning for your preliminary review. The Planning Commission has reviewed these recommend- ations. A Public Hearing has been advertised.for Thursday, September 15. A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT- ZONING AMENDMENTS: 1. Add to the definition of "Accommodation units" the phrase, "Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one -half (19) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre ". (Art, 1.600) 2. Create a "Two -- family Primary/Secondary Residential" Zone. (A copy of the proposed Zone is attached) The major points will be: a. One unit is a larger primary residence and the second is a smaller "caretaker apartment" b. Minimum lot.or site area will be 15,000 square feet. C. If the structure is a duplex, one of the units shall not exceed one -third (1/3) of the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). 3. Two - family residential: Propose increasing minimum lot area from 15,000 square feet to 17,500 square feet. (Art. 3.501). Page 2 Summary of Zoning Amendment to Implement Growth Management August 30; 1977 4. Low -- density Multiple Family: Propose reducing density from present 12 dwelling units per acre to 9 dwelling units per acre. (Art. 4.100). 5. Medium density Multiple Family: Propose reducing density from present range of 15 -30 dwelling units per acre to maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre. (Art. 5.100). 6. High density Multiple Family: Propose reducing density from present range of 25 -50 dwelling units per acre to maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre. (Art. 6.100). 7. Public Accommodations: Add a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre. P.A. Zone now has no maximum density except GRFA. (Art. 7.100). 8, Commercial Core 1: Planning Commissions sub- committee has deadline of September 25th for making recommendations to Council. 9. Commercial Core 2: Add "Horizontal Zoning" and sets a maximum density.of 25 dwelling units per acre. (Art. 9.100 and 9.300).. 10. Commercial Service Center: Sets the maximum density at 18 dwelling units per acre. CSC Zone now has no maximum density. (Art. 10.605). 11. Special Development Districts: a. Bighorn Juntion (SDD3): The current allowable density is 15.28 dwelling units per acre maximum which falls into the MDMF range. Proposal is to reduce this density to the current LDMF standard of 12 dwelling units per acre; all other comparable properties are also being downzoned approximately the same percentage'. it i Page 3 Summary of Zoning Amendment to Implement Growth Management August 30, 1977 The following chart indicates allowable and proposed new densities-within SD13: - -- GF.NF.NAL DF;NSIiY BIAN D9VCIOPmant Ort rclppmoat De�cl�j:mF.n! 3D3 Are¢ A Are+ 0 Rrca (: •fot¢1 ADeueOpa bta 3 0 oc rC: I,5 a<rPV 8.0'1 ncrrn 7.58 .ores r r. R ' Knximu:n rum ber '., un 4. a111ny 1tn 39 8G 46 118 Dnl[n Par 15 15.28 ma %. Ac rc l8 R4 - - Pra 1'oM1 Ctl ax Linum ',, P Vrtii: rr o[ drnllAny unA tK 92 21 42 81 V —PVAC4 9 2n1te ' p cr 14 L4 14 12.0 m Our general recommendation has been to not reduce GRFA; however, we believe this SDD warrants another look as the allowable GRFA in development area B is .50 which is very close to HDMF. The GRFA for areas A & C is .35 which does not pose a particular problem. b. Vail Village Inn (SDD6) - The allowable density is in line with proposed reductions. c. The Mark (SDD7) - The allowable density is approximately 5 units per acre in excess of the proposed reduction. At the time the Mark was being considered, the proposed ratio for calculating density was 22 accommodation units for each dwelling unit, this has now been reduced to 2 which creates the excess. This is one project which must be considered separately -- is it worth allowing approximately 21 excess units to get a much need Town.Convention facility at private expense? B. PROPOSED DOWNZONING OF SPECIFIC PARCELS. A number of parcels have been selected to be downzoned. The following chart and map locate the parcels and give information about each: ■ 8 TWO- FAMILY PRIMARY /SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SECTION 3,100 PURPOSES The Two - family Primary /Secondary Residential District is intended to provide sites for single family;or two - family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller ' "caretaker apartment" together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Two - family Primary /Secondary Residential District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling commensurate with single family and two family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. SECTION 3.200 PERMITTED USES The following uses shall be permitted: 1. Single family residential dwellings 2, Two - family residential dwellings SECTION 3,300 CONDITIONAL USES The following conditinal uses shall be permitted, subject to assurance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance: 1. Public utility and public service uses,., 2. Public buildings, grounds, and facilittes. 3, Public or private schools. 4. Public park and recreation facilities. 5. Ski lifts and tows. SECTION 3.400 ACCESSORY USES The following accessory uses shall be permitted: 1. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, and recreation facilities customarily incidental to single family and two family residential uses. 2. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accord with the provisions of Section 17.300 of this ordinance. J Page 2 Two- family Primary /Secondary Residential District 3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. SECTION 3.500 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3.501 Lot Area and Site Dimensions The minimum lot or site area shall be 15,000 square feet, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. 3.502 Setbacks The minimum front setback shall be 20 feet, the minimum side setback shall be 10 feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be 20 feet, or 10 feet if one side setback is at least 20 feet; provided that one foot of additional side and rear setback shall be required for each two feet of building height over 15 feet. 3.503 Distances Between Buildings The minimum distance between a dwelling on a site and a dwelling on an adjoining site shall be 20 feet; provided that one foot of additional separation between dwellings shall be required for each two feet of building height over 15 feet, calculated on the basis of the average height of the proposed building. 3.505 Density Control Not more than two dwelling units in a single structure shall be permitted on each site in conformance with the provisions of this section, A total of not more than 25 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet for the first 15,000 square feet of site area, plus not more than 10 square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area over 15,000 square feet not to exceed 30,000 square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross residential floor area for each 100 square feet of site area in excess of 30,000 square feet. Page 3 Two - family Primary /secondary Residential District On any site containing two dwelling units, one of the units shall not exceed.one -third (1/3) of the allowable total gross residential floor area (GRFA), l i I % PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 29, 1977 1.) Planning Commission Resolution No, 1, Adopting Phase I of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. 2.) Amendments to Zoning Ordinance to implement.Growth Management. 3.) Down - zoning of specific parcels to implement Growth Management, 4.) Vail Associates request for Special Development Districts for re- development of Gondola Buildings 1 and 2.. Motion to postpone indefinitely at request of applicant. 1 I* PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town of Vail, in order to implement its Growth Management Plan, intends to rezone the following.parcels of land as indicated; Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition - from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition - from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivison, 3rd Addition - from Low Density Multiple- Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lots 2, 3, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition -from Low' Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lot 7, Block B, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 1, - from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lot 7, Block A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 1, - from Low Density Multiple -- Family District'to Residential Cluster District. Lot 6, Block 2, Vail /Potato Patch - from Medium Density Multiple- Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lot 34, Block 1, Vail /Potato Patch- from Medium Density Multiple- Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lot 26, 'Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing -from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. The following lots are proposed to be rezoned from Two - Family Residential Zone District (duplex) to.the new Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. 0 Lots 1 -21, Vail Valley 3rd Filing Lots 1 -19, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing Lots 1 -41, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing Lots 1 -6, Block l; Lots 1 -10, Block 2; Lots 1 -6, Block 3; Lots l -5,. $lock 4; Vail Village 3rd Filing Lots 1 -15, Block 1; Lots 1 -8, Block 2; Vail Village 6th Filing Lots 1 -4, Block 4; Lots 1 -6, Block 5; Lots 1 -14, Block 6; Lots 1 -3, Block 7; Lots 1 -4, Block 8; Vail Village 7th Filing Lots 1 -10, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing Lots 1 -33, Block 1; Lots 2 -5, Block 2; Lots 10 -12, a Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block 2; Vail /Potato Patch. Lots 1 -7, Vail /Pot Vail /Potato Patch. s�io Patch Seca.nd_F.iiing, a. Resubdivision -of Lots 1 and 2, Lots 1 -16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition Lots 1 -6, Borwick Subdivision., a Resubdivision of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition. Lots 1 -8, Block 4; Lots 1 -19, Block 5; Lots 1-4, Block 6• Lots 1 -20 Block 7; Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition. I S - The following parcels of land described by ownership and metes and bounds are proposed to be rezoned as indicated: World Savings and Loan a parcel of land being a portion of the Southeast 4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the sixth principal meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 12, being a concrete monument in place; thence due North along the East Tine of said Section 12 a distance of 178.32 feet to a point on the Southerly right -of -way line of U.S. Highway No. 6; thence along said right -of -way line the following two (2) courses: 1) N 46'45'53" W a distance of 125.70 feet; 2) N 53'4I'37" W a distance of 257.98 feet to the True Point of-Beginning: Thence N 69'20150" W a distance of 329.37 feet; thence S 74'23'53" W a distance of 190.77 feet to the approximate center line of Gore Creek; thence along said approximate center line of Gore Creek the following eight (8) courses: 1) N 43'58105" W a distance of 110.81 feet; 2) N 68'15'27" W a distance of 274.54 feet; 3) N 88'07'38" W a distance of 160.40 feet; 4) N 02.11'46" E a distance of 156.59 feet; 5 N 14'57'12" W a distance of 274.68 feet; 6� N 43'08'43" W a distance of 156.08 feet; 7 N 59'03'03" W a distance of 473.73 feet; 8 N 82'42'08" W a distance of 143.13 feet; Thence N 36'18'23" E a distance of 163.55 feet to a point on said Southerly right -of -way line of U.S. Highway No.. 6; thence S 53'41'37" E along said right -of -way line 1994.41 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 6.733 acres more or less. Proposed to be rezoned from Medium Density Multiple- Family to Low Density Multiple - Family District. Gore Range II, Ltd. a part of the SE /4, Section 12, T.5S., R.80W, 6th P.M. described as follows: Commencing at a point on south line of Section T2, T. 5S.., R. 80W, 6th P.M. which point lies S 8Q'53'24" E, a distance of 612.16' from the S/4 corner of said Section 12; thence N 41'34'00" W, a distance of-93.65'; thence S 86'02'00" W, a distance of 90.86'; thence N 16'18'30" W, a distance of 153.93'; thence N 24'56150" W, a distance of 131.70'; thence.N 56'57'20" W, a distance of 19.001; thence N 48'34104" E, a distance of534.1l'; thence in an easterly direction along the south right -of -way on the county road to the northernmost corner of Bighorn Townhouses, a subdivision; thence S 31'23'06" W, a distance of 156.26'; thence S 06'42'04" E, a distance of 207.14' to the south I.ine of said Section 12; and thence in a westerly direction along the south line of said Section 12 to the point of beginning, containing 7.971 acres more or less. Proposed to be rezoned from Low Density Multiple- Family District to Residential Cluster District. Jackson, Cook, Zabinsky a parcel of land situated in the SEA of Section 12, T.5S., R.80W,.of the 6th P.M., Eagle County, Colorado,-more particularly described'as follows: Commencing at the SE corner of said Section 12; thence N 89'53124" W, 532.00 feet, along the south.line of said Section 12; thence N 67'26'02" W, 123.29 feet along the common boundary line of a parcel conveyed to Jack A. Witkin and recorded in Book 211., Page 520, Eagle County Records; thence N 09'02'44" W, 203.85 feet; thence N 19'51'52" W, 195.00 feet; thence N 43.58'05" W, 178.88 feet; thence N 68.15'27" W, 274.54 feet;. thence N 88'07'38" W, 49.83 feet to the true point of beginning; thence S 27'56'00" W, 482.10 feet to a point on the Northerly r.o.w. line of Meadow Drive; thence N 62'04'00" W, 21.36 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a radius of 207.71 feet; thence along the arc is said curve 87.92 feet to the point of tangency; thence N 37'48'50" W, 220.23 feet to a point on said right -of -way line; thence N 37.24'02 E, 530.04 feet to-a point on said Witkin parcel; thence S 14'57'12" E, IM i s 77.82 feet; thence S,02'11`46" W, 156.59 feet; E,110.57 feet to the true point of beginning, more or less. Proposed to be rezoned from Lo District to Residential Cluster District. thence S 88.07'38" containing 3.000 acres w Density Multiple- Family Vail Investment Properties a parcel of land in the SEa of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., Eagle County, Colorado, . more particularly described as follows. Beginning at the Section corner (concrete monument in place) common to Section 12 and 13; Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., and Sections 7 and 18 Township 5 South, Range 79 West of the 6th P.M. thence N 89'53'24" W, 532.00 feet along the Section line.common to Sections 12 and 13, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M. to a point in Gore Creek being the common corner between Lots 7 and 8 of Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition; thence along Gore Creek the following bearings and distances, N 67,26'02" W, 123.29 feet; N 09'02'44" W, 203.85 feet; N 19'51`52" W, 195.00 feet; N 43'58105" W, 68.07 feet; thence leaving the Creek N 74.23'53" E, 37.98 feet; to a point on the bank of said Creek; 14 thence N 74'23'53" E, 152.79 feet to a point; thence S 69'20'50" E, 329.37 feet to a point on the Southerly right -of -way line of U.S. Highway No. 6; thence S 53'41137" E, 257.98 feet to a.point; thence S 46'45'53" E, 125.70 feet continuing along said Southerly right -of -way line of Highway No. 6 to the intersection with the East line of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M.; thence South, 178.32 feet along said . East line of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M. to the point of beginning, containing 6.4 acres more or less. Proposed to be rezoned from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. Belinda Ward a tract of land lying in the Sz of Section 12, Township 5 S.,.R. 80 W. of the 6th P.M., Eagle'County, Colorado, more particularly described. as follows: Beginning at the Southernmost corner of Lot 17, Bighorn Subdivision Fourth Addition; thence S 36'43100" W, along the Easterly line of a parcel conveyed to Chicago Bighorn and recorded in Deed Book 188, Page 113, Eagle County Records, a distance of 282.98 feet to a paint on the Northerly right -of -way line of Meadow Drive; thence N 51'15'02 W, along said right -of -way line a distance of 231.15 feet to a point; thence N 38'44'58" E, 295.37 feet to a point on the Southerly line of Lot 16 Bighorn Subdivision Fourth Addition; thence S 48'00'00", E, 221.47 feet along the Southerly line of Lots 16 and 17 Bighorn Subdivision Fourth Addition to the point of beginning, containing 1.5 acres more or less. Proposed to be rezoned from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. -A Public Hearing will be held in accord with Chapter 18.66 Qf the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Said hearing will be before the Town Council for the Town of Vail on November 1, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. in the Vail Municipal Building. TOWN OF VAIL -DEPAR,tENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELQPMENT Wna i S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail on October 7, 1977 1* k v C U ar +� LO U AN k W cd w •rA fR R M cd T •N • r+ N •H R O N 'O W •H 41 I W Id 9a r -) A F. w�7 q r W O� E+ A 0 W ER W C M a lv* •_ t k O w s4 0 cd M N .. R .., W A 'd O •H S7 E4 "I N U 'c cd bR N 4) U a, tl G H U'q CO •H H +t+ •H .q 4) w •N A C YA U 0 DF 1 U O w 'C Y 0 O'U O O to v )d R O td Cd a o .a a s ksd - .-� fti to M Y ro a •H ro v a N to a r�-)b 0$4 w w�OY N'O Y k k cd FF . 4) U v 7 P; +1 N -H 1 sx v •tl N c •H N Q] O w•% a N O 7 r_4 m x3 U a U C,W Q) 4U O M Oa) N 'tl Cl M11 0 V k0Hcd U)A'H to aY id M f, w .0 o O O W 'H A '4' �kB� -1 H N Y'I] U d v] N N w •H r. N •H O G q q N 4 0 °r N •U R rJ O O g N x •H O •H t a O rJ w N Y 4) ,c ,Q p O +� w ri M 4�'d O M 4) •-..•. aF .0 M•Hw % w r3 W 'H 0MMY tl U H ro O w a H N C H cd •H W r3 •H U M N U id rt cd U cd k a U fJ O k E-• v) v t3 ¢, 47 a ca Y 4 tl - '1 4. .0 •H N o w N N W a U O ,y •H •C m U 4 .J •H •H k o c Ri D• k W •H •H '[I k Q ra N u o to m 14x s o YGY w O P N7 m (d"c)d k a) O R4) CJ N 0 (A UU,:4'a "Y cd d U Cl a 7 R -• Y O id R Y A A I•J OTSO Fir •H 'd NL'q N O a •H M C++WAw aw a H w Y+ Q a (n Y a Np w O O CS td •H N O 41 4) W 0 N k w 4 •H n 4• +1 cJ Lei ro r-1 41 z1 ++ Y td w N W R r. w•H k x19 4) W d rJ G' C N ENOtlw r-r U r-) c 4) U• E10 rJNO Nk k o4 47 q U JA 'H - d «1 w U •H w •ty w k W k 4t D Q R P N O r, U w a) •H w N o N .X .'-'•. N k •H > N O 4) O 1C O O A P )n k -C a •H 40 •H O N V C •H N U w O H •r] ri •W A +-+ M Y O N .,4 td td T :j a 4 d .1 1 O Y ri to R R cd cd •H N NH w U 4) ri Id ,q ,t. 41 N.i A •a '0 O�'H w k o3 •W •H w L 2 U M O EH En E3 0 (d .0 NH F, Q H'H+>v1 .q gg J S= +• N tK i`1' Y M cd •H •H +•� •W Y Y N O ri Ei rr. k q U U1 ih Lrl j. w j to ci ri N [k R •H m rci +1 1 •H m W a v O F A i•� HO q Qk+ N N O O •H iJ CJ 4/ Y U w q k w N O C N N aO,o . tD sd v Fs . q a w +1 O 9 ^ rl N d CJ U G • O C) 41 O :d - 'v ca 0 ca .'1 .n' Man•HOaro N c •H'cJ G1 w •H $ O W k U 0' 'CJ W •n O 'H 1- C H a 'D tl 0 R. '•1 I] rJ 0 C) U a o v a) a PJ N'S ON ^C V :d 4, Y Y N td C O A a1 w •H N Y O G' w 0 a.1 •,w. LA O.~. -J Y a Q 'O C Y N .-i .c 0" q to C- M U) k •N N .-1 Y 0) a) a O E W N> t7 2 C C 'L] N a 0 4) cd -H 'C3 • 1 i1 w 4+ +1 E rd •H r-i c C. O in M i 0 k +J G O U W w q A O m w ' N O +J k R Iou a 't 7 O N +0+ A O U� O 4)Y,rw3 +'Y 'y •H E3 k Q 0 C., d Y 0 w 0 I) U! 4) O k W .] R M k 41 AN U q 0 a Ed C '1 0 •H C4. C 0 N C O H F, G w O w N r-i Cl a r+ 1 k •U r •1 tl U O O rk OF UH'HO rHDN - . Cd C k C w 40 fJ "'D •H •W O �-. N 4q . . N O Uri - •N H N u 0 M n iv 0 F N Y O IH ,G C A ll� )d O A" O N N U 0 _ aU�U ~5. D N H rJ wY 'H tl'x.a •cl O f, G d N O 4) •a O tO w w d Y U c' W f w ri +-• G O v a/ C) v-c w n to , U w O rd N '.� w -H L'i D 11 C1 O '«+ O r. w Ty u d• iJ rd C) O F O 0 -0 ai •N td N GG C7 C ••-� W- V N G !S k C7 Y•p v N w w 1J w k U f. 4y 'O CI' td 11+ [d O q •H O •W r3 a �.1 O M in C! 4) n4- Oa a M HOk O 4) w a U^ H Ow C1 r4. ° rH. Fa+ N in 4JO Yb O w •H 41 .O h a 71 k m R 4/ U O O r-i UUw N. k G :. •-. U 14 w d O .0 N •H C ri k Y P':< O 4) N r-i cl cd w U w O C O N •H +1 .H cd k N V: O a 17 O 41 O k rJ V-! .0 fJ v C R O kN Y U T 4) ri O O N 0 a O N 4 r. •H +1N V0 kY 0 a U N0 CdN O .✓~' .a .0 0 O 01 4) X O_ a l U1 A .Q ++1—H Rww G n w•H dl O , N k q O M p .ri .. R .., A 'd O •H W •F> CO •H H +t+ •H DF 1 U U O ksd E C i w . i 0 O Y k k cd FF . 4) U v 7 P; -H 1 sx v Cl M11 0 V k0Hcd U)A'H to aY wH �kB� A; �. N a 0 E. .+ k ti � w 47 N •U R w O N O tl .-Ti •H k w v•.+ v k 4�'d D tl aHGrov a�-J .a Yk w a H N 'O v U M N a m: O O U •H W ++ O td A 0 r-1 •^ tq : +1 U U w Ea k w Ri D• k W •H •H '[I k Q to •H V E3 U q •H •H U 'Y Y •H CJ N 0 R 4 U � •H ri N 41 •H 0. R k p N cd •H N O a •H M rs +1 C - 13 a sH 4) :W •H W Y N N N y R F M U to w U v •H N GJ U 4-t ri k Y td yse w .fS q "YS U CJ ri ri rt •H •H • R b cd r-r U r-) c a s •H •H •H -cS v - d «1 w m +-� •n ¢y ro 4. w 7 g T H q 4 H O 7 U k a Cd 0. N n, tl U U N •.� •H •O •H N U w O H •r] k ri A +-+ a: Id w d N O. 7y R 3 H R O O N NH w U 4) ri Id ,q ,t. 41 N.i A 4) •O r. •rt v A .0 NH N 'C1 ' : gg J S= +• N tK i`1' Y M cd •H •H +•� •W Y Y d ri ri Ei rr. k q U U1 ih w ri V r[ j. w j •O O M r. O tl tl O O Y O A A U U AY •H l: O k w qR a C E w 13 N MO . r O P. 41 01 U cJ J3 '{y • 4) Y W U q cd EO a) N U cd 7 O c. 4) w W U W $ A q ,a k 4 N W •W k W d ") a 0 .H 10 N w1 q R. S• V k n - V •W 0 w q a D R 0 u•H U w •H cd •H U O w O a 0 a [U 'U IJ U) 0;' N U w U M w w.. k H w..[ .�. cd k tl 1t4 ? w u U1 M 5 W VJ A O •H Fv 4 w q CJ O 4N ) 4w 1 q UU P i+ , w A w N 'o U ri M . - 4J r F. E: rW n t E c) • w 0 a U _j .0 'q A Y C O rl - H •W ,ri q H w Y O tt r3 ':7 Y q ^ •H O k w •H O . M ��UJ •W E: N N H.tl OY U) ,m C) Y cd U f; .r p ty H- cd w 'y U M v C) T q> R .. H ,0 N w T O Ffi. =a :J f% N 'tl •H }'. '7 .+ N F .f] r-i k )i 1`4 •H w N w +• .. •W N •U •H 'U [. c C; O O c ;J rr 4) - U •n •H tU t,. , V1 C O U a M O c'H ro E'• N •.� F Y ,H .H r. r� n, -'1. N V] U! U w W p, M d 6') b CsF E3 41 4` y k 0 0 V N w k H 'O � N U 43 H �j [:, !n •H •p ,i1 •H k rn w k Y w C, a s M r•) �d !•i •H d) .q O N hd - s; "17 " N 4) rJ r-r 4t ••. Fl ro a Y t1 O w .7 k d w 0 q D Q L.) IN w. 7 iJ 0 V1 Ed 0 v, u u ic1 w t3 U O .n O a Y U U O •W U ..+ •H . 0. O iv Y 4) A a 'H U :3 M a a a 0 U U O U U U U H C )d Y k •H 5 !i O td C) o r• k w LO h VIA q J; " " :1 4) w ro w o W ri w. to o rti .H ,H u ' a C, N V C1 E:..iw O 1 U CU C O o G to C •pW m rOA c ;U 3 ttd 3 i 4 11 N . s VM - O a .7 t O q v� •H U ZW H of q Y E? U U w rH i w v i1 si. m �n oy O c1 O 4) r•i Ck a a a vSJ cn rs p , O w It 0 A, V, xi U 1✓ F3 r.4 rti V U H `. O aR 41k 0 (D H + H Ed O i.ti ,i Y O N M .. . .' b O w C-51 O )H�.. r. N 1 VN ri , N F U W 4W I H k •H ih ? 41 k F:H U 4q 1 ra + U II iqm � w , .) a W .1 i C N 1 R 0 0 s W a) ,4 W U) A N W {p y yydO y - e /3 EO F' H H 4 U E. - .xai1g'e 01 1b--30 dwelling 11nitQ nor �nr- 1-. o N 6 7 O b O N s0. m 4 0 u W L J G W N W O `" �roo`"e Noon u rf N 'C7 'D W W G M W W C u m W a0+ O> P. 3 O O m u �. d F• a u O O q q rPi v .4 � 0.N N O O m tlPl d • J M I O i-1 � m ,P 114 0. 6i c. u c .MC b E A 4 la 60 +C• N '+Iw V o.aT 7 Gd d c N P. R C c u > w w m N @Q O a+ W y0• x A a w 0 0 ++ E s• M N U a ro w m a2 n 'a aCi o' h w N d .0 o m o m W p L w C N g a0 '•+ co O N a G O 6 6i' U m W N ..-4 G0 o OQ y m CO b b G +i A •N 'p w N 0. G .� W w u •p M N d d d N ^J T VI ? -m .0 y •N F+ m d 7 b k b -+ 'J d m lE .a •p u C- w O c o u d% O u 0 �1 m w . •a c4 M m M IQ" (m y ri m m .i 13 14 w m W 7 d >> W y m m o« b w� w d .xai1g'e 01 1b--30 dwelling 11nitQ nor �nr- 1-. 10110 of box 100 nail, coforado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 Dear Property Owner: office of the town manager September 7, 1977 Over the past two years, the Town of Vail and many interested citizens have been studying the implications of grow•4h in the Gore Valley. We gathered a great deal of base data and after an in- -depth study, determined that there are a number of problems compounded by too much growth. The problems and research became so complex that the Town. Council felt it was important to seek extensive citizen input. A Citizen's Committee on Growth Management consisting of 32 people from throughout the Gore Valley and the surrounding area were appointed. The Committee met many times over a period of about eight months to analyze the problems and recommend solutions. One of the first conclusions reached was that we somehow had to-restrict the ultimate population to a manageable level throagh•comprehensive down - zoning. The enclosed legal notice reflects the recommendations of the Growth Management Committee, the Town of Vail Council, Planning Commission and staff. We feel the proposals are fair, in the best interests of the Gore Valley and will result in a better quality of life.. DST /di Sincerely, DEPAM NT OF CO4naS.'To DEVELOPMENT i ughill Zoning Administrator a RESOLUTION NO. 1, 1977 OF THE TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION A RESOLUTION ADOPTING CERTAIN MAPS AND REPORTS AS PHASE 1 OF THE TOWN OF VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has the duty and authority to adopt a Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a careful study of the present conditions; and future growth of the Town, with due regard for its relation to the rest of the Gore Valley and Eagle County; and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held before the Planning Commission on September 29, 1977 after Public Notice thereof; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is of the opinion that Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Plan should be adopted and would so recommend to the Town Council: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Purpose. The Comprehensive Plan has been prepared with the general purpose to guide and direct a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the Town of Vail in accordance with its present and future needs; to promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, property, and general welfare of the residents, including, among other things, adequate provision for air and water quality and safety from hazards such as fire, flood, avalanche and landslide; to provide adequate water, recreational opportunities, light and air; to promote healthful and convenient distribution of population; to promote good civic design and arrangement, wise and efficient expenditures of public funds, and the adequate provision of public utilities, service and other public requirements. Section 2. Approval of Reports. The Planning Commission hereby receives and approves of the following studies and reports relating to Phase 1 of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan: A, Flood Plain 1. Gore Creek Flood Plain Information; Hydro - Traid, Ltd.; June,1975. 2. Gore Creek 500 Year Recurrance Interval Flood Plain; Hydro - Traid, Ltd,; November, 1976. B. Avalanche 1. K.A.C. Avalanche Study; Ronald L. Halley, Hydro- Triad, Ltd.; September, 1975. 2. Vail. Meadows Avalanche Dynamics Study; McDowell, Scott & Cox, Inc.; June 10, 1976, 3. Vail Meadows Avalanche; Ronald L. Halley, Hydro - Triad, Ltd.; April, 1977. 4. Vail Racquet Club Avalanche Defense; Arthur Mears, McDowell, Scott & Cox, Inc.; September 17, 1976. 5. Clubhouse Gulch Avalanche; Ronald L. Halley, Hydro - Triad, Ltd.; April, 1977. 6. Avalanche Impact Parameters, Silver State Unit, KAC Development; Ronald L. Halley, Hydro - Traid, Ltd.; April, 1976. 7. Evaluation of the Snow Avalance Hazard in the Valley of Gore Creek, Eagle County, Colorado; Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research; 1973. S. Snow Avalanche Hazards of the Vail Area, Eagle County, Colorado; The Colorado Geological Survey; November 19, 1975. 9. Snow Avalanche Hazard Study, Shapiro Property, Bighorn Subdivision, Vail, Colorado; McDowell, Smith & Associates; July 22, 1975. 10. Avalanche Dynamics and Defenses on the Shapiro Property, Vail., Colorado; Arthur Mears and McDowell, Smith & Associates; January, 1976. 11. Old Muddy and Path 5 Avalanche Study; Arthur Mears; May, 1976. 12. Timberfalls Avalanche, Vail, Colorado; Whitney M. Borland; July 27, 1973. 13. An Avalanche Defense Work Study for the Timber Falls Corporation; Hans Frutiger; September 20, 1973. 14. Avalanche and Mudflow Hazards on Tenth Filing and Katsos Ranch Properties, Gore Creek Valley, Colorado; MSC. Inc.; September, 1974. 15. Avalanche and Mudflow Defense Tenth Filing and Katsos Ranch; McDowell, Smith &.Associates and Arthur Mears; February 10, 1975, 16. Avalanche Dynamics of the Bighorn Path, Vail, Colorado, a Study to Determine the Avalanche Hazard to Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision; Arthur Mears; January, 1977. C. Geologic - Rapid Mass Wasting 1. Rapid Mass Wasting Processes, Vail, Colorado; Arthur Mears; April, 1977. 2. Appendix to Bedrock Geologic Map; Colorado Geologic Survey; October 23, 1975. D. Hillsides and Slope 1. Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands; American .Society of Planning Officials. Section 3. Phase 1, Comprehensive Maps. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the following maps and other descriptive material as Phase 1 of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan: �R A. Co 2. 3. d. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. mprehensive maps (East, Middle and West Sections) Avalanche (East and Middle Sections only) Geologic - Rapid Mass Wasting Flood - 100 year Slope Anaylsis Vegetation /Wildlife Environmental Constraints Existing Land Use Open Space /Recreation Transportation Utilities Zoning (Previously adopted by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973) B. Growth Management Study 1. Report and Recommendations of Growth Management Sub -- Committee on Control Techniques; May 23, 1977, 2. Growth Management for the Gore Valley; January 31, 1977. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ON THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1977, ATTEST: Town Clerk TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION BY' dm d H. rager, Jr., Chairperson r PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO AMEND THE TWO - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE- FAMILY, MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE- FAMILY, HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE - FAMILY, PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS, AND COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER, REDUCING ALLOWABLE DENSITY THEREIN; ADDING A NEW ZONE DISTRICT "TWO- FAMILY PRIMARY /SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ", AND APPLYING HORIZONTAL ZONING TO COMMERCIAL CORE 2. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town of Vail proposes to amend Title 18, Zoning, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, in order to reduce allowable density in the Two- family Residential, Low Density multiple - family, Medium Density I40, Muliple-family, High Density Multiple -- family, Public Accommodations and Commercial Service Center Zone Districts; adding a new Zone District "Two - family primary /secondary Residential Distract" and applying horizontal Zoning to Commercial Core 2, to reflect the recommendations of the Growth Management Committee, as approved by the Town of Vail Pldnning Commission and Town Council. A Public Hearing will be held on September 15, 1977, before the Town of Vail Planning Commission in accordance with Section 18.66,060 of the Municipal Code. The decision of the Planning Commission will be transmitted to the Town Council for the Town of Vaal for final decision, Said hearing will be held in the Vail Municipal Building at 3:00 P.M. TOWN OF VAIL ADEPA ENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . Toughill Zoning Administrator . Published in the Vail Trail August 26, 1977 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town of Vail, in order to implement its Growth Management Plan, intends to rezone the following parcels of land as indicated: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition - from Low Density Multiple- Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition - from Low Density Multiple- Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivison, 3rd Addition - from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lots 2, 3, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition - from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lot 7, Block B, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 1, -.from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lot 7, Block A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No..l, - from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. 61 Lot 6, Block 2, Vail /Potato Patch - from Medium Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lot 34, Block 1, Vail /Potato.Patch- from Medium Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing - from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. The following lots are proposed to be rezoned from Two - Family Residential Zone District (duplex) to the new Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. Lots 1-21, Vail Valley 3rd Filing Lots 1 -19, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing Lots 1 -41, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing Lots 1 -6, Block 1; Lots 1 -10, Block 2; Lots 1 -6, Block 3; Lots 1 -5, Block 4; Vail Village 3rd Filing Lots 1 -15, Block 1; Lots 1 -8, Block 2; Vail Village 6th Filing Lots 1 -4, Block 4; Lots 1 -6, Block 5;. Lots 1 -14, Block 6; Lots 1 -3, Block 7; Lots 1 -4, Block 8; Vail Village 7th Filing Lots 1 -10, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing Lots 1 -33, Block 1; Lots 2 -5, Block 2; Lots 10 -12, a Resubdivision'of Lot 7, Block 2; Vail /Potato Patch. Lots 1 -7, Vail /Potato Patch Second Filing, a Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Vail /Potato Patch. Lots 1 -16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition Lots 1- 6,.Borwick Subdivision,; a Resubdivision of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition. Lots 1 -8, Block 4; Lots 1 -19, Block 5; Lots 1 -4, Block 6; Lots 1 -20, Block 7; Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition. Fl 10 The following parcels of land described by ownership and metes and bounds are proposed to be rezoned as indicated: World Savings and loan a parcel of land being a portion of the Southeast 4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the sixth principal meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 12, being a concrete monument in place; thence due North along the East line of said Section 12 a distance of 178.32 feet to a point on the Southerly right -of -way line of U.S. Highway No. 6; thence along said right- of- way.line the following two (2) courses: 1) N 46'45'53" W a distance of 125.70 feet; 2) N 53'41'37" W a distance of 257.98 feet to the True Point of Beginning: Thence N 69'20150" W a distance of 329.37 feet; thence S 74'23'53" W a distance of 190.77 feet to the approximate center line of Gore Creek; thence along said approximate center line of Gore Creek the following eight (8) courses: 1) N 43'58'.05" W a distance of 110.81 feet; 2) N 68'15'27" W a distance of 274.54 feet; E 3) N 88 07'38" W a distance of 160.40 feet; 4) N 02.11'46" E a distance of 156.59 feet; 5) N 14'57'12" W a distance of 274.68 feet; 6) N 43'08'43" W a distance of 156.08 feet; 7) N 59'03'03" W a distance of 473.73 feet; 8 N 82'42'08" W a distance of 143.13 feet; Thence N 36'18'23" E a distance of 163.55 feet to a point on said Southerly right -of -way line of U.S. Highway No. 6; thence S 53'41'37 ".E along said right -of -way line 1994.41 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 6.733 acres more or less. Proposed to be rezoned from Medium Density Multiple - Family to low Density Multiple- Family District. Gore Range II, ltd. a part of the SE /4, Section 12, T.5S., R.80W, 6th P.M. described as follows: Commencing at a point on south line of Section 12, T. 5S., R. 80W,, 6th P.M. which point lies S 89'53'24" E, a distance of 612.16' from the S/4 corner of said Section 12; thence N 41'34'00" W, a distance of 93.65'; thence S 86'02'00" W, a distance of 90.86'; thence N 16'18'30" W, a distance of 153.93'; thence N 24'56'50" W, a distance of 131.70'; thence N 56'57'20" W, a distance of 19.001; thence N 48.34'04" E, a distance of534.1l'; thence in an easterly direction along the south right -of -way on the county road to the northernmost corner of Bighorn Townhouses, a subdivision; thence S 31'23'06" W,'a distance of 156.261; thence S 06'42'04" E, a distance of 207.14' to the south line of said Section 12; and thence in a westerly direction along the south line of said Section 12 to the point of beginning, containing 7:977 acres more or less. Proposed to be rezoned from low Density Multiple- Family District to Residential Cluster District. Jackson, Cook, Zabinsky a parcel of land situated in the SE of.Section 12, T.5S., R.80W, of the 6th P.M., Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the SE corner of said Section 12; thence N 89'53`24" W, 532.00 feet, along the south line of said Section 12; thence N 67'26102" W, 123.29 feet along the common boundary line of a parcel conveyed to Jack A. Witkin and recorded in Book 211, Page 520, Eagle County Records; thence N 09'02144" W, 203.85 feet; thence N 19'51'52" W, 195.00 feet; thence N 43.58'05" W, 178.88 feet; thence N 68.15'27" W, 274.54 feet; thence N 88'07138" W, 49.83 feet to the true.point of beginning; thence S 27.56'00" W, 482.10 feet to a point on.the Northerly r.o.w. line of Meadow Drive; thence N 62'04'00" W, 21.36 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right having a radius of 207.71 feet; thence along the arc is said curve 87.92 feet to the point of tangency; thence N 37'48'50" W, 220.23 feet to a point on said right -of -way line; thence N 37.24'02" E, 530.04 feet to a point on said Witkin parcel; thence S 14'57'12" E, 77.82 feet; thence S;02'11'46" W, 156.59 feet; thence S 88.07'38" E,1I0.57 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 3.000 acres more or less. Proposed to be rezoned from Low Density Multiple- Family District to Residential Cluster District. Vail Investment Properties a parcel of land in the SEa of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Section corner (concrete monument in place) common to Section 12 and 13, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., and Sections 7 and 18 Township 5 South, Range 79 West of the 6th P.M., thence N 89'53'24" W, 532.00 feet along the Section line common to Sections 12 and 13, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M. to a point.in Gore Creek being the common corner between Lots 7 and 8 of Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition; thence along Gore Creek the following bearings and distances, N 67'26102" W, 123.29 feet; N 09.02144" W, 203.85 feet; N 19'51152" W, 195.00 feet; N 43'58'05" W, 68.07 feet; thence leaving the Creek N 74.23'53" E, 37.98 feet; to a point on the bank of said Creek; thence N 74'23'53" E, 152.79 feet to a point; thence S 69'20'50" E, 329.37 feet to a point on the Southerly right -of -way line of U.S. Highway No. 6; thence S 53'41'37" E, 257.98 feet ,to a point; thence S 46'45''53" E, 125.70 feet continuing along said Southerly right -of -way line of Highway No. 6 to the intersection with the East line of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M.; thence South, 178.32 feet along said East line of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M. to the point of beginning, containing 6.4 acres more or less. Proposed to be rezoned from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. Belinda Ward a tract of land lying in the S2 of Section 12, Township 5 S., R. 80 W. of the 6th P.M., Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southernmost corner of Lot 17, Bighorn Subdivision Fourth Addition; thence S 36`43'00" W, along.the Easterly line of a parcel conveyed to Chicago Bighorn and recorded in Deed Book 188, Page 113, Eagle County Records, a distance of 282.98 feet to a point on the Northerly right =of -way line of Meadow Drive; thence N 51.1 5'02" W, along said right "of -way line a distance of 231.15 feet to a point; thence N 38'44'58" E, 295.37 feet to a point on the Southerly line of Lot 16 Bighorn Subdivision Fourth Addition; thence S 48'00'00" E, 221.47 feet along the Southerly line of Lots 16 and 17 Bighorn Subdivision Fourth Addition to the point of beginning, containing 1.5 acres more or less. Proposed to be rezoned from Low Density Multiple - Family District to Residential Cluster District. A Public Hearing will be held in accord with Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Said hearing will be before the Town of Vail Planning Commission on September 29, 1977 at 3:00 P.M. in the Vail Municipal Building. TOWN 0 VAIL DEP R NT OF COM VELOPMENT r i na S. oughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail September 9, 1977 i ■ • MINUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 29, 1977 3:00 P.M. Present: Gerry,White Sandy'Mills Dudley Abbott Ron Todd Ed Drager Bill Hanlon Absent: Pam Garton Staff Present: Diana Toughill Terrell Minger Jim Rubin Vail AssociatesRequest for Special Development Districts for Redevelopment of Gondola Buildings I and II. Motion to Post - one Indefinitel at Re uest of Applicant. Gerry White made the first motion that this item on.the agenda be postponed indefintely. Dudley Abbott seconded the motion; there was no discussion. It was approved unanimously by the rest of the members of the Commission. Growth Management Terrell Minger, Town Manager, discussed and summarized the growth of Vail and the proposals of the Town and citizens to control it to maintain a good quality of life. Growth manage- ment studies have been made in different areas of the county and in the Gore Valley. Proposals for the Town of Vail have been made, which have been put into action on the agenda today: 1) Amendments to the existing zoning ordinances which would reduce the maximum number of units per acre in certain districts; and 2) down - zoning of over 300 specific parcels of land throughout the Town of Vail. -2- Planning Commission Resolution No. 1, Adopting Phase I of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. Diana Toughill discussed and summarized Resolution. Gerry White made the first No. 1 be adopted as Phase I of the Town Plan. Bill Hanlon seconded the motion, unanimously. (Dudley Abbott was absent was taken.) this Planning Commission motion that Resolution of Vail Comprehensive and it was voted on at the time the vote Amendments to Zoning Ordinance to Implement Growth Management. Diana Toughill discussed and summarized this item on the agenda. It is outlined in the Summary of Proposed Zoning Amendments to Implement Growth Management. Comments were asked from the public. Dudley Abbott made the first motion that Item 2 of the Summary of Proposed Zoning Amendments to Implement Growth Management 10 to create a "Two- family Primary /Secondary Residential" zone be adopted. Gerry White seconded the motion, and it was unani- mously approved. Gerry White made the first motion that Item 8 of the Summary to postpone the modifications to Commercial Core No. 1 be adopted. It was seconded by Bill Hanlon, and voted on unanimously. Gerry White made the first motion that Items 1,3,4,5,6,7,9, and 10 of the Summary of Proposed Zoning Amendments to Implement Growth Management be adopted. Bill Hanlon seconded the motion, and it was voted on unanimously. Down- Zoninq of Specific Parcels to Implement Growth Management At this time the Commission heard specific protests from the owners opposed to down - zoning of their particular parcels of land: Item #7 - Racquet Club - MDMF - Mr. Walter Kirsh Bill Hanlon made the first motion that the Racquet Club be allowed to utilize the remaining empty space at the currently -3- allowable density in proportion to the space that already has buildings on it under the condition that the project not exceed 247 units. Gerry White seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion with the exception of Sandy Mills. Item _ #5_ - Vail Investment Properties Craig Folson, Esq. represented Vail Investment Properties. He objected to the reduction in density from LDMF to RC and the reasons for hips objections were outlined in his letter to the Planning Commission, dated September 28, 1977. After a dis- cussion, Gerry White made the first motion that the Vail In- vestment Properties be rezoned from LDMF to RC. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. All members of the Commission voted in favor of the motion, except for Ron Todd. Item #2 - Gore Range . Diana Toughiil made a statement to be entered into the record from the Gore Range people who wanted to build employee hous- ing. After a meeting with the Town Council and the Design Re- view Board, they have withdrawn their request for the employee housing project and requested that the Commission proceed with down - zoning from Low Density to Residential Cluster. Dudley Abbott made the first motion that Gore Range II, Ltd.'s request for withdrawl of their housing project be accepted. It was seconded by Ron Todd and voted on unanimously with the excep- tion of Bill Hanlon and Gerry White who were absent at the time of the voting. Item #3 - Jackson, Cook, Zabi'nsky Mr. Zabinsky discussed why he did not from LDMF to RC. After a discussion, first motion that Mr. Zabinsky's land RC. Sandy Mills seconded the motion, of it except for Ed Drager. (Ron Tod of the voting.) want his land rezoned Dudley Abbott. made the be rezoned from LDMF to and all voted in favor J was absent at the time -4- • Item #11 - Lots 2, 3, Block 8, Bighorn 3rd The Commission heard from Erica McCall about why she is pro- testing the down - zoning of the Vail East Lodging parcel of land. Dudley Abbott made the first motion that the land re- main in the LDMF zone rather than be changed to RC. Gerry White seconded the motion. Dudley Abbott, Ed Drager and Gerry White voted in favor of the motion; Bill Hanlon and Sandy Mills voted against it; Ron Todd was absent at the time the vote was held. Item #14 - Lot 6, Block 2, Potato Patch Item #15 - Lot 34, Block 1,'Potato Patch Jay Peterson, Esq. represented John Hall who owns the parti- cular parcels of land. He proposed what he felt was a reason- able compromise which is:to keep the MDMF zoning and set a unit maximum for each parcel. Gerry White Made the first motion that Lot 6 and Lot 34 remian MDMF rather than RC_ with the compromise to allow a maximum unit limit of 30 units on lot 6 and 8 units on lot 34 repectively with any rights the developer has in Tract C to be quit - claimed to the Town of Vail. All voted in favor of the motion except for Sandy Mills and Bill Hanlon. Item #6.- Weisen (nee Ward) Property A request that this land remain. LDMF rather than be rezoned to RC was made by Jay Peterson, Esq. who represented the owner. Sandy Mills made the first motion that the request be denied. Bill Hanlon seconded the motion. Three members of the Commis- sion voted against the motion (Ron Todd, Dudley Abbott, and Ed Drager). The motion failed, and the property will be recom- mended to remain LDMF. U • • -5- Item #13 - Lot A -7, Lions Ridge 1st Bill Hanlon made the first motion that this property remain at LDMF rather than be rezoned to RC. Dudley Abbott seconded the motion, and it was voted on unanimously with the stipulation that the correct acreage figure of the land be determined by a survey. Item #10 - Lots 1, 2, 3, Block j, Bighorn 3rd This appeal was telephoned in at 6:00 P.M. by Bill Like, Septem- ber 29, 1977 since the gentleman did not receive the information by mail until September 29. Sandy Mills made the first motion that this appeal to remain at LDMF rather than down - zoning to RC be denied. Dudley Abbott seconded it; and it was voted on unanimously. Written protests from the owners-Opposed to Down Zoning of their Particular Parcels of Land #16(a) - Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village, 13th Filing Abe Shapiro submitted a written request as a compromise that this land remain LDMF with 16 units maximum. The first motion was made by Dudley Abbott and seconded by Ron Todd that this land remain LDMF with a 16 unit maximum rather than changing to RC. It was voted on unanimously. #12 - Lot B-7, Lions �Ridge., 1s t LRB submitted a site plan prior to the hearing and requested zoning approval. Diana Toughill noted for the record that the Submission did not contain sufficient information and zoning approval was denied. Dudley Abbott made the first motion that that appeal that this land not change to RC but remain at LDMF be denied. It was seconded by Ron Todd and was voted on unanimously. • Written Protests from Owners Opposed to the Rezoning of Two- family Residential (Duplex) to the new Primary/Secondary Primary/Secondary Zone. Protest from Mr. Lazarus Dudley Abbott made the first motion that this request be denied. Ron Todd seconded it, and it was voted on unanimously with the exception of Bill Hanlon and Gerry White who were absent at the time of voting. Protest from Mr. Shepard Dudley Abbott made the first motion that Mr. Shepard's protest against the rezoning of his property be denied. Ron Todd seconded the motion, and it was voted on unanimously by the other members of the Commission with the exception of Gerry White and Bill Hanlon who were absent at the time of the voting. Protest from Col. Browne Ron Todd made the first motion that Col. Browne's protest against the rezoning of his property be denied. Dudley Abbott seconded the motion, and it was voted on unanimously with the exception of Gerry White and Bill Hanlon who were absent at the time of the voting. The Planning Commission voted on the Rezoning of the following parcels of land on which no protests were filed: 1. Dudley Abbott made the first motion that lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition be changed from Low Density Multiple - Family district to Residential Cluster district. Sandly Mills seconded the motion, and it was voted on unanimously with the exception of Gerry White and Bill Hanlon who were absent at the time of the voting. 2. Ron Todd made the first motion that lots 1, 2, and 3, Block Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition be changed from Low Density Multiple Family district to a Residential Cluster district. Sandy Mills made the second motion, and it was voted on unani- IWE mously with the exception of Gerry White and Bill Hanlon who were absent at the time of the voting. 3. Ron Todd made the first motion that lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition be changed from a Low Density Multiple - Family district to a Residential Cluster district. It was seconded by Dudley Abbott and voted on unanimously by the other members of the Commission with the exception of Bill Hanlon and Gerry White, who were absent at the time of the voting. The Planning Commission voted on the rezoning of all the lots set forth in the Public Notice which were proposed to be re- zoned from two- family residential Zone district (duplex) to the new Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. Ron Todd made the first motion to rezone the two - family residential zone dis- trict (duplex) to the new Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District of all the lots set forth in the Public Notice published in the Vail Trail on September 9, 1977. Dudley Abbott seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved by the other members of the Commission with the exception of Gerry White and Bill Hanlon who were absent at the time of the voting. Dudley Abbott made the first motion that the World Savings and Loan parcel of land described by ownership and metes and bounds be rezoned as indicated in the Public Notice of September 9, 1977. Ron Todd seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved by the other members of the Commission with the excep- tion of Gerry White and Bill Hanlon, who were absent at the time of the voting. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. • 1-0 14'. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 1977 1. Interview prospective Planning Commissioner: Scott Hopman Toni Burns Dennis Minshall Banor Lambert James Potter Will Miller 2. Proposed P.U.D. Ordinance adding Chapter 18.40 "Special Development Districts" to the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 3. Golden Peak Bus Turnabout 4. Pulis Annexation Plat • MINUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 1977 3:00 p.m. Present: Ed Drager Dudley Abbott Ron Todd Gerry White Sandy Mills Bill Hanlon Absent: Pam Garton Staff Present: Diana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger Proposed P.U.D. Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.40 ment Districts to the Town of Vail Municipal 'Cc pecial Develop- e. A draft of this Ordinance was given to each member of the Com- mission, and it was discussed and summarized by Dian.a.Toughill. The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish criteria and pro- cedures for approving Special Development Districts. Since this is such a complex Ordinance, Ed Drager suggested that each member take it home to carefully read it and direct questions to either Diana or Larry Rider, Town Attorney, before next week's meeting. Dudley Abbott made the first motion that this proposed P.U.D. Ordinance be postponed until next week's meeting (October 20, 1977). The motion was seconded by Gerry White, and the rest of the members of the Commission voted on it unanimously. CJ �J Vail Town Council Vail, Colorado October 10,1977 Gentlemen: I understand that there is a vacancy on the Vail planning commission. T wish to be considered as a candidate to fill that vacancy. T am a resident of Vail. My wife and I have made our home here. We own a business in Vail Village. My resume is enclosed. Thank You, Dennis Minshall Dennis Minshall P.O. Box 3568 Vail, Colorado 81657 home phone: 476 -4309 business phone: 476 -2680 M 0 PERSONAL RESUME: DENNIS ROBERT MINSHALL PRESIDENT, MINSHALL ENTERPRISES INC. VA.IL, COLORADO ( October 1976 to present ) Minshall Enterprises owns and operates the Gore Creek Yacht Club, a bar and restaurant in Vail, Colorado. ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE, DEL CA.LZO & ASSOCIATES INC. DENVER, COLORADO ( August 1976 to March 1R77 ) Primary involvement in financial and political public relations and public relations counseling for the resort industry. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS, KIANDRA. /TA.LISMA.N LODGE VAIL, COLORADO ( November 1975 to July 1976 ) Responsible to the managing partner for the total public relations program of Kiandra /Talisman Lodge. VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC RELATIONS, CONCEPTS INC. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ( February 1974 to July 1R75 )' Concepts Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bennett Paper Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri. GENERAL MANAGER, AARON VIDEO STUDIOS ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ( November 1973 to February 1974 ) Responsible to the president for the operations of Aaron Video Studios, a facility primarily involved in the production of local television and radio commercials. • 10 GENERAL MANAGER, MOUNTAIN HA.US CONDOTEL VA.IL, COLORADO ( A-pril 1973 to August 1973 ) Responsible to the board of directors for the operation of the Mountain Haus, a complex of 64 privately owned condominiums. DESK CLERK, RAMS HORN LODGE VA.IL, COLORADO ( November 1972 to April 1973 ) Responsibilities included preparation of the daily sales report, food service ... and sweeping the sidewalk. EDUCATION: GRADUATE SCHOOL, MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY Graduating with degree: Master of Communication UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOL, MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY Graduating with degree: Bachlor of Science Recipient: ROTO Scholorship_'. Recipient: Murray State University Graduate A.ssistanceship ORGANIZATIONS Public Relations Society of America • PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES: DENNIS ROBERT MINSHA.LL Mr. N.J. Del Calzo, President Del Calzo & Associates 360 South Monroe Street Suite 250 Denver, Colorado, 80209 phone: 303.388 -4081 Mr. William B. Bower 1815 Hanover Street Richmond, Virginia, 23220 phone: 804 -358 -0788 Mr. Richard F. Fitzgerald, General Manager Kiandra/Talisman Lodge P.Q. Box 1028 Vail, Colorado, 81657 phone: 303 -476 -5081 Mr. Sam Bennett, President Bennett Paper Company 11480 Warnen Road Maryland Heights, Missouri, 63043 phone: 314- '739 -1.212 Mr. Carl Oppenheim, General Manager Mountain Haus Condotel P.O. Box 1748 Vail, Colorado, 81657 phone: 303- 476 -2434 0 The Town Council. Town of Vail Vail, co 81657 7 October, 1977 Gentlemen: I would once again like to express my interest in serving on the Planning Commission. My family and I moved here From the east almost two years ago and I retired from the company I had building. We selected Vail in o��uid n and near eastern t0pubetter quality of life than we ha d metropolitan areas. Also, unlike many mountain communities Vail had a plan for preserving this life• I am concerned that there are forces at work, man made asl well wouldslike natural, trytending help save break �� his plan down I have no commercial interests in the valley and my non- family activities since coming here have centered around commercialization of my hobby (marine photography) and helping with the management of the Mountain School. I have time, energy, experience in the fields of investments and economics, and the willingness to work. I would be pleased to have my application considered and to meet with you, if appropriate, to discuss this matter further. Respectfully submitted, Barron P. Lambert, Jr. SCOTT W. HOPMAN P.O. BOX 996 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 ORE HOUSE /BAXTER'S RESTAURANT 303. 476 -5100 September 26, 1977 Town Council Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Gentlemen, It is my understanding that there is presently a vacancy in the Planning Comm- ission, I am interested in being considered to fill this vacancy. I have been a Vail resident and businessman for the past six years and would like to become more involved in our community government. I will happily fur - nish any specific personal information you request. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 2 VA s zr s October 4, 1977 Vail mown Council Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 I Gentlemen: I hereby submit application for the position on the Vail E; Planning Commission. I have been a resident in the Vail area since 1968. In 1974 I moved from here -for approx- imately 2 years. Since returning this February, a deeper involvement in the working committed myself to government and community. 5 processes of local I feel my occupation in Real Estate and interests-are synergistic with the Commission and see no problems in maintaining a perspective with the good of the over -all community at heart. Yours truly, William H. Miller WHM /nb Vail Town Council Town of Vail Box 100 Vail, CO 81657 Gentlemen: I would like to apply for a position on the Vail Planning. Commission. Briefly the qualifications which I would bring to this position are outlined below. Education: MBA -- University of Denver- -1971 BS-- Cornell University - -1965 In addition, I have received the Certificate of Achievement in Real Estate Education through the University of Colorado Continuing Education Program. Background: I have lived in Vail for three years and have been a resident.of the town for the past year. Due to my involvement in the real estate profession, I have obtained an excellent knowledge of the zoning laws for the Town of Vail and Eagle County. In addition, I understand and believe in the Growth Management Plan, which is now being prepared for the Gore Valley. It is my desire to become more involved in Vail and in its government, since I plan to make Vail my home for the fore- seeable future. In addition, I will have the time available to perform the task. R.espeetfully. '�2 Vames C. Potter JCP /jw Y I Y � • PUBLIC NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT The Town of Vail intends to amend Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code for the Town of Vail to include specific regulations relating to Special Development Districts and providing a review and adoption procedure for Planned Unit Developments. Application has been filed in accord with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal. Code of the Town of Vail. A Public Hearing will be held pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on October 13,1977 before the Town of Vail Planning Commission whose decision will be transmitted to the Town Council for final decision. GSaid hearing will be held in the Vail Municipal Building at 3:00 P.M. TOWN F VAIL DEP R MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT w Tana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail on September 23, 1977. s The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in. order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, char- acter, and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas. Section 18.40.020 SCOPE (a) Applications for Special Development District designa- t maybe made for land loc in any zoning district except ft,/,.c..+. a A7, ) ' . (b) The setback requirements of this Title shall not apply to Special Development Districts. Setbacks shall be controlled by the criteria and standards of this Article and as shown on the approved development plan. Section 18.40.030 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE.- All applicants are encouraged to arrange a pre - application conference to bo held with the Zoning Administrator in order for the applicant: (a) to become acquainted with Special Development District procedures and related Town requirements; (b) to obtain from the Zoning Administrator a written list of what the application shall include, in addition to the mini- mum information required by Section 18.40.040; (c) to obtain from the Zoning.Administrator copies of any guidelines to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 18. 40.060 as required to be maintained by Subsection (a) thereof. Section 18.40.040 FORMAL APPLICATTON An application for approval of a Special Development District may be filed by a person having an interest in the property to be Page 2 a consent by the owners of all the property to be included in the Special Development District. The application must be accompanied by a development plan and a•wri.tten statement. (a) DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A complete plan showing the major details of the proposed'Special Development Districtrprepared at a scale of not less than 1 inch = 100 feet, shall be submitted insufficient detail to evaluate the'land planning, building design and other features of the Special Development District. The site plan must contain, insofar as applicable, the following minimum information: (1) The existing topographic character of the sand, (2) Proposed land .uses, (3) The location and size of all existing and proposed buildings, structures, and improvements, (4) The maximum height of all buildings, (S) The density and type of buildings, (6) The internal traffic and circulation systems, offstreet parking areas, service areas, loading areas, i_ and major points of access to public rights of way, �ru (7) The location, height and size of proposed signs, lighting and advertising devices, (8) Areas which are to be conveyed, dedicated, or reserved as common areas, including public parks and 'recreational areas, and as sites for public buildings, (9) Areas subject to natural hazards, including flooding, avalanches, geological hazards., or with slopes of 40% or greater,. (10) A general landscape plan at the time of initial submission, to be followed by a detailed landscaping plan, once the development plan has been approved,-showing the spacing, sizes and specific types of landscaping materials; (b) WRITTEN STATEMENT. The written statement to be submitted. with the development plan and application must contain the.follow-- ing information: 1 1 included in the Special Development District. The application will be made on the form provided by the Town and must include a consent by the owners of all the property to be included in the Special Development District. The application must be accompanied by a development plan and a•wri.tten statement. (a) DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A complete plan showing the major details of the proposed'Special Development Districtrprepared at a scale of not less than 1 inch = 100 feet, shall be submitted insufficient detail to evaluate the'land planning, building design and other features of the Special Development District. The site plan must contain, insofar as applicable, the following minimum information: (1) The existing topographic character of the sand, (2) Proposed land .uses, (3) The location and size of all existing and proposed buildings, structures, and improvements, (4) The maximum height of all buildings, (S) The density and type of buildings, (6) The internal traffic and circulation systems, offstreet parking areas, service areas, loading areas, i_ and major points of access to public rights of way, �ru (7) The location, height and size of proposed signs, lighting and advertising devices, (8) Areas which are to be conveyed, dedicated, or reserved as common areas, including public parks and 'recreational areas, and as sites for public buildings, (9) Areas subject to natural hazards, including flooding, avalanches, geological hazards., or with slopes of 40% or greater,. (10) A general landscape plan at the time of initial submission, to be followed by a detailed landscaping plan, once the development plan has been approved,-showing the spacing, sizes and specific types of landscaping materials; (b) WRITTEN STATEMENT. The written statement to be submitted. with the development plan and application must contain the.follow-- ing information: 1 1 Page 3 r . (1) A statement of the present ownership and a legal description of all the land included in the Special Develop- ment District, (2) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the Special Development District, including building descriptions, sketches or elevations as may be required to describe the objectives, (3) A development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the Special Development District or stages thereof can be expected to begin and be completed, (4) Copies of any special agreements, conveyances, restrictions,. or covenants which will govern the use, main- tenance and continued protection of the Special. Development District and any of its common areas, including the pro- visions for 'a homeowner or landowner organization,. and, (5) A list of the owners of abutting properties, and properties located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land included in'the Special Development District., and their addresses from available lCounty. records;..,,, (d) The applicant shall also submit any other information that may be required by the Zoning Administrator to properly evaluate the application. (I The applicant may submit any other information or exhibits he deems pertinent in evaluating his application. Section 18.40.050 REVIEW AND APPROVAL (a) After receipt of an application for a Special Develop - ment District, the Zoning Administrator shall post the property indicating that a Special Development District application has been filed and that more detailed information may be obtained from the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall also notify by mail the owners of abutting properties and pro - perties located with 300 foet'of the property lines of the land• included in the Special Development District, that an application has been filed, and that they may review the application during the regular office hours of the Town. Such written notice shall also alert.such owners to the fact that a/hearing maybe held �. Page 4 before the Planning Commission at a Later date for.which notice must only be published, and also the possibility of a further public hearing before the Town Council, again-for which only published notice is required. (b) For all Special Development Districts not involving a in which use other than those allowed by the zone /wz-.a+: the subject property' is located, a conditional use, a change..in.density or reduction in offstreet parking requirements, the zoning Administrator shall review the-application and either grant the application in whole or in part, with or without modifications and conditions, deny it, or refer it to the Planning Commission for review. The applicant and the owners of properties located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land included in the Special Development District may appeal such decision to the Planning Commission by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within 14 days of his decision. in addition, the Planning Commission may call up for review any proposed Special Development District which has been acted upon by the Zoning Administrator, by serving notice on the Zoning Administrator within 14 days of his decision. Within 30 days after such call -up, or within 30 days after a referral or appeal has been filed, the Planning Commission, after giving notice, shall hold a public hearing to act upon the application. The Commission shall either grant the application in whole or in part, with or without modifications, or deny the application. (c) For all other Special Development District, the Zoning Administrator shall review the application and, within 30 days of the filing of a complete application, submit an advisory report to the Planning Commission. The applicant shall be furnished a copy of such report. (d) Within 30 days after receiving an advisory report, the Planning Commission, after giving notice,.shall hold a public hearing on the application in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 3� through 18.66.090. The Commission shall, within fr& days of the public hearing, or within such time as is mutually agreed by the Commission and the applicant, either grant the proposed Special. Development District in whole or i.n part, with or without modifi- cations and conditions, deny it, or. refer it to the Town Council for further action. it t (e) The Town Council shall review all Special Development Districts referred to it by the Planning Commission, and may, in addition, call up for.review any proposed Special Development District which has been acted upon by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator, by serving written notice on the Commission or Administrator within 14 days of their action on the proposed Special Development District. (f) On all Special Development Districts referred to or called up by the Town Council, the Council, after giving notice, shall hold a public hearing on the application in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. The Council shall, within. fir@ days of the public hearing or within such time as is mutually agreed by the Council and the applicant, either grant the appli- cation in whole or in part, with or without modifications and conditions, or deny the application. (g) All approved development plans for Special Development District:, inluding modifications or conditions, shall be endorsed .by the approving agency. The applicant shall file the approved development plan with the Zoning Administrator, who shall indicate on the Zoning District reap that a Special Development District has been approved for the area includdd in the development plan. (h} When the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission,' or the Town-Council either grants an application in whole or in part, with or without modifications, or denies an application, its decision shall be in the form of a written opinion, setting forth not only conclusions, but also findings of fact relating to the specific application and shall set forth with specificity why and in what manner the application is or is not consistent with the requirements and criteria set forth in Section 18.40.060 ; 4 i of this Chapter. Section 18.40.060 STA-NDARDS A Special Development District shall, implement the purposes of this Chapter and Title, and, in addition, shall meet the fol- lowing standards and requirements; x�u�fts u (a) USES PERMITTED: The uses in a Special Development District must be uses "permitted right" or "permitted by special review" in the zoning district in which the Special Development District is located. in addition, cases by right n and districts shall be uses by special review in residential Special Development Districts, and may be permitted if, in the opinion'of the Planning Commission, such uses are primarily for'the• service and convenience of the residents of the Development and the immediate neighborhood. Such uses, if any, shall not change or destroy the predominantly residential character of the Special Development District. The amount of area and type of such uses, if any, to be allowed in a residential Special Development District shall be established by the Planning Commission on the basis of these criteria: (b) The Special Development District is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Vail; (c) The Special Development District's relationship to its surroundings shall be considered in order to avoid adverse affects the Development caused by traffic circulation, building height or bulk, lack of screening or,intrusio -ns on privacy; (d) MINIMUM USABLE OPEN SPACE AND LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS: The requirements of this Title regarding minimum u-open space and minimum lot area shall apply to Special Development Districts except that the approving agency may reduce such requirements if it finds that the development plan contains areas allocated for UE- t.c���e- a�1� ` • ansfti94 T open space and a common areas as authorized in thi§ Section, or that an increase in density is warranted by the design,A and amenities incorporated in the development plan, and the needs of the residents for le -open space can be met. A reduction in minimum "oabi open space or lot area shall not be permitted if such reduction would be detrimental to the character of the pro- posed Special Development District or the character of the-sur- rounding area. DesignAand amenities that may justify reduction of minimum usable open space and minimum lot area requirements include, but are not limited to: (l) The development plan contains areas allodated for orb! open space in a common area designed for use L by the proposed occupants, (2) The buildings area oriented to insure privacy for all the units' balconies, and (3) That the needs of the occupants for -%oa"e open space are unique and are being satisfied by either or a combination of: (i) public park, mall or recreation features, or a combination thereof, for which the site of the Sp�ial Development District has or will be levied a special assessment; or (ii) develop facilities in the Special Development District such as, but not limited to, common recreational areas or facilities, plazas, balconies, or rooftops improved for recreational use. (e) COMMON AREA: The approving agency may approve a.common area if the area meets the following requirements: (1) It is to be used and is suitable for scenic, land- scaping or recreational purposes, and, (2) It is land which is accessible and available to all occupants of dwelling units, for whose use the common area is intended. (f) OFFSTREET PARKING: The number of offstreet parking. spaces required for the zoning district in which the Special Development District is located shall.not be reduced, except that, the approving agency may increase or decrease the required y number of offstreet parking spaces in consideration of the fol- lowing factors: (1) Probable number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the Special Development District; (2) Parking needs of any non - residential uses; (3) Varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of parking areas is proposed. Whenever the number of offstreet parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, the approving agency may Page $ r k; require assurances from the applicant that the nature of the occupancy will not change. (g) DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The approving agency must be satis= Pied that the development plan for the Special Development District has met.each of the following criteria or can demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, and that a practical solu- tion consistent with the public interest, has been achieved for each of these elements: (1) There must be a buffer zone in any'.Special Develop- ment District or multi - family or non . residential buildirigs,or structures that are adjacent to a low- density residential use district. The buffor zone must be kept free of buildings, or structures, and must be landscaped, screened, or protected by natural features, so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. The approving agency may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adQquately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, signage and other comparable poten- tially incompatible factors. (2) Circulation in terms of internal street circulation system design for the type of traffic generated, safety, separa- tion from living areas, convenience, access, noise and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be usednby p6lice and fire department vehidles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic shall be considered and provided for when the site is to be used for residential purposes. Proper circulation in parking areas in terms of safety, convenience, separation and screening. (3) Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features including trees and drainage areas, recreation, views, density relief, con- venience, and function; (4) Variety in terms of: housing type, ddnsi.ties, facilitids and open space; (5) Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families, and neighbors, arid; Page 4 5 (6) Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination and attractiveness; (7) Building type in terms of: appropriateness to den - sity, site relationship and bulk; (8) Building design in terms of: orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs and lighting, and (9) Landscaping of the total site in terms of: purposes such as screening or ornamental., types used and materials used, if any, maintenance, suitability, and affect.on the neighborhood. Section 18.40.070 ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES AND POLICIES It is recognized that in order to achieve the flexibility that Special Development Districts are intended to achieve and to avoid the rigidity that so frequently has characterized develop- ment under orthodox zoning regulations, some requirements'or stan- dards of Section 18.40.060 must of necessity be imprecise and subject to various interpretations. For example, such phrases as "adverse effects ", "probable number of cars ", ''.planned in relationship to ", and other expressions will in the course of time begin to acquire more/ precise meaning as the Zoning Admin- •istratgr and the Planning Commission review and pass upon appli_. cations. To insure a reasonable consistency in the application of these terms and fairness to applicants, the Zoning Administrator shall from time to time place on public file in his- office a report setting forth what guidelines or policies he or the Planning Commission have followed or modified in passing upon applications or otherwise with respect to the interpretation of the standards and requirements of Section 18.40.060. Section 18.40.080 DEVELOPMENT -IN STAGES AND TIME OF APPROVAL (a) The applicant must begin and substantially complete the development 'of the Special Development .District within two years from the time of its final approval. If the Special Development District is to be developed in stages, the applicant must begin . and substantially complete the development of each stage within Z years of the time provided for the start of construction.of each phase in the development schedule. :. FI I Page la (b) If the applicant does not begin and substantially complete the Special, Development District, or any stage.of the Special Development Distract within the time limits imposed by the preceding section, the Zoning Administrator shall review the Special-Development District and may recommend that the time for completion be extended, that the'-approval of the Special Develop - meet District be revoked, or that the Special Development District be amended. The zoning Administrator's recommendation shall'be subject to the procedures authorized by Section 18.40.050 governing the approval of an initial application for Special Development District. Section 18.40.090 GUARANTEES The approving agency may require that.the applicant submit to the Town certain assurances that the development plan as approved will be completed, and said assurances may be in the form of a bond, letter of credit, or other such guarantees that may be acceptable to the approving agency. Section 18.40.100 CHANGES (a) Minor changes in the location, siting, or character of buildings and structures may be authorized by the Zoning Administrator, if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final development plan was approved. No change authorized by the Zoning Administrator under this Section may increase the size of any building or structure by more than 10 %, nor change the location of any building or structure by more than.10 feet in any direction; provided, notwithstanding anything in.the foregoing, the Zoning Administrator may not permit changes beyond the minimum or maximum requirements set forth in this Chapter. (b) Although the changes in the Special Development-District, including changes in the site plan and the development schedule, must be made under the procedures that are applicable to the initial approval of the Special Development District. Page 11 Section 18.40 .1.1.0 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REVIEW At least once every 12 months, the Zoning Administrator shall review all building.permits which*'have been issued for the Sped. Development District and shall exam -ine the construction which has taken place on the site. If he finds a violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter, or.of.the terms and con- ditions of the Special Development District approval, he shall forward a report of this information to the Town Council. The Council shall hold a hearing on the report of violations submitted by the Zoning Administrator, having first given notice to the applicant, all owners of property within the Special Development.. District, and all owners of abutting property. Upon review of the alleged violations, the Town Council may, if it deems nec- essary, require that appropriate action be taken to, remedy the violations, amend or modify the Special Development District, or revoke approval of the Special Development District. Section 18.40.120 COMPLETION OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (a) The Zoning Administrator shall issue a certificate for the Special Development District certifying completion thereof, and shall note the issuance of the certificate on an office copy of the district zoning map and on the development plan. (b) After completion, the use of land and the construction, modification, and alteration of any buildings within the planned, unit will be governed by the approved development plan. (c) Except as provided in Section 18.40. 100, no changes may be made in the Special Development District after its approval. Section 18.40.130 SUBDIVISION AND RESALE (a) A Special Development District may be subdivided or resubdivided for purposes of lease or sale. (b) An application for approval of the subdivision or resubdivision must be made if the subdivision or rosubdivision will create a new plat line: The procedures applicable to the initial approval of the Special. Dcvelopment District arc also applicable to the approval of the subdivision of the Special Development District. F: I . Page 12 (c) The subdivision or resubdivision may be approved if it does not increase the dwclli®ng unit density of the Special Development District and if the Special Development District, following the subdivision or resubdivision,• is in compliance with the.standards for Special Development Districts provided in this Chapter. Section 18.40.140 FED The Town Council may establish a fee schedule for Special Development District applications to cover the cost of processing and review. Section 18.40.150 EXISTING SPECIAL, DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Nothing herein shall be construed to limit,. replace, or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specifications of Special Development Districts 1 through 7. The Town Council specifically finds that said Special Development Districts 1. through 7 shall continue in full force and effect, and the terms, conditions, and agreements contained therein shall continue to be binding upon the appli ants therefor and the Town of Vail. !�- .Ct•,- -tA-.F ." -y tw f {I sG.`•.- €..C._,b� -, �.!..�,..: .....r., C'..s - " ce..�� Section 18.40.160 APPROVING AGENCY As used in this Article, "approving agency„ means the .Planning Commission, the Town Council, or Zoning Administrator, whichever finally approves an application for a Special-Develop- ment District. 1 7 n -RESOLUTION NO. 1, 1977 OF THE TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION A RESOLUTION ADOPTING CERTAIN MAPS AND REPORTS AS PHASE 1 OF THE TOWN OF VAIL COMPREHEtiSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has the duty and authority to adopt a Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a careful study of the present conditions and future growth of the Town, with due regard for its relation to the rest of the Gore Valley and Eagle County; and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held before the Planning. Commission on September 29, 1977 after Public Notice.thereof; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is of the opinion that Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Plan should be adopted and would so recommend to the Town Council, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED EX THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Purpose. The Comprehensive Plan has been prepared with the general purpose to guide and direct a coordinated,, adjusted and harmonious development of the Town of Vail in accordance with its present-and future needs; to promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, property, and general welfare of the residents, including, among other things, adequate provision for air and water quality and safety from hazards.such as fire, flood, avalanche and landslide; to provide adequate water, recreational opportunities, light and air; to promote healthful and convenient distribution of population; to promote good civic design and arrangement, wise and efficient expenditures of public funds, and the adequate provision of public utilities, service and other public requirements. Section'2. Approval of *Reports. The Planning Conunission hereby receives and approves of the following studies and reports relating to. Phase 1 of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan: n i A. Flood Plain 1. Gore Creek Flood Plain Information; Hydro- Traid, Ltd.; June,1975. 2. Gore Creek 500'Ye.ar•Recurrance Interval Flood Plain; Hydro - Traid, Ltd.; , November, 1976. B. Avalanche 1. K.A:C. Avalanche Study; Ronald L. Halley, Hydro Triad, Ltd.; September, 1975. 2, Vail Meadows Avalanche Dynamics Study; McDowell, Scott & Cox, Inc.; June 10, 1976, 3. Vail Meadows Avalanche; Ronald L. Halley, Hydro - Triad, Ltd.; April, 1977. 4. Vail Racquet Club Avalanche Defense; Arthur Mears, McDowell, Scott & Cox, Inc.; September 17, 1976. 5. Clubhouse Gulch Avalanche; Ronald L. Halley, Hydro - Triad, Ltd.; April, 1977. 6. Avalanche Impact Parameters, Silver State Unit, KAC Development.; Ronald L. Halley, Hydro- Traid, Ltd.; April, 1976. 7. Evaluation of the Sn -w Avalance Hazard in the Valley of Gore Creek, Eagle County, Colorado; Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research; 1973. S. Snow Avalanche Hazards of the Vail Area, Eagle County, Colorado; The Colorado Geological Survey; November 19, 1975. 9. Snow Avalanche Hazard Study, Shapiro Property, Bighorn Subdivision, Vail, Colorado; McDowell, Smith & _ Associates; July 22, 1975. 10. Avalanche Dynamics and Defenses on the Shapiro Property, Vail, Colorado; Arthur blears and McDowell, Smith & Associates; January, 1976. 11. Old Muddy and Path 5 Avalanche Study; Arthur Mears; May, 1976. 12. Timberfalls Avalanche, Vail,.Colorado; Whitney M. Borland; July 27, 1973. 13. An Avalanche Defense Work Study for the Timber Falls Corporation; Hans Frutiger; September 20, 1973. 14. Avalanche and Mudflow Hazards on 'Tenth Filing and Katsos Ranch Properties, Gore Creek Valley, Colorado; MSC. Inc.; September,•1974. 15, Avalanche andlridflow Defense Tenth Filing and Katsos Ranch; McDowell, Smith & Associates and Arthur Tdears; February 10, 1975. 16. Avalanche Dynamics of the Bighorn Path,.Vail, Colorado, a Study to Determine the Avalanche Hazard to Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision; Arthur Mears; January, 1977. C. Geologic -- Rapid Mass Wasting 1. Rapid Mass Wasting Processes, Vail, Colorado; Arthur Mears; April, 1977. 2. Appendix to Bedrock Geologic'Map; Colorado Geologic Survey; October 23, 3.975. D. Hillsides and Slope 1. Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands; American Society of Planning Officials. Section 3. Phase 1, Comprehensive Maps. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the following maps and other descriptive material as Phase 1 of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan: �s E-4 [ 0 A. Comprehensive maps (East, Middle and West Sections);. 1. . Avalanche (East and Middle 5octions only) 2. Geologic - Rapid Mass Wasting 3. Flood -- 100 year 4. Slope Anaylsis 5. Vegetation /Wildlife 6. Environmental Constraints 7. Existing Land Use 6. Open Space /Recreation 9. Transportation 10, Utilities 11. Zoning (Previously adopted by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973) B. Growth Management Study 1. Report and Recommendations of Growth Management Sub- Committee on Control Techniques; May 23, 1977. 2. Growth Management for the Gore Valley; January 31, 1977. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING C0MMISSION OF THE T0.N OF VAIL ON THE 29th DAY OF SEPTE11BER, 1977. TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING COMM15SION BY: � d .1I. rager, Jr., 'Chairperson ATTEST: Town Clerk C I -* AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 1977 1.) VAIL CLUB REQUEST FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW RESTAURANT. 2.) CYRANO'S REQUEST FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO ENLARGE RESTAURANT. 3.) PROPOSED PUD ORDINANCE MINUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 1977 3:00 P.M. Present: Scott Hopman Absent: Gerry White Ed Drager Sandy Mills Pam Garton .Ron Todd Dudley Abbott Staff Present: Diana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger Vail Club's Request for Parking Variance to Allow a Restaurant. Pepi Gramshammer, representing the Vail Club, has requested a park- ing variance for nine cars in order to allow a 3,244 sq. ft. restaur- ant and bar in the building which is now under construction. Mr. Gramshammer gave his reasons to the Commission as to why the Vail Club needed a 3,244 sq. ft. restaurant as outlined on his application for a variance, a copy of which was given to all the members of the Commission. The Commission discussed the possibility that if The Vail Club were given this variance, other lodges in the immediate area would want to add restaurants and, therefore, add another 150 cars to the area. Dudley Abbott made the first motion to deny the application for Vari- ance dated October 3, 1977 by Pepi Gramshammer to allow a parking variance of 9 cars in order to have a 3,244 sq. ft. restaurant within the Club. Ron Todd seconded the motion, and all members of the Com- mission were in favor of the denial. Cyrano's Request for Parking Variance to Enlarge the Restaurant. This request has been withdrawn by Cyrano's. Proposed P.U.D. Ordinance. Dudley Abbott suggested that a decision on this be deferred until December in as much as it is such a complicated ordinance. Also, the new member of the Commission (Scott Hopman) and the possible new mem- bers to the Town Council would need time to review this ordinance. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 The motion was seconded by Ron Rodd and voted on unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 4:45 P.M. lie MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1977 RE: THE VAIL CLUB REQUEST FOR A PARKING VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT. Pepi Gramshammer, representing the Vail Club, has requested a parking variance for nine (9) cars in order to allow a 3,224 sq. ft. restaurant and bar in the building which is under construction. The area proposed for the restaurant was.originally presented as office space for Pierce, Briner and Fitzhugh Scott and as lobby. /lounge area. The restaurant requires a total of 21 parking spaces with a credit of 12 spaces allocated to the architectural office or a net additional requirement of the nine (9) spaces. In December of 1976, a 16 car parking variance was granted in order to allow elimination of surface parking and the addition of landscaping. The total required parking for the project as proposed is 45 spaces. The underground garage is designed to accommodate 20 cars. The proposed and the previous variance is a 56% decrease from the requirement. The applicant states the basis for hardship: "It will be an obvious hardship for us to operate a hotel and special programs if we cannot provide our guests with meals within the hotel" (see attached application). CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS FOR THE VARIANCE (SECTION 19.600) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. I S PAGE 2 PARKING VARIANCE VAIL CLUB The opportunity exists within the Public Accommodations Zone for conversion of meeting rooms, lobbies, offices, etc., to restaurant space without adequate parking. There are seven lodges within the Public Accommodation Zone that do not currently have restaurants. If each of these lodges were to agrue that they needed on -site restaurants and added comparable restaurant space, a deficit of approximately 150 cars could result. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treat- ment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. Only one parking variance has been granted in a Public Accommodation Zone (Mountain Haus) for existing space to be converted into a restaurant. Three other conversions have taken place in Public Accommodations Zone where lobbies became restaurants (Tivoli, Talisman and Garden of the Gods Club). None of these required a parking variance. The Department of Community Development supported the 16 car variance which was granted in 1976 as the parking could be provided on the site; nine additional cars could not be accommodated. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities, and utilities, and public safety. A restaurant and bar with the capability of seating in excess of 200 people could create traffic problems if restaurant patrons attempt to parkin the limited amount of underground parking available. There also could be some affect on the public transportation system and the public parking structure. PAGE 3 PARKING VARIANCE VAIL CLUB 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The Planning Commission has spent a great deal of time studying the parking requirements and surrounding issues in an attempt to resolve all of the problems. In depth study has only indicated how complicated the issue is and has not provided an easy answer. We do feel that the parking requirement can be reduced somewhat; however, we do not feel this can be properly calculated without assessing parking utilization in a normal winter season. THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS BEFORE GRANTING A VARIANCE: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege in- consistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or.materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical: hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict or .literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. PAGE 4 PARKING VARIANCE VAIL CLUB FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. See Item 1 and 2 under consideration of factors. It appears that if this variance were granted, we would be obligated to approve as many as seven additional variances with a total of approximately 150 parking spaces. The hardship as outlined is the need for a restaurant to serve guests, particularly those that require a special diet. In.substituting a smaller restaurant for the architects office, the need for a parking variance could be elimenated. The 12 parking spaces allocated to the office would allow an 1800 sq. ft. restaurant which could seat approximately 120 people which seems ample to serve 40 rooms. 2. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. A smaller restaurant itself could be beneficial in that might reduce traffic created by Vail Club guests. On the other hand, a large restaurant attracting customers from outside the lodge could have exactly the opposite affect. Cars attempting to park along the street and near the gate could have a dangerous impact on a bad corner. 3. That the variance is not warranted for more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of.this ordinance. PAGE 5 PARKING VARIANCE VAIL CLUB k� We do not find that any physical hardship or practical difficulty has been shown by the applicant. b. There are not exceptional or extraodinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The Department of Community Development recommends disapproval of the requested parking variance. F PUBLIC NOTICE I PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT The Town of Vail intends to amend � Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code for the Town of Vail.to s 3 include specific regulations relating to Special Development { Districts and providing a review and adoption procedure for Planned Unit Developments. Application has been filed in accord with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. A Public Hearing will be held pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on October 13,1977 before the Town of Vail Planning Commission whose decision will be transmitted to the Town Council for final decision. Said hearing will be held in the Vail Municipal Building at 3:00 P.M. TOWN OI' VAIL DEP R 'bIENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail on September 23, 1977. 7 r" PROPOSED P.U.D. ORDINANCE CHAPTER 18.40 'SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Section 18.40.010 PURPOSE The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, char- acter, and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas. Section 18.40.020 SCOPE (a) Applications for Special Development District designa-. t �on may J?e made if Or land. located in any zoning district except I tl . :- /1,- 4 e L (b) The setback requirements of this Title shall not apply to Special Development Districts. Setbacks shall be controlled by the criteria and standards. of this Article and as shown on the approved'development plan. Section 18.40.030 PREAPPLICATION CONFERr-NCE.. A1.1 applicants are encouraged to arrange a pre-application conference to bo held with the Zoning Administrator in order for .'the applicant! (A) to become acquainted with Special Development District procedure . s and related Town requireitionts; (b) to obtain from.the Zoning Administrator a written list of what the application shall include, in addition to the mini- mum information required by Section 18.40.040; (c) to obtain from the Zoning Administrator copies of any guidelines to the.intcrprotation of the.provisions of Section 40.-000 as required to be maintained by Subsection (a) thereof. Section 18.40.040 FORMAL APPLICATION An application for approval of a Special Development District; may be filed by a person havin(I-an interest in the proporty to be :9� I 30e 7 r" PROPOSED P.U.D. ORDINANCE CHAPTER 18.40 'SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Section 18.40.010 PURPOSE The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, char- acter, and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas. Section 18.40.020 SCOPE (a) Applications for Special Development District designa-. t �on may J?e made if Or land. located in any zoning district except I tl . :- /1,- 4 e L (b) The setback requirements of this Title shall not apply to Special Development Districts. Setbacks shall be controlled by the criteria and standards. of this Article and as shown on the approved'development plan. Section 18.40.030 PREAPPLICATION CONFERr-NCE.. A1.1 applicants are encouraged to arrange a pre-application conference to bo held with the Zoning Administrator in order for .'the applicant! (A) to become acquainted with Special Development District procedure . s and related Town requireitionts; (b) to obtain from.the Zoning Administrator a written list of what the application shall include, in addition to the mini- mum information required by Section 18.40.040; (c) to obtain from the Zoning Administrator copies of any guidelines to the.intcrprotation of the.provisions of Section 40.-000 as required to be maintained by Subsection (a) thereof. Section 18.40.040 FORMAL APPLICATION An application for approval of a Special Development District; may be filed by a person havin(I-an interest in the proporty to be :9� I s• t. t ......, Page 2 .. r.__ �..r_. .. r�...._ .. included in the Special Development District. The application will be made on the form provided by the Town and must include a consent by the owners of all the property to be included in the Special Development District. The application must be accompanied by a development plan and a- written statement. (a) DCVELOPMENT PLAN. A complete plan showing the major details of the proposed'Special Development District prepared at a scale of not less than 1 inch = 100 feet, shall be submitted in sufficient detail to evaluate the land planning, building design and other features of the Special Development District. The site plan must contain, insofar as applicable, the following minimum information: (1) The existing topographic character of the land, (2) proposed land uses, (3} The location and size of all existing and proposed buildings, structures, and improvements, (4) The maximum height of all buildings, (5) The density and type of buildings, (6) The internal traffic and circulation systems, I offstreet parking areas, service areas, loading areas, r and major points of access to public rights of way, (7) The location, height and size of proposed signs, lighting and advertising devices, i (8) Areas which are to be conveyed, dedicated, or reserved as common areas, including public parks and 'reci;cational areas, and as.sites for -public buildings; (9) Area subject to natural hazards, including flooding, avalanches, geological hazards., or with slopes of 40% or greater,. _ (10) A general.landscape plan at the time of initial submission, to be followed by a detailed landscaping plan, once the development plan has been approved,- showing the spacing, sizes and specific types of landscaping materials; i • i (b) trittTTI:4 STAT[ :MENT. The wzit.ten statcmc:nt to be submitted with the drveloI)IIIOtlt; plan and <,pp.lication must contain the .follow- ing information: (1) A statement, of the present ownership and a legal description of all the land included in the Special Develop- ment District. (2) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the Special Development District, including building f -_ .. descriptions, sketches or elevations as may be required to describe the objectives, s {v (3) A development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the Special Development District or stages thereof can be expected to begin ana be completed, (4) Copies of any special agreements, conveyances,., restrictions, or covenants which will govern the use, main - ,? tenance and continued protection of the Special Development District and any of its common areas, including the pro - (? visions for a homeowner or landowner organization, and, .' (5) A list of the owners of abutting properties and properties located within 300 feet of the property lines of and the land included in-the Special Development District, their addresses from available County records;. ` 7... e,.._.acf ✓.,.. -ee. l (t() The applicant shall also submit any other information that may be required by the Zoning Administrator to properly evaluate the application. (et) The applicant may submit any other information o.r exhibits he deems pertinent in evaluating his application. section 18. 40. 050 REVIFW AND APPROVAL (a)• After receipt of an application for a Special Develop- ment District, the Zoning Administrator shall, post the property indicating that a Special Development District application has i been filed and that more detailed information may be obtained from the Zoning Administrator. The Zoni.nr) Administrator shall also notify key mail the owners of abutting properties and pro- i pertics located with 300 feet of. the property lines of the lapel ? included ill the Special Davolopmont'Di8trict, t1lat an application - has been filed, and that 'they may revi.eW the applicaLA.on during c, + the roCJulnr office hour;; of the Tow1,t. Such written notice shall also alort :"Ch owners to the filet that il/Ilear.ing 111a bC Held 'QUA JVA I t s a. Page before the Planning Commission at a later date for which notice must only be published, and also.the possibility of a further public hearing.. before the Town Council again.for which only published notice is required. (b) For all-Special Development Districts not involving a in which use other than those allowed by the zone/Y Lal.: the subject property"• is located, a conditional use, a cbange..in.density or reduction in offstreet parking requirements, the Zoning Administrator shall review the'application and either grant the application in whole or in part, with or without modifications and conditions, deny it, or refer it to the Planning Commission for review. The applicant and the owners of properties located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land included in the Special Development District may ,appeal such decision to the Planning Commission by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within 14days of his decision. in addition, the Planning Commission may call up for review any proposed Special Development.District which has been acted upon by the Zoning Administrat6r, by serving notice on ,the Zoning Administrator within 14 days of his decision. Within 30 days after such call-up. or within 30 days after a referral or appeal has been filed, the Planning Commission, after giving.notice, shall hold a public hearing to act upon the application. The commission Shall either grant the application in whole or in part, with or .without modifications, or deny the application. (c) For all other Special Development District, the Zoning Admin"istrAtor shall review the application and, within 30 days of the filing of a complete application, submit an advisory report to the Planning Commission. The applicant shall be furnished a copy of such report.' (d) Within 30 days after receiving an advisory report, the Planning Commission, after giving notice, shall hold a public hearing on the application in accordan'ce with Sections 18.66..060 through 18.66.090. The Commission Shall, within fr(} days of tho public hearing, or within such time as is tlutu,111Y agreed by the Commission and the applicant, nither grant the. propo;Cd Spocial. Devc1oplitent District in whole or in part, with or without modifi- azit.jolls and conditions, c3c,11y it or refer it to the T6WR Council i 1� At 5 , (e) The Town Council shall review all Special Development ' f Districts referred to it by the Planning Commission, and 'may, in addition, call up for review any proposed Special Development District which.has been acted upon by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator, by.serving written notice on the.Commission F' or Administrator within 14 days of their action on the proposed _x`- I , Special Development District. (f) On all Special Development Districts referred to or ,r called up by-the Town Council, the Council, after giving notice, shall hold a public hearing on the application in accordance with Sections 18.65.060 through 18.66.090. The Council shall, within. z' 30 ' frO days of the public hearing or within such time as is mutually agreed.by the Council and the applicant, either grant the appli- i:, cation in whole or in pars, with or without mndif..ications and i conditions, or deny the application. - (g) All approved development plans for Special Development •: 1 Districts, inluding modifications or conditions, shall be endorsed by the approving agency. The applicant shall file,-the approved. development plan with the Zoning Administrator, who shall indicate on the zoning District; Map that a Special Development District i.; has been approved for the area included in the development plan. " (h). When the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission, i� or the Town.COUnCil either grants an application in whole or in Bart, with or without modifications, or denies an application, its decision shall be in the form of a written opinion, setting forth not only conclusions, but also findings of fact relating sito the specific application and shall set forth with specificity why and in what manner the application is or is not consistent F with the requirements and criteria set forth in Section 18.40.060 of this Chapter. e Section 18.40.060 STANDARDS A Special Development District shall implement the purposes of this Chapter and Title, and, in addition,. shall meet the fol•- �. � a -:r •, lowing standard and requirements: (a) USES PL11MITTED- The uses in a Special Development District must be uses "permitted right" or "Permitted by special review" in the zoning district in which the special Development District is 'located.- In addition, uses by right in I ­.. . right Z_ t cf,_,t I and .-/districts shall be uses by special review in residential Special Development Districts, and may be permitted if,- in the opinion'of the Planning Commission, such uses are primarily for'.the,service and convenience of the residents of the Development and the immediate neighborhood. Such uses, if any, shall not change or destroy the predominantly residential character of the Special Development District. The amount of area and type of such uses, if any, to be allowed in a residential Special Development District shall be.establish.ed by the Planning Commission on the basis of these criteria: (b) The Special Development District is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Vail; (c) The Special Development District's relationship to its surroundings shall be considered in order to avoid-adverse affects ,W the Development caused by traffic circulation, building height or,bulk, lack of screening or.intrusions on privacy; (d)• MINIMUM USABLE OPEN SPACE AND LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS: The requirements of this Title regarding minimum u�b�open space and minimum lot area shall apply to Special Development Districts except that the approving agency may reduce such requirements if it finds that the development plan contains areas allocated for open space and a common areas as authorized in this Section, or that an increase in density is warranted by the desigz)Aand amenities incorporated in the development plan, and the needs.of the residents for open space can be met. A reduction in minimum trs•a�e open space or lot area shall not be permitted if such reduction would be detrimental to the character of the pro- posed Spccial Devolopment Disttict or the character of the-sur- rounding area. DOSigAAand aM011itiCG that may justify reduction of minimum usabic open space and minimum lot area rcqtjircmQ)iLs include, but arc not limited to: HM f(1) The development plan contains areas allocated r 4 for w*b-le open space in a common area designed for use by the proposed occupants,+ (2) The buildings area oriented to insure privacy for all the units' balconies, and (3) That the needs of the occupants for u open . space are unique and are being satisfied by either or a combination o£: (i) public park,. mall or recreation features, or a combination thereof, for which the site of the Sp�ial Development District has or will be levied a special assessment; or (ii) develop facilities in the Special. Development District such as, but not limited to, common recreational areas or facilities, plazas, balconies, or rooftops improved for recreational use.' (e) COMMON AREA: The approving agency may approve a common -area if the area meets the.following requirements: . (1) It is to be used'and is suitable for scenic, land- scaping or recreational purposes, and, (2) It is land which is accessible and available to all occupants of dwelling units, for whose use the common area is intended. (f) OFFSTREET PARKING: The number of offstree.t parking spaces required for the zoning district in which the Special Development District is located shall not be reduced, except that, the approving agency may increase or decrease the required number of offstreet parking spaces in consideration of the fol- lowing factors: (1) Probable number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the Spacial Development District; (2) Parking needs of any non - residential uses; (3) Varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of perking areas is proposed. Whencvcr the number of offstrect parting spaces is reduced beaau_.e of the nature of the occupancy, iho approving agency may Vol . Page 8 . .. u,i �; ,� �,.- �, 'r ti rn ,'r• ..n ,... ..., !!1 require assuranQci; front the applicant that the na4ure of tho occupancy will not change. (g) DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The approving agency must be satis= find that the development plan for the Special Development District i has met.each of the following criteria or can demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, and that a practical solu- tion consistent with the public interest, has been achieved for each of these elements: (1) There must be a buffer zone in any'Special Develop ment District or multi - family , or.non - residential buildings or structures that are adjacent to a'low, density residential use district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings, or structures, and must be landscaped, screened, or protected by natural features, so tha4 adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. The approving agency may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate 'light and air, air pollution, signage and other comparable poten- tially incompatible factors. (2) Circulation in terms of intarnal street circulation " system design for the type o£.traffic generated, safety, separa- tion'from living areas, convenience, access, noise and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can e used,\\by police and fire department vehicles b for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic shall be considered and prov.ided for when the site is to be used for residential purposes. Proper circulation in parking areas in terms of safety, convenience, separation and screening. (3) Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features including trees and drainage areas, recreation, views, density relief, con - venience, and function;. (4) Variety in terms of housing type, densities, facilities and open space; (5) I'ri.vacy ill terms of the needs Of individual~, families, and noighbor,s, and; . a Y s page 9 { (6) Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness; (7) Building type An terms of: appropriateness to den- sity, site relationship and bulk, j (8) Building design in terms o£:. orientation, spacing, t materials, color and texture, storage, signs and lighting, and i (9) Landscaping of the total site in terms of: purposes such as screening or ornamental, types used and materials used, if any, maintenance, suitability, and affect on the neighborhood. Section 18.40:070 AMMINISTE2ATIVE GUIDELINES AND POLICIES it is recognized that in order to achieve the flexibility that Special Development Districts are intended to achieve and to avoid the rigidity that so frequently has characterized develop- ment under orthodox zoning regulations, some requirements or stan- dards. of Section 18.40.060 must of necessity.be imprecise and subject to various interpretations. For example, such phrases as "adverse effects ", "probable number of cars ", ".planned in relationship to ", and other expressions-will in the-course of . time begin to acquire more/ precise meaning as the Zoning Admin- •istratgr and the Planning Commission review and pass upon appli -. cations. To insure a reasonable consistency in the application of these terms and fairness �o applicants, the Zoning.Administrator shall from time to time place on public file in his-office a report setting forth what guidelines or policies he or the Planning Commission have followed or modified in passing upon applications or otherwise with respect to the interpretation of the standards and requirements of Section 18.40.060. Section 18.40.080 DEVELOPMENT IN STAGES AND TIME Or APPROVAL {a} The applicant must begin and substantially complete the development of the Special Developmont.District within two years from the time of its final approval. If the Special. DeveloE)MOnt District is to be developed in stages;. thr applicant must bo;iin And stlbytantially complc_tc the (love lopment of each :stage Within 2 years of the time E)I.-ovided for the start of construction of r.acli Phase ill the devoloE mellt schedule. : i page 9 { (6) Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness; (7) Building type An terms of: appropriateness to den- sity, site relationship and bulk, j (8) Building design in terms o£:. orientation, spacing, t materials, color and texture, storage, signs and lighting, and i (9) Landscaping of the total site in terms of: purposes such as screening or ornamental, types used and materials used, if any, maintenance, suitability, and affect on the neighborhood. Section 18.40:070 AMMINISTE2ATIVE GUIDELINES AND POLICIES it is recognized that in order to achieve the flexibility that Special Development Districts are intended to achieve and to avoid the rigidity that so frequently has characterized develop- ment under orthodox zoning regulations, some requirements or stan- dards. of Section 18.40.060 must of necessity.be imprecise and subject to various interpretations. For example, such phrases as "adverse effects ", "probable number of cars ", ".planned in relationship to ", and other expressions-will in the-course of . time begin to acquire more/ precise meaning as the Zoning Admin- •istratgr and the Planning Commission review and pass upon appli -. cations. To insure a reasonable consistency in the application of these terms and fairness �o applicants, the Zoning.Administrator shall from time to time place on public file in his-office a report setting forth what guidelines or policies he or the Planning Commission have followed or modified in passing upon applications or otherwise with respect to the interpretation of the standards and requirements of Section 18.40.060. Section 18.40.080 DEVELOPMENT IN STAGES AND TIME Or APPROVAL {a} The applicant must begin and substantially complete the development of the Special Developmont.District within two years from the time of its final approval. If the Special. DeveloE)MOnt District is to be developed in stages;. thr applicant must bo;iin And stlbytantially complc_tc the (love lopment of each :stage Within 2 years of the time E)I.-ovided for the start of construction of r.acli Phase ill the devoloE mellt schedule. : 5 r: page 10 _ ..,... .� (b) it the applicant does not begin and substantially complete the Special Development District, or any stage of the Special Development District within the time limits imposed by the preceding section, the zoning Adminintrator shall review the - i a Special.•Developmcnt District and may recommend that the time for completion be extended, that the'-approval of the Special Develop - ment District be revoked, or that the Special Development District be amended. The Zoning Administrator's recommendation shall be subject to the procedures authorized by Section 18.40.050 governing the approval of an initial application for Special Development District. Section 18.40.090 GUARANTEES The approving.agency may require that the applicant submit to the :own certain assurances that the development plan as approved will be completed, and said assurances may be in the form of a bond, letter of credit, or other such guarantees that may be acceptable'to the approving agency. Section 18.40.100 CHANGES (a) Minor changes in the location, siting, or character of buildings and structures may be authorized by the zoning Administrator, if.required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final development plan was :approved. No change authorized by the Zoning Administrator under this Section may increase the size of any building or structure by more than lOR, nor.change the location of any building or structure by more than.10 feet in any direction; provided, notwithstanding anything in.the foregoing, the Zoning Administrator may not permit changes beyond the minimum or maximum requirements set forth in this Chapter. (b) Although the changes in the Special Development District, including ch;,tinges in the site plan and .the development schedule,. must be made under the procedures that. are applicable to the initial approval of the Special Development DisLrict. ®K r 11 3 Section 18.40.090 GUARANTEES The approving.agency may require that the applicant submit to the :own certain assurances that the development plan as approved will be completed, and said assurances may be in the form of a bond, letter of credit, or other such guarantees that may be acceptable'to the approving agency. Section 18.40.100 CHANGES (a) Minor changes in the location, siting, or character of buildings and structures may be authorized by the zoning Administrator, if.required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final development plan was :approved. No change authorized by the Zoning Administrator under this Section may increase the size of any building or structure by more than lOR, nor.change the location of any building or structure by more than.10 feet in any direction; provided, notwithstanding anything in.the foregoing, the Zoning Administrator may not permit changes beyond the minimum or maximum requirements set forth in this Chapter. (b) Although the changes in the Special Development District, including ch;,tinges in the site plan and .the development schedule,. must be made under the procedures that. are applicable to the initial approval of the Special Development DisLrict. ®K Section 18.40.110 ZONING ADMINIS'1:Itl1''UI {'S Itl~VILS+1 f At least once every 12 months, the zoning Administrator shall review all building permits which have been issued for the Spe4'1 Development District and shall examine the construction which has taken place on the site. if he finds a violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter, or.of the terms and con-. ditions of the Special Development District approval, he shall forward a report of this information to the Town Council. The Council shall hold a hearing on the report of violations submitted, by the Zoning.t.drainistrator, having first given notice eo the. applicant, all owners of property within the Special Development.. District, and all o�iners of abutting property. Upon review of the alleged violations, the Town Council may, if it.deems nec- essary, require that appropriate action be taken to. remedy the violations, amend or modify the Special Development District, or revoke approval of the Special Development District. 1 . �1 3; Section 16.40.120 COMPLETION OF SPECIAL I]EVELOP:4ENT DISTRICT (a) The zoning Administrator shall issue a certificate for the Special Development District certifying completion thereof, and shall note the issuance of the certificate on an office copy of the district zoning map and on the development.plan. (b) After completion, the use of land and the construction, modification, and alteration of any buildings within the planned unit will be governed by the approved development plan. (c) Except as provided in Section 18.40. 100 .no changes may be made in the Special Development.District after its approval. Section 18.40.130 SUBDIVISION AND =SALE (a) A Special Development District may be.subdivided or resubdividcd for purposes of lease or sale. (b) An application for approval of the .subdivision or resubdivision must be mado if the subdivision or resubdivision will create a now plat line: Tile procedures applicable to the initial approval Of the Special DOW1101-Mcnt District are dl-,;o amAicahle to the apProv.-�l. o€ the suL�clivir, ion of the Special Development Di: tri.ct. • (c) The subdivision or resubdivision may be approved if it does.not increase the dwellia4 unit density of the Special �. • Uevelopmcnt Di:Jtrict,'and it the Special Development District, following the subdivision or resubdivision,• is in compliance with the.standzrds for special pevelvprnent Districts provided. in this Chapter. Section 18.40.140 FEE +' The Town Council may establish a fee schedule for Special Aevelopent District applications to cover the cost of processing i { and review. Section 18.40.150 ExISLITIG SPECIAL DEVELOPt'SENT DISTRICTS i Nothing herein shall be construed to limit, replace, or •diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specifications 1 of special Development Districts 1 through 7. The Town Council specifically finds that said Special Development Districts, 1 4. continue in full force and and. the terms, w through ? shall c d effect and conditions, and agreements contained therein shall continue to be binding upon the applicants therefor and the mown of Vail. s^ • e 1 SIJ1�'` .off J /1 �.�J ✓� ��'J J tom`-- l.F-� `' t%� r? *��.� f 441-. f J • .. .1� is Section 18.40.160 AppROVIiIG AGENCY + As used in this Article, "approving agency" means the i'. • `Planning Cormiission, the Town Council,•or Zoning Administrator, Develop- whichever finally approves ,an application for a Special Develop - ment District. 1 :33 1x A e AGENDA `ID PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 1, 1977 1. Presentation of Redevelopment Plans for Gondola I and Gondola 11 2. Sunburst - name change 14D I* 10 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FRONT: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1977 RE: PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF GONDOLA I SITE The following is a summary of the proposal submitted by Vail Associates for the subject site: ZONING SUMMARY CCI compared with proposed__SDD CC Required /Allowable Lot area 5,000 sq. ft. Setbacks none required Distance between buildings none required Height 35' Density control Building Bulk .8 GRFA 17,764 maximum length 125' maximum diagonal 160' walls offset 1' for each 5' of length Proposed 22,205 W - 0' E - approximately 24' N - 0' S - 0, 24' -Minimum Plans not detailed enough to calculate /3 stories will fit within height limit. 13,649 Maximum wall length - 132' Maximum diagonal - 148' Worst case - 132' with No offset Rage 3' Proposed redevelopment of Gondola I Site j[-I Floor Area by proposed use and location (continued) Shop Commercial Restrooms Total Plaza Level SECOND LEVEL 5 Condominium Units Total Second Level 493 2,845 460 7,942 8,282 7,942 THIRD LEVEL 4 Condominium Units 5,707 Total Third Level 5,707 TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE 355078 Total Vail Associates use (excluding storage, locker rooms and public restrooms) 3,309 Cafeteria 2,570 Commercial 4,777 Condominiums 13,649 TOTAL NET SQUARE FOOTAGE 24,305 Page 2 i Proposed redevelopment. of Gondola I Site • • ZONING SUMMARY CCI compared with proposed 5DD (continued) Proposed 38% Approximately 8,500 68% Approximately 15,000 sq.. '`'ft. plaza (no.detailed landscape plan submitted) -0- 902 1 ,757 8,556 1,932 2,570 1,168 746 13,147 sq. ft.. M CCI Required/Allowable Site coverage 80% 17,764 sq. ft. Landscaping 20% 4,441 sq. ft. Parking V.A.I. use 11.03 Cafeteria 17.13 Commercial 1-5.92 Condominium 18.00 62.00 Floor area by proposed use and location: BASEMENT First Aid, Ski Patrol Vail Associates Locker Rooms Storage Commercial Total Basement PLAZA LEVEL Cafeteria Ski School Ticket Sales Proposed 38% Approximately 8,500 68% Approximately 15,000 sq.. '`'ft. plaza (no.detailed landscape plan submitted) -0- 902 1 ,757 8,556 1,932 2,570 1,168 746 13,147 sq. ft.. M 0 t"-.i EXHIBIT C GONDOLA II SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS .wWa' 400 Flr. Sl DUMBWAMM UP Tb IO&Utwcr �GK e, UNEXdA A � r GONDOLA. U REWOVATIOW -JUL-f 47, 1411 ul • • GONDOLA II SCHEMATIC DPAWINGS EXHIBIT C Page 2 . 0 • • GONDOLA II SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS `r G. . X11 Tom" 1 7 LU EXHIBIT C Page 3 f a d y..� • I* • GONDOLA II SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS • r LL. G EXHIBIT C Page 4 4, �1.1.A L' • • GONDOLA II SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS EXHIBIT C Page 5 5. Krt,v MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION /DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1977 RE: RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS AND DOWN ZONING. The following is a summary of the Planning Commission meeting of September 29, 1977 and recommendations of the Commission to the Council. Resolution No. 1 of the Vail Planning Commission was approved which adopted Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan and by reference the maps and all documents to which the maps refer, as well as recognizing the Report and Recommendations of the Growth Management subcommittee. The Planning Commission then unanimously approved the Zoning Amendments outlined in the attached memorandum. Each parcel proposed for down - zoning was then considered individually: 1. Racquet Club (13 acres) Proposed Rezoning: Reduction of units. Maximum units current zoning - 390 units,, County approval 360 units Maximum units proposed - 247 units Planning Commission recommendation - Maintain MDMF with 247 units total maximum. Walter Kirch proposed to the Planning Commission that they consider his remaining undeveloped land and a proportional share of the land used for recreational amenities at the proposed MDMF maximum of 18 units per acre or a maximum of 247 units. This represents a 30% down - zoning for the balance of the proposed project. All members were in favor with the exception of Mills. 2. Vail Investment Properties (6.4 acres) Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC Maximum units current zoning - 76 units Maximum units amended LDMF - 57 units Maximum units proposed rezoning - 38 units Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RG Craig Folson was present to object to reduction in density (letter attached). The Planning Commission voted 5 for and Ron:Todd opposed to the rezoning. 3. Gore Range II (7.971 acres, approximately 6 acres buildable) Proposed Rezoning: LDMF with 60 units maximum to RC Maximum units current zoning - 60 units Maximum units amended LDMF - 54 units Maximum units proposed rezoning - 38 units Page 2 Recommendations on proposed Zoning Amendments and Down Zoning. • Planning Commission recommendation. - Rezone to RC. Bob Warner, representing the owners, notified me to inform the Planning Commission that he has withdrawn his employee housing proposal and that they could proceed with the down- zoning to RC.` Planning Commission voted unanimously to rezone the parcel. 4. Jackson, Cook, Zabinsky (3.0 acres) Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC Maximum units current zoning - 36 units Maximum units amended LDMF - 27 units Maximum units proposed rezoning - 18 units Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC Cass Zabinsky was present to protest the proposed rezoning. After a lengthy discussion, all of the Planning Commission except Ed Drager voted to reduce the density to RC. Mr. Zabinsky later requested that the Planning Commission reconsider their vote in light of their decision on the Weisen parcel; the motion was defeated unanimously. 5. Lots 2 and 3, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition (.255 and .419 acres) Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC. _ -- Maximum units current zoning - 8 units Maximum units amended LDMF - 6 units Maximum units proposed rezoning - 4 units Planning Commission recommendatin - Retain LDMF Erika McCall was present representing Vail East Lodging. She pointed out that Vail East had already voluntarily down -zoned two of their parcels to agricultural and would like to retain the possibility of developing five or six units on the subject property. The Planning Commission.voted to retain the LDMF zoning with Sandy Mills opposing the motion.. 6. Lot 6, Block 2, Vail /Potato Patch.(3.91 acres) Lot 34, Block 1, Vail /Potato Patch (.997 acres) Proposed Rezoning: MDMF to RC Maximum units current zoning - Lot 6 - 117, Lot 34 - 29 Maximum units amended MDMF - Lot 6 -- 70, Lot 34 - 17 Maximum units proposed rezoning - Lot 6 - 23, Lot 34 - 5 Maximum units proposed compromise.- JJ_ot 6 - MDMF ��O units maximums ,Lot 34 MDM units maximum Planning Commission recommendation - accept compromise Page 3 Recommendations on proposed Zoning Amendments. and Down Zoning. Jay Peterson was present representing the owner, John Hall. He requested the Planning Commission to retain the MDMF Zoning which permits .35 GRFA as opposed to RC at .25 GRFA and limit the unit maximum to 30 units on.Lot 6 and 8 units on Lot 34 to allow large luxury units. Peterson further proposed that Hall would be willing to quit - claim to the Town of Vail his right to develop recreational amenities and a tramway on Tract C (adjacent to Sandstone Tot Lot). White, Abbott, Drager and Todd voted in favor of the compromise with Hanlon and Mills voting against. 7. Belinda Ward Weisen (1.5 acres) Proposed Rezoning: LDMF.to RC Maximum units current zoning - 18 units Maximum units amended LDMF - 13 units Maximum units proposed rezoning - 9 units Planning Commission recommendation - Retain LDMF Ms. Weisen was represented by Jay Peterson who requested the property remain at LDMF since it is located between the Racquet Club and Timberfalls. Mills made a motion for rezoning to RC which was seconded by Hanlon; Todd, Drager, and Abbott voted against; motion for rezoning failed. 8. Lot 7, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 (1.234 acres) Proposed rezoning: LDMF to RC Maximum units current zoning - 14 units !� I* Maximum units amended LDMF - 11 units I' Maximum units proposed rezoning - 7 units Planning Commission recommendation — Retain LDMF Gary Flanders, representing the new owners, was present to protest the proposed reduction in density and to request the property remain LDMF because of its location directly adjacent to Homestake. Planning Commission voted unanimously to retain the LDMF zoning. 9. Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition (Lot 1 - .800 acres, Lot 2 - .937 acres, Lot 3 - .732 acres) Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC Maximum units current zoning.- Lot 1 - 9 units, Lot 2 - 11 units, Lot 3 - 8 units Maximum units amended LDMr - Lot 1 - 7 units, Lot.2 - 8 units, Lot 3 - 6 units Maximum units proposed rezoning Lot 1 - 4 units, Lot 2 - 5 units, Lot 3 - 4 units Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC Lot 1 is owned by Jakob who has submitted no written protest. Mr. Bill Luke who owns Lots 2 and 3 called in a protest at 6:00 P.M. the day of the meeting. Our staff has since met with his attorney. Planning Commission voted unanimously to down -zone all the lots to RC. 0— Page 4 Recommendations on proposed Zoning Amendments and Down Zoning • 10. Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing (2.891 acres, 2.43 acres buildable) Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC Maximum units current zoning - 34 less hazard = 29 units Maximum units amended LDMF - 26 less hazard = 21 units Maximum units proposed rezoning - 17 less hazard = 14 units Maximum units proposed compromise - LDMF /16 unit maximum Planning Commission recommendation accept compromise Abe Shapiro; the owner of Lot 26, appeared before the Planning Commission to present his proposed compromise, whioh is a 55% down- zoning. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the compromise of retaining LDMF with a 16 unit maximum. 11. Lot 7, Block B, Lionsridge Filing_No. 1_ (1.541 acres) Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC Maximum units current zoning - 18 units Maximum units amended LDMF -.13 units Maximum units proposed rezoning - 9 units Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC LRB submitted a site plan showing 18 units prior to the hearing which 'was disapproved due to lack of required drawings for zoning approval. On October 26, another set of drawings was submitted for zoning approval. These contained sufficient detail for preliminary zoning approval; however, these were disapproved because GRFA was in excess of allowable and insufficient separation between buildings was provided. Planning Commission voted unanimously to rezone from LDMF to RC. 12. Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition (Lot 3 - .442 acres, Lot 4 .442 acres, Lot 5— .497 acres, Lot 6 - .702 acres, Lot 7 - .822 acres) Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC Maximum units current zoning - Lot 3 - 5 units, Lot 4 - 5 units, Lot 5 - 5 units, Lot 6 - 8 units, Lot 7 - 9 units Maximum units amended LDMF - Lot 3 - 3 units, Lot 4 - 3 units, Lot 5 - 4 units Lot 6 - 6 units, Lot 7 - 7 units Maximum units proposed rezoning - Lot 3 - 2 units, Lot 4 - 2 units, Lot 5 - 2 units, Lot 6 - 4 units, Lot 7 - 4 units Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC Lots 3, 4 and 5 are owned by Everling from whom no protest was received. Dr. Bruni, the owner of Lots 6 and 7 phoned in a protest .after the Planning Commission hearing and has. now submitted a written protest to the Council (copy attached). Planning Commission voted unanimously: on.all lots to rezone to RC. s r_1 Page 5 Recommendations on proposed Zoning Amendments and Down Zoning 13. Lots 1,-2, 3, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition (Lot 1 - .526 acres, Lot 2 - .430 acres, Lot 3 - .430 acres Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC Maximum units current zoning - Lot 1 - 6 units, Lot 2 - 5 units, Lot 3 - 5 units, Maximum units amended LDMF - Lot 1 - 4 units, Lot 2 - 3 units, ,Lot 3 - 3 units Maximum units proposed rezoning - Lot 1 - 3 units, Lot 2 - 2 units, Lot 3 2 units Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC Lots 1 and 2 are owned by Kidder and Lot 3 by Simpson neither of whom protested the down - zoning. Planning Commission voted unanimously to rezone the Lots from LDMF to RC. 14. World Savings and_Loan (6.733) Proposed Rezoning: MDMF /with 97 unit maximum to LDMF Maximum units current zoning 97 units Maximum units amended MDMF - 97 units Maximum units proposed rezoning - 60 units Planning Commission recommendation - To LDMF Walter Kirch, who has exercised an option on the subject property; indicated that the proposed rezoning appears to work with his plans for the parcel. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to rezone the land from LDMF to RC. Lots currently zoned for Two - Family Residential (duplex) are proposed for rezoning to the new Zone District Primary /Secondary Residential. These are listed below by neighborhood: i4 15. New Pulis Subdivision - Lots 1-2l,'-Vail Valley 3rd Filing. These lots already have a covenant identical to the proposed rezoning. 16. Mill Creek Circle - Lots 1 -19, block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing. A written protest was filed by Fred Lazarus III, who owns Lot 1. 17. Beaver Dam, Forest and Rockledge Road - Lots 1 -41, Block.7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Lots 1 -6, Block 1; Lots 1 -10, Block 2; Lots 1 -6, Block 3; Lots 1 -5, Block 4; Vail Village 3rd Filing. There were no protests from.property owners in this neighborhood. 18. Lower Forest Road - Lots 1 -15, Block 1; Lots 1 -8, Block 2; Vail Village 6th Filing. A written protest was filed by William P. Sheppard, the owner of Lot 4, Block 1 on which is constructed a presently non - conforming duplex. 19. Golf .Course Area - Lots 1 -4, Block 4; Lots 1 -6, Block 5; Lots 1 -14, Block 6; Lots 1 -3, Block 7; Lots 1 -4, Block 8; Vail Village 7th Filing. Lots 1 -10, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing. No protests were received from this area. Page 6 Recommendations on 'proposed Zoning Amendments and Down Zoning 20. Potato Patch - Lots 1 -33, Block 1 Lots 2 -5, Block 2; Lots 10 -12, a Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block 2; Vail /Potato Patch. Lots 1 -7, Vail /Potato Patch Second Filing, a Resubdivision of Lots l and 2, Vail /Potato Patch. Property owners did not object to.proposed rezoning. 21. Bighorn_ - Lots 1 -16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition. Lots 1 -6, Borwick Subdivision, a Resubdivision of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition. Lots 1-8; Block 4; Lots 1 -19, Block 5; Lots.1-4, Block 6; Lots 1 -20, Block 7; Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition. No protests were received from owners in Bighorn Second Addition. The Borwick Subdivision was approved with covenants similar to the proposed new Zone. One written protest was received from Colonel Browne who owns Lot 9, Block 5, in the 5th Addition. Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning of each lot enumerated in Items 15 -21 from Two- Family Residential to Primary /Secondary Residential. Total density reduction as outlined in Growth Management Subcommittee report-- 447 units Total density reduction as recommended by the Planning Commission - 440 units There is no "scientific" way of calculating the population reduction for the Primary /Secondary rezoning, but we are confident that it will have a positive effect due to the smaller size of the second allowable unit. W�. \ MINUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 1, 1977 3 :00 P.M. Present: Dudley Abbott Scott Hopman Ron Todd Pam Garton Ed Drager Staff Present: Diana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger Absent: Gerry White Sandy Mills Presentation of Redevelopment Plans for Gondola I and Gondola II Buildings The presentation of the redevelopment plans was made by Mr. Gordon Pierce. At this time he wanted to get comments, re- actions and suggestions from the Commissioners about the reno- vation plans for the Gondola I and Gondola II terminal build - ings. formal plans will be submitted at next week's meeting. Gondola II Building - The main purpose of redeveloping this building is to reinforce the commercial areas, clean up the service yard, make the terminal area more convenient for tour- ists (tickets, ski rentals, toilets and restaurant facilities) and to keep all of the offices of Vail Associates in Lionshead. Comments were asked from the public and the Commission. Gondola I Building - Vail Associates proposes that the present Gondola I terminal building be replaced by two new buildings. There are two main objectives for the redevelopment of this area: Use it as a support facility for mountain operations, and to use it to make money for VA. Ski school, ticket windows, public toilets and commercial space are to be located in these buildings. Condominiums will be located on the upper floors. VA assured the Commissioners that the structures will be pleas- ing because VA wants the village to remain a pedestrian exper- ience for tourists. The Commissioners had no objections to these proposed plans, but they were concerned about the parking within the Village and access to the proposed buildings. W Minutes (Continued) -2- November 1, 1977 Sunburst - Name Change A letter was submitted to Diana Toughill from Blair E. Ammons, agent for Fall Ridge, Ltd., requesting that a name change be initiated for the Sunburst project. The new owner (Fall Ridge, Ltd.) would like the name changed to Fall Ridge Condominiums and requested a name change from Sunburst Drive to Fall Ridge Road. Dudley Abbott made the first motion that the name change be accepted. Ron Todd seconded the motion, and it was voted on unanimously by the members of the Commission. Approval of Minutes Dudley Abbott made the first motion that the minutes for the September 22 and October 13, 1977 meetings be approved. The motion was seconded by Ron Todd, and it was voted on unani- mously by the other Commissioners. Ron Todd made the first motion to adjourn the meeting. Pam Garton seconded it, and it was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. W �. • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 8, 1977 l.) N. Pulis - rezoning to Public Use District. 2.) Ice Arena - Conditional Use Permit. 3.) Zoning Amendment - to allow leasing of private parking spaces. 4,) Vail Club - discussion of off -site parking. • • MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1977 RE: PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW LEASING OF PRIVATE PARKING SPACES Section 18.52.170 is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Certain private parking spaces may be leased, after review and approval by the Planning Commission, in conformance with the following provisions: A. Applicant must own 10 or more private parking spaces. B. Parking spaces must be located in Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2, High Density Multiple- Family, Public Accommodations or Special Development Zone Districts. C. Lots that charge an hourly fee as of the date of this ordinance shall not be eligible for approval. D. Each applicant will be eligible to lease no more than 25% of the difference between the average capacity of the lot and peak day utilization, as defined by the Town of Vail. E. Applicant is required to conduct parking utilization studies as determined by the Town. F. Lease agreement shall be as approved by the Town of Vail on a form provided by the Town. G. Lease agreement shall be for a period of not less than one month nor greater than ten months. H. Leased spaces must be adequately signed and policed by the owner. I. A leasing permit must be granted by the Zoning Administrator in conformance with the regulations herein. • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1977 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ICE RINK /MULTI USE FACILITY The Public Use Zone District requires the Town of Vail to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for public recreation facilities. Development standards and parking requirements are to be established by the Planning Commission and Council. The proposed multi -use/ ice facility is located on Lot 5, Block 2, a Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing which is 2.710 acres. Building dimensions are 160'X225` above grade and 1601X300' below grade and average height to peak of roof is 37.51; seating capacity is proposed . to be 850 people; if floor seating is provided, and additional 1,000 people can be seated. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS . Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application;,; the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors with re8pect to the proposed use: (1) Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. (2) Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. (3) Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrain safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. (4) Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. • Page 2 Conditional Use Permit for I,ce Rink: /Multi,. Use Facility • (5) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. (6) The Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed use, if an Environmental Impact Report is required by Article 16 of this ordinance. One of the major objectives of the Town has been to physically link the Village and Lionshead. We feel a multi- use /ice rink will help achieve this goal. Another goal that has been expressed by the Citizens Goals Committee and the Town as a whole is to provide more year - around activities and winter activities to supplement skiing. The proposed structure is also designed for limited use for concerts, conventions, trade fairs, etc. The proposed facility is located on the bus route between the Village and Lionshead. A major event could create a greater trans- portation demand, but we feel this could be adequately accommodated as evening hours are the least busy on the Town bus system. Parking is not provided on the site; however,. a large lot which is under utilized at night, is directly adjacent to the facility. The almost complete pedestrian overpass should provide some relief from traffic congestion. Transportation and parking constraints . dictate that major events be scheduled in the evening hours only. Proposed design of the structure is sensitive to pedestrian safety and convenience. Entrance to facility is on the east side with auto access limited to shuttle buses only. A freight elevator is proposed on the west end to accommodate garbage trucks and deliveries. Auto drop -off could also be accomplished on the west side. To further decrease auto congestion and increase pedestrian safety the Town has proposed to realign East Lionshead Circle and parking lot circulation. The neighborhood within which the proposed facility is located is of a mixed character consisting of hotel, hospital, condominium and residential uses. We do not feel the facility will have an adverse affect on the character of the neighborhood. The proposed design recognizes that the required structure is a large one and has made every attempt to minimize the apparent bulk of the building. L' Page 3 Conditional Use Permit for Ice Rink /Multi Use Facility • The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a Conditional Use Permit: (1) That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (2) That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (3) That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. Based on the criteria and findings, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with development standards as indicated in the proposed plans prepared by Everett /Zeigel Associates. • • i MEMO TO: TERRELL MINGER /VAIL TOWN COUNCIL FROM: - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 11 OCTOBER 1977 RE: PROGRAM PERMITTING LEASING OF PRIVATE PARKING SPACES Both the Planning Commission and the Citizens Committee on Growth Management have determined that a method to better utilize available parking spaces would be to permit the leasing of private spaces on a long —term basis. SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION Based on surveys-conducted last season by Town staff, there are approximately 4;600 parking spaces; 65 % of which are privately owned. PRIVATE PUBLIC TOTAL VAIL VILLAGE 1,968 ..962 2,979. LIONSHEAD 1,024 597 1,621 TOTAL, 2,992 1,559 4,600 According to seven surveys conducted since 1975 by.VAI and TOV private parking spaces are generally under utilized. VILLAGE LIONSHEAD OVERALL Private Public Private Public Private Public UTILIZATION RATE 60% .71% 56% 800 590 75% To better utilize private parking.; a program is being sug,�ested to allow unused private spaces to be leased on a long term basis. This program has been discussed and endorsed by the Planning Commission, Vail Associates staff, the Forest Service, and several local merchants. The following outline includes the major points of the proposed. experimental program: • • Page 2 Program permitting Leasing of.Private Parking Spaces 1.) GENERAL: This would.be an experimental program, to test the community acceptance for a program to permit the leasing of privately owned parking spaces; the principal goal would be to increase available parking space through increased utilization. 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) TERM OF PROGRAM: 0 program would begin immediately.upon adoption by the Town Council and would conclude on the last day of September, 1978. ± The results of the demonstration program would be evaluated and a report submitted by the Town Staff to the Council by November 1.7 19 7g). ELIGIBILITY: Any person or entity ovining 10 or more parking spaces in one lot would be eligible. Parking lots located in CC1, CC2, HDI -IF., PA, and SDD will be permitted to lease spaces. Other areas of town are not included. Private parking lots that are available to the public on a fee basis shall not be eligible. NUMBER OF SPACES AVAILABLE FOR LEASE: for purposes of this program, the capacity.of the lot. shall be the average number of spaces counted in the parking lot surveys conducted by the Town during 76 -77 season. Each lot will be allowed to lease out a of the r� difference between the peak ay count (as ZV, determined by TOV study in 76 -77) and the -average capacity of the lot. The number will be determined by the staft; exceptions will not be granted during this demonstration period. DOCUMENTATION: Any person or organization leasing parking spaces would be required to conduct parkin; utilization studies, using accepted TOV forms and an approved dates, and submitted. to the Town. LEASE AGREEMENT: The responsibility for execution of a lease agreement will be that of the parking lot owner a. model. - agreement will. be developed by the Town. 7.) RATES: The Town will not regulate the rates for lease spaces. Revenue and fee information will be • • s Page 3 .Program permitting Leasing.of Private Parking Spaces kept by the lessor and made available to the Town upon request to permit evaluation of the program. 8,) PERMISSION TO LEASE SPACE: Any parking lot owner wishing to lease out parking spaces will apply for a.leasing permit from the Town; for the appropriate number of spaces. A �. Leasing permit of $15 will be required { to cover administrative.expenses. { 9.) SIGNAGE: Allleased parking spaces will be signed F "RESERVED" by the owner,. U�"^r� i The formula for determining the number of spaces that could } be leased can be modified. The following table indicates the numuer-of spaces that could potentially be leased under different. formulas: Permitted Leasing Limit Approximate Private Spaces (% of Lot Capacity less Availabe to be Leased eak day use) .100% 956 75% 717 50% 478 25% 239 if the proposal is satisfactory to the Council, the staff will draft the necessary legislation for consideration at the next public hearing: r-1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1977 3:00 P.M. Present: Ron Todd Absent: Pam Garton Gerry White Scott Hopman Ed Drager Dudley Abbott Sandy Mills Staff Present: Allen Gerstenberger Diana Toughill North Pulis - Rezoning to Public Use District Seventeen acres would be affected by this rezoning from the current Eagle County "Resource" to Public Use District. Dudley Abbott made the first motion and Gerry White seconded it to allow the rezoning of the North Pulis area to Public Use District. It was voted on unanimously. Ice Arena - Conditional Use Permit This Conditional Use Permit is being requested by the Town of Vail. The Public Use Zone District requires the Town to ob- tain a Conditional. Use Permit for public recreation facilities. Development standards and parking requirements are to be es- tablished by the Planning Commission and the Town Council. Mr. Ziegler and Mr. Dodson of the Town came to the Commission with the plans for the multi -use ice arena to hear their con- cerns about the plans so that they can get an idea on how the community feels about it. The consensus of opinion of the members of the Commission was that since this is to be a public building for public use, then there should be public access to it, which the Commission felt was not adequate. Ed Drager suggested that the Town table the request for a Conditional Use Permit until definite plans for having adequate parking for this building can be arranged. The Commission cannot make a definite decision until this is done. Vaal Associates and the Hospital will be contacted about using their parking facilities. Harry Ziegler asked the Commis- sion for a continuance. Dudley Abbott made the first motion 0 • Minutes -2- that the applicant be granted a postponement period of time in obtaining a Conditional Use tion was seconded by Gerry White and voted on the rest of the members of the Commission. Vail Club Discussion'-of O-ff -Site :Parking November 8,.'1977 for an indefinite Permit. The mo- unanimously by Pepi Gramshammer, representing the Vail Club, has proposed an alternate solution for the nine required parking spaces in order to have a 3,224 sq. ft. restaurant in the Vail Club. The Club would like to lease these nine parking spaces from Mr. A. G. Hill of the Garden of the Gods Club. Mr. Hill has excess spaces in Lot P -2, Vail Village 5th'fil.ing. Since there are sufficient legal implications and questions involving the leasing of parking spaces relating to the p -2 Association Agreement, Diana Toughill suggested that the Commission not take any action on this at the present time until legal ques- tions can be clarified. Scott Hopman made the first motion for a continuance for the request for off -site parking. It was seconded by Sandy Mills. Five members of the Commission voted in favor of the continuance with one obstaining (Gerry White) as he is the President of the P -2 Association. Zoning Amendment to Allow 'Leasing of Private Parking_ Spaces There are many parking spaces' in Vail that are not being used to the fullest extent possible. The proposed Amendment would alleviate some of the parking shortages that Vail has by per- mitting the leasing of private .spaces to residents who would normally park in the public lots. A memo submitted to the Planning Commission from the Department of Community Develop- ment dated November 8, 1977., lists the provisions in which cer- tain private parking spaces may be leased. "G11 was amended to read: "Lease Agreement shall be for a period of not less than one month nor greater than ten months from the date of this Ordinance." Letter "J" was added to the Amendment to read: "Parking required for any use in accord with this Chapter may not be satisfied by leases under the provisions of Section 18.52.170 of this Ordinance." Gerry White made the first motion to accept the Agreement; it was seconded by Dudley Abbott and unanimously approved by the other members of the Commission. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. ORDINANCE NO. Series of 1977 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 9 AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE OFFICAL ZONING MAP. WHEREAS, Article 1, Section 1.201, of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. S, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, as amended, established thirteen zoning districts for the municipality, one of which is the Special Development District; WHEREAS, Vail Associates, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, submitted an application requesting that the Town establish Special Development District 9, hereinafter referred to as "SDD 9 ", for the development on its parcel of land comprising 0.47 acres in the Vail Villlage area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more completely described on attached Exhibit "A" WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 9, will ensure unified and coordinated development and use of a critical site as a whole and in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated. WHEREAS, the Town - Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish said SDD 9. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title This ordinance shall be known as the "Ordinance Establishing Special Development District 9." Section 2. Amendment procedures Fulfilled; Planning Commission Report. The amendment procedures - prescribed in Section 18.66.130 of the Municipal Code have been fulfilled, with the report of the Planning Commission recommending the enactment of this ordinance. Section 3. Special Development District 9 Established; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and Official Zoning Map. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 18 of the Municipal Code, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, as amended, Special Development District 9 (SDD 9), a special development zoning district, is hereby established for the development on a certain parcel of land comprising O.47 acres in the Vail Village area of the Town of Vail, and the Municipal Code and the Official Zoning Map are hereby amended by the addition of the following provisions which shall become Chapter of the Municipal Code which shall be "Special Development District 9" and a map which shall become an addition to the Official Zoning Map. i� Section d. Purpose of Special Development District. A speccal development district is established to assure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manne r that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail, Colorado, provide adequate open space, and promote the objectives of the comprehensive plan of the Town; ordinarily a special district will be created only when the development density will be lower than allowed by the existing zoning, and the development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council, Planning Commission, and Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning. Section 5. Approval of Development Plan. A. The Development Plan for the Gondola 1 Redevelopment which is part of its said application shall be incorporated by reference, and made a part of Special Development District 9 and constitutes a general plan and gui:de'`'for development within the Special District. B. Amendments to the Approved Development Plan which do not change its substance and which are fully recommended in a report of the Planning Commission may be approved by the Town Council by resolution. (2) provisions of Chapter 18.54 hereof. (1) The Development Plan shall be amended to reflect Architectural detail of each phase. Section 6. Content of Proposed Development Plan. The proposed development.plan shall include but is not limited to the following data. A. Existing and proposed contours after grading and site development having contour intervals of not more than 2 feet and prelimenary drainage plan. Supplemental documentation of proposed contours and drainage shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator with the plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. B. A.site plan, at a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet or larger, showing the locations and dimensions of all buildings and structures, uses therein, and all principal site development features such as landscaped areas, pedestrian plazas and walkways, service areas, driveways, and off - street parking and loading areas. C. A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet or larger, showing existing landscape features to be retained or removed, and showing proposed landscaping and landscaped site development features such as pedestrian plazas and walkways, and other elements. D. Schematic building elevations, sections and floor plans, at appropriate scales, �n sufficient detail to determine floor area, general circulation and use location, and general scale and bulk of the proposed development. Specific detail for these items and the appearance shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building perm: E. A volumetric model of the site and surrounding buildings and the proposed development documented by photographs, at a scale of 1 inch equals 20 feet or larger, portraying the scale and (3) C. The development shall require the prior approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.54 hereof. (1) The Development Plan shall be amended to reflect Architectural detail of each phase. Section 6. Content of Proposed Development Plan. The proposed development.plan shall include but is not limited to the following data. A. Existing and proposed contours after grading and site development having contour intervals of not more than 2 feet and prelimenary drainage plan. Supplemental documentation of proposed contours and drainage shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator with the plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. B. A.site plan, at a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet or larger, showing the locations and dimensions of all buildings and structures, uses therein, and all principal site development features such as landscaped areas, pedestrian plazas and walkways, service areas, driveways, and off - street parking and loading areas. C. A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet or larger, showing existing landscape features to be retained or removed, and showing proposed landscaping and landscaped site development features such as pedestrian plazas and walkways, and other elements. D. Schematic building elevations, sections and floor plans, at appropriate scales, �n sufficient detail to determine floor area, general circulation and use location, and general scale and bulk of the proposed development. Specific detail for these items and the appearance shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building perm: E. A volumetric model of the site and surrounding buildings and the proposed development documented by photographs, at a scale of 1 inch equals 20 feet or larger, portraying the scale and (3) relationship to the site, and illustrating.the form and mass of structures in development. F. The Development Plan shall be amended prior to the issuance of a building permit to reflect adequate vehicular access to the project from the south. Access shall be provided 't for emergency vehicles, Vail Associates Mountain operations, loading and unloading for condominium owners and their overnight guests, delivery vehicles serving the project and lower Wall Street as provided for in Section 10, Subsection J (1) (C), hereof. Section 7. Permitted Uses in the Special Districts.. A. All permitted uses as defined in the Commercial Core 1 District, Chapter 18.24 of the Municipal Code.. Section 8. Conditional Uses in Special Districts. A. All conditional uses as defined in the Commercial Core 1 District, Chapter 18.24 of the Municipal Code, and subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 hereof. Section 9. Accessory Uses in the Special District. A. All accessory uses as defined in the Commercial Core 1 District, Chapter 18.24 of the Municipal Code. Section 10. Development Standards. The following development standards are minimum development standards in the Special District: A. Lot area and site dimensions. The Special District shall consist of an area totaling 0.47 acres as specified in Section 3 hereof. B. Setbacks. The required setbacks shall vary as indicated in the Development Plan, providing space for planting and an acceptable relationship to adj ace nt_.— prop-6 es --. C. Distances between buildings. The minimum distance between buildings on adjacent sites shall be as indicated in the Development Plan but in no case shall be less than 25 feet. (4) 0 D. Height. The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. E. Density Control. The gross residential floor area (GRFA) constructed in the Special District shall not exceed 13,650 square feet and the number of dwelling units shall not exceed nine (9), and there shall be no accommodation units permitted. F. Building Bulk Control. Building Bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions for building elements, requirements for wall offsets and vertical stepping of roof lines shall be indicated on the approved Development Plan, but in no case may the requirements be less restrictive than provided in Section 18.24.140 hereof. G. Site Coverage. The site area to be covered by buildings shall be as generally indicated on the Development Plan, but in no case shall exceed 407o of the total site area. H. Useable Open Space. Useable open space shall be provided as required in the Commercial Core 1 District, Section 18.24.160 of the Municipal Code. I. Landscaping and Site Development. At least 60% of the total site area shall be landscape and public plaza area. Landscaping and other site development shall observe the landscaping concept as indicated in the approved Development Plan. J. Parking and Loading. Parking and loading shall be provided consistent with the provisions of Commercial Core 1 District, Chapter 18.24 hero-of-and.-Chapter 18.52, with the exceptions that: (1) Twenty (20) required spaces may be located offsite in the P -3 and /or J parking lot(s) which is within 415 feet to be reserved for condominium owners, overnight guests, Vail Associates Mountain operations, and shop owners only. (2) Eleven (11) parking spaces need not be provided for Vail Associates mountain related facilities which shall include requirements for ski patrol, locker rooms, public restrooms, (5) ticket office, ski school and other related uses. (3) The additional 31 spaces available within the building may be eliminated in return for Vail Associates, Inc., helping to reduce vehicular traffic on Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street by providing delivery truck access for lower Wall Street merchants and the Gondola 1 project. Section 11. Conservation Controls. A. Developer shall include in the building construction energy and water conservation controls as general technology exists at the time of construction. Section 12. Recreational Amentities Tax. The recreational amenities tax due for the development with SDD 9 under Section 3.36 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado, shall. be ,assessed at a rate not to exceed $0.75 per square foot of floor area and shall be paid in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. Section 13. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five days after publication following the final passage hereof. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 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 at 7:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Vail. TOWN OF VAIL ATTEST: TOWN CLERK TOWN CLERK (6) AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION November 22, 1977 1. Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village 11th Filing 2. Herman Hellber,g - Request for variance to allow gravel driveway. 3. Breakaway West - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow swimming pool cover. U -A' MINUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 22, 1977 3 :00 P.M. Present: Sandy Mills Gerry White Scott Hopman Ed Drager Dudley Abbott Pam Garton Ron Todd Staff Present: Allen Gerstenberger Diana Toughill Re- subdivision of Tract D, Vail Village 11th Filing At the applicant's request, this matter will be postponed • until November 29, 1977. Gerry White made the first motion; Scott Hopman seconded it; and the rest of the members of the Commission voted unanimously to accept the applicant's request to postpone the matter. (Ron Todd did not vote as he was ab- sent at the time the vote was taken.) Breakaway West - Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow A Swimming Pool Cover Breakaway West made an application for a translucent pool en- closure to be erected over their existing swimming pool. The proposed enclosure is for use from December 7 to June 7 as permitted by the Municipal Code. The Department of Community Development recommended approval of the Conditional Use Per- mit based upon the facts as outlined in their memorandum of November 22, 1977 to the Planning Commission. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Dudley Abbott to accept the request for a Conditional Use Permit. The motion was seconded by Ron Todd and unanimously approved by the rest of the mem- bers of the Planning Commission. • 40 MINUTES November 22, 1977 Page 2 Request for a Variance to Allow a Gravel Driveway - Herman Hellberg The Hellbergs have requested a variance to allow a gravel driveway on their property - -Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 3rd Filing. This would be a variance from the provision of Sec- tion 18.52.080 which states that all parking areas shall be paved and provided with adequate drainage facilities. Due to the steepness of the applicant's driveway, he feels that a gravel driveway will provide more traction and less of a water runoff. After a discussion, Dudley Abbott made.the first mo- tion that a 10 foot apron be provided at the top of his present driveway to connect with'the public right of way. The basis for this is # 3b in the memorandum of November 22, 1977 from the Department of Community Development to the Planning Com- mission. Scott Hopman seconded the motion and five members of the Commission voted in favor of the motion and two voted against it (Gerry White and Sandy Mills). Approval of November 8, 1977 Minutes Dudley Abbott made the first motion to approve the minutes of November 8, 1977. Scott Hopman seconded it, and it was voted on unanimously by the other members of the Planning Commission except for Pam Garton who was absent at the November 8 meeting. Approval of October 13 1977 Minutes Ed Drager made the first motion to approve the minutes of the October 13, 1977 meeting. Gerry White seconded the motion. Five members of the Commission voted in favor; two members abstained (Pam Garton because she was not present at the meet- ing, and Scott Hopman because he was not a member of the Commission at that time).' Approval of September 29, 1977 Minutes Dudley Abbott made the first motion to approve the minutes of the September 29 meeting. Ron Todd seconded-it and all the members voted in favor of acceptance except for Pam Garton who was absent at the September 29 meeting. 0 The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. MEMO n U TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1977 RE: PROPOSED RESUBDIVISION OF TRACT D VATL VILLAGE 11th FILING Thomas J. Cacchione has submitted a final plat for the resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village llth Filing into two residential lots. Lot 1 is 17,600 square -feet, and Lot 2 is 24,978 square feet. The proposed resubdivision is in compliance with all Zoning and subdivision regulations. There has been one verbal objection from Lou Parker, a property owner in 11th filing. Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed resubdivision. 0 • • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: November 22, 1977 RE: HELLBERG REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW GRAVEL DRIVE; LOT 1, BLOCK 2 VAIL VILLAGE 3RD FILING The Hellbergs have requested a variance from the provisions of Section 18.52.080, which st.ates "All parking areas shall be paved and provided with adequate drainage facilities ". The applicant feels the basis for hardship is that the drive is steep and gravel u provides more traction, srface runoff will be greater from asphalt, and most of the neighbors do not have paved parking. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for. in Section 18.62.060 of the zoning Ordi- nance and our conclusions are as follows: (1) The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There are a number of undeveloped lots in the Beaver Dam.- Forest Road area that will require equally steep driveways for access. Also, the unpaved driveways to which Mr. Hellberg refers were all completed prior to zoning. If surface runoff is a problem, we would suggest that the property owner attempt to resolve it. (2) The degree to which relief fr.om:the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of. a.speci.fied regu -. lation is necessary to achieve compatability and un- iformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance with- out grant of.special privilege. Each owner who has built a residence since the Town adopted zoning has been required to pave parking areas and drives. We feel approval of this variance would be a grant of special privilege. (3) The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public isafety. Gravel drives create tremendous street cleaning problems,. as there is no way to keep gravel off the paved street. The gravel on.the asphalt also creates a safety hazard for .bicycle riders. (4) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before . granting a variance: (1) That the granting of the variance will not, consti- tute a grant of special privilege' inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. (2) That the granting of the variance will -not be detri- mental to the public health, safety,.or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (3) That.the variance is warranted for one or more of .the following reasons: a. The strict or lateral interpretation and en- forcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the'ob- jectives of this ordinance. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict or literal.interpretati.on and en- forcement of the specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Based on the criteria and findings, the Department of Community De- velopment recommends disapproval of the variance. • • • " PHONE 822 -0730 AREA CODE 215 Peter Hellberg Company 332 NORTH MAIN STREET CHALFONT, PENNA. 18914 Mr. William Pierce Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Bill, PARTICIPATING MEMBER t� AMERICAN FLORISTS MARKETING COVNCIL WHOLESALE F L O W E R GROWERS July 11, 1977 Summer is here and I have not forgotten your letter of last fall. In fact I have already contacted Steve Boyd to have someone g ive:me an estimate for paving our drive. Steve. already gave me a rough estimate which didn't make me very happy and which has prompted thin, letter. It cost me.almost $20,000.00 counting the tree removal, fill, Gabion wall, stones, etc. to comply with your ordinance of off street parking. I did not object to this because.-I could see the need for it whenever I walked or drove down Forest Rd. and saw the deplorable con- ditions--that the snowplows and other town equipment had to put up with. However I do strongly object to my being forced to spend another $2000, just to pave:the parking area�,for what , in my estimation, is an utter- waste. I had to come before the design review board in order to build the house in keeping with the natural surroundings, which I agreed with, but now you want me to put a surface:on my drivewhich, in my opinion, is not natural. Not only is paving not as natural as stone, but I do feel that a stone drive is actually better as far as traction is con+- cerned. I can see that in the public areas: it is not only desirable but necessary to pave the roads and parking areas, but when it comes to a private drive' I feel it is not only unnecessary but undesirable.. Finally I don't know what you are going to accomplish when you try to force me to pave my drive and you allow the other two dozen or more homes: in the area to continue.to have stone drives. I can see that you could not force them to put in parking areas such as I had to do but paving is another matter. When and if all the homes are required to put in paving, I shall reconsider my position, but until that time I shall respectfully request non compliance to your ordinance. �t, - Herman Hellberg 0 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: November 22, 1977 RE: Breakaway West Condominium Association Request for Conditional Use Permit for Seasonal structure to cover pool. Breakaway West has made application for a translucent pool enclosure to be erected over their existing swimming pool. The proposed enclosure is for use from December 7 to June 7, as permitted by the Municipal Code. The proposed location is Lot 3, Block B, Lionsridge Filing No. l and is zoned Medium Density Multiple - Family. Upon, review of Section 18.600 "Criteria and Findings ", the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors:. 1. Relationship and impact of the use of development objectives of the Town. One of the primary goals of the Town has been to expand the available recreational opportunities in the Community and make them available on a year -round basis. The proposed enclosure furthers this objective. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The availability of a pool during the winter months could help relieve pressure on other facilities. Page 2 Breakaway West Conditional Use Permit 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. There should be no effect on these factors. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located... in relation to surrounding uses. Since the pool area is almost totally surrounded by buildings making up the Breakaway complex, the enclosure will create little visual impact on the neighborhood. We do not feel that scalenorabulk of impacts surrounding character isfcreated area byo on the th pool enclosure. 5. Such other factors oaihecproposedausehe Commission deems applicable 16 No other factors need be considered. 6. No environmental impact report is required. The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved based on the following f indings : 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION November 29, 1977 1. Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village 11th Filing. 2. Gondola 2 - consideration of Vail Associates. proposed redevelopment plans. 3. Gondola 1 - consideration of Vail Associates proposed redevelopment plans. • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 29, 1977 3:00 P.M. Present: Pam Garton Gerry White Scott Hopman Ed Drager Sandy Mills Dudley Abbott Ron Todd Staff Present: Diana Toughill. Allen Gerstenberger Request for Parking Variance - Hong Kong Cafe At the request of the applicant, an indefinite postponement of a temporary parking variance at the Hong Kong Care for two cars was requested. Gerry White made the first motion; Dudley Abbott seconded it, and the members of the Commission voted unanimously in favor of the request. Resubdivision of Tract D. Vail Village 11th Filin As. explained in a memo to the Planning Commission from the De- partment of Community Development dated November 22, 1977, Thomas J. Cacchione has submitted a final plat for the resub- division of Tract D, Vail Village 11th Filing into two resi- dential lots. Pam Garton made the first motion to approve the resubdivision as explained in the memo. Ron Todd seconded the motion, and the members of the Commission voted unanimously in favor of the resubdivision. Gondola II Consideration of Vail Associates Proposed Redevelop- ment Plans Gordon Pierce, Architect for Vail Associates, and Phil Ordway, Manager of Commercial Development for Vail Associates, were present at this meeting. Mr. Pierce made his presentation to the public for the proposed redevelopment of the Gondola II building. This was for the benefit of the people who had not Planning Commission -2- November 29, 1977 Minutes seen this presentation before. Comments and suggestions were taken from the public and from the members of the Commission. Diana Toughill stated that the building meets all building re- quirements except for parking and setbacks on the east side. Vail Associates has proposed offsite parking for the 29 re- quired. spaces. Vail Associates asked for approval of the proje(,t subject to approval of satisfactory parking at a later date. The Commis- sion was reluctant to grant approval until definite plans for parking are reached, rather than approving this project on a piecemeal basis. Gerry White made the first motion that approval for the rede- velopment of Gondola II and Lionshead Gondola properties be denied. Ron Todd and Scott Hopman simultaneously seconded the motion; however, they-withdrew their motions after the appli- cant asked for a postponement of this project. Pam Garton then made a motion that these redevelopment plans . with a zoning change from CCII to SDD be postponed for two weeks. Dudley Abbott seconded the motion, and all members of the Planning Commission were in favor of the postponement ex- cept Sandy Mills (who voted against it). Gondola I - Consideration of Vail Associates Proposed Revelo - ment P ans Phil Ordway and Gordon Pierce made their presentation to the public on the redevelopment of the Gondola I building to the public. Questions and comments were taken from the public as well as from the members of the Commission. Vail Associates asked that the approval of these plans be tabled in view of the fact that there are complex and controversial parking prob- lems, and application for access to the buildings must be made through the Forest Service land (as outlined in Ordinance No. establishing special development District 9 and amending tt zoning ordinance and the official zoning map, page 5, Section J.) The following people expressed their views in letters to the Planning Commission in regards to the Gondola I redevelopment plans: Eldon Beck Eldon Beck W. Allen Ma Janet Tyler Janet Tyler t14 Joanne Hill t - Royston, Hanamoto, Beck $:Ab,ey - 9/8/77 - Royston, Hanamoto, Beck & Abey - 10/17/77 zrossie - Plaza Lodge, 10/4/77 - Vail Resident - 12/15/77 - Vail Resident -- 12/12/77 - Plaza Lodge - 11/1/77 Minutes -3- November 29, 1977 Joanne Hill - Plaza Lodge, 11/16/77 Robert S. Engleman - Vail Resident 11/21/77 David A. Dasse - Manager, Der Skimeister - 11/17/77 The first motion to accept the applicant's decision to post- pone (indefinitely) the proposed redevelopment plans for the Gondola i building in Special Development District Ordinance No. 9 was made by Dudley-Abbott and seconded by Gerry White. It was voted on unanimously by the rest of the members of the Commission. The motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Gerry White and seconded by Dudley Abbott. It was voted on unanimously by the rest of the members of the Commission. ^,dk, Vail Associates, Inc. Ms. Diana Toughill Zoning Administrator Town of Vail P. 0. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 September 6, 1977 RE: Redevelopment of Vail Associates` Village Gondola and LionsHead Gondola Properties Dear Diana: As we discussed last week, enclosed please find applications made by Vail Associates, Inc. for two separate Special Development Districts, to be created for the redevelopment of our Village Gondola and LionsHead Gondola properties. After reviewing the alternatives, we agree with you • that the Special Development District approach is much preferable to seeking variances from existing ordinances. I have also enclosed a copy of the schedule that we discussed last week. Please note the addition of a working session with the Town Coun- cil on October 4th (per my discussion today with Allen Gerstenberger); I would appreciate your advising me as soon as possible of any inaccur- acies or changes. Unless I hear from you to the contrary, I will assume you are taking care of all public notices (including this Fridays) and scheduling of all meetings. Your assistance in this rather complicated matter is most appreciated. We look forward to working with you at length on these programs. Sincerely, IL SSO TES, INC. Philip E. Ordway Manager of Commercial Development PEO /sl Enclosur cc: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. es Terry Minger Allen Gerstenberger Gordon Pierce Harry Bass Jack Marshall Box 7, Vail, Colorado 81657,303/476-5601 u APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE And /Or CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ordinance No. 8 (Series of 1973) Application Gate September 6, 1977 Publication Date Hearing Date Hearing Fee Final Decision date for Town Council I (we) Vail Associates, Inc. of Box 7 (Applicant) (Address) Colorado , Vail Phone(303)476 -5601 (State) (City) do hereby request permission to appear before the Vail Planning Commission to request the following: ( ) Variance from Article Section ( X ) Zoning Change from C C _IT -�— to Soo -) Parking Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit to 'allow in Zone. For the following described property: Lot /tract , Block Filing Number see attached Clearly state purpose and intent of this application Redevelopment and refurbishing of portions of the LionsHead Gondola Terminal complex. Property Description xxaXYjxx�r ux xkxXAMXtxuxuxix4XF& XXrX�rX�� (�(sX�X�(d�XX��(�(X�4XX�? (see attached IPgnatur7c of App I tc, a'nt Vail Associates, • EXHIBIT A (Attached to and made a part of a lease dated December 30, 1974 between Vail Associates, Inc and Earl S. Dye, Trustee) THE PROPERTY. The following described property in the Town of Vail, County of Eagle, Colorado: Together with all (a) the right, title and inter- est, if any, of Vail in and to any land lying in the bed of dedicat- streets, sidewalks, gutters, curbs, roads, alleys or avenues, A parcel of land that includes all of-Lot 4, Block 1 and parts of Tract C and Tract D of Vail/ Lionshead First Filing, a subdivision recorded under reception number 113260, in Book 271 at Page 676 of the Eagle County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder's Records, said parcel of land being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 4, Block 1, Vail /Lionshead First Filing, thence the following three courses along the east boundary of said Lot 4: (1) S 04 °35'58" E a distance of 59.15 feet; (2) S 850 24'02" W a distance of 12.06 feet; (3) S 04 035'58" E a.distance of 190.90 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 4; thence continuing S 04 °35'58" E for a distance of 102.81 feet, across Tract C, Vail /Lions- head First Filing and into Tract D, Vail /Lionshead First Filing; thence S 85 124'0.2" W for a distance of 187.21 feet through said Tract D and across said Tract C to a point on the west boundary of Tract C; thence N 12 043'23° W along the west boundary of Tract C, for a distance of 103.85 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 4; thence the following seven courses along the west and north boundary of Lot 4: (1) N 12 °43'23" W a distance of 16.70 feet; (2) N 44° 50'09" W a distance of 52.02 feet; (3) N 4 °35'58" W a distance of 102.84 feet; (4) N 27 °05'58," W a distance of 33.87 feet; (5) N 4 °35'58" W a distance of 38.47 feet; (6) N 28 °44'30" E a distance of 25.37 feet; (7) N 85 024102" E a distance of 248.96 feet to the point of beginning, containing 79,780.63 square feet or 1.831 acres, more or less. Together with all (a) the right, title and inter- est, if any, of Vail in and to any land lying in the bed of dedicat- streets, sidewalks, gutters, curbs, roads, alleys or avenues, APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE And /Or CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ordinance No..8 (Series of 1973) Application Date September 6, 1977 Publication Date Hearing Date Final Decision date for Town Council I (we) Vail Associates, Inc. (Applicant) Colorado , (State) Hearing Fee of Box 7 (Address) Vail Phone (303)476 -5601 (City) do hereby request permission to appear before the Vail Planning Commission to request the following: ( ) Variance from Article Section (X ) Zoning Change from CC I to SDD ( ) Parking Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit to allow in Zone. Part of For the following described property: Lot /tract C Block 5C Filing Number Vail Village First Filing (Village Gondola Property) Clearly state purpose and intent of this application For demolition of existing structures and development of new structures on the property._ Pro ert esc i ion: A part of c-�xaca��C� XXX A xhxk�x�ciX-xx XIXX XXXXXXXXXXX- XxXxX-yX)6 Lot C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing, Town of Vail, County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the _southeast corner of the northwest 1/4_of the north- west 1/4 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; thence S 890.44! 00" W_a distance of 179,45 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N 100 51' 40" W a distance of 241.62 feet; thence N 790 29' 44" E a distance of 40.00; thence N 100 30' 16" W a distance of 6.00 f thence N 9 29' 44" E a (continued on next page) g 06 ture of App1ic3't Vail Associates In . C] 0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (cont'd.) distance of 4.00 feet; thence S 100 30' 16" E a distance of 42.00 feet; thence N 790 29' 44" E a distance of 43.57 feet; thence S 110 07' 00" E a distance of 221.60 feet; thence S 890 44' 00" W a distance of 89.86 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 20367 square feet or 0.47 acres, more or less. SCHEDULE OF HEARINGS & NOTICES FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS FOR VAIL VILLAGE GONDOLA & LIONSHEAD GONDOLA REDEVELOPMENTS September 6th - Application for Special Development District delivered to the Town for I and II September 8th - Preliminary meeting with Planning Commission September 9th - Notice in local paper September 29th - Formal Hearing, Planning Commission September 30th - Second Public Notice October 4th - Working Session with Town Council October 18th - First Council Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance November lst - Second Council Reading November 4th - Third Public Notice 0 November 9th - Ordinance Becomes Effective (earliest possible date) • MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 1977 RE: GONDOLA 2 REDEVELOPMENT Existing Floor Area By Use Gondola, storage, kitchen and miscellaneous Vail Associates Office Commercial /Retail Restaurant /Cafeteria Proposed Floor Area By Use Gondola, storage, kitchen and miscellaneous Vail Associates Office Commercial /Retail Restaurant /Cafeteria Proposed Addition 6,489 commercial. space 2,240 office space Parking Required I * 24,690. 4 15,178. 5 2,530. 5,079.25 47,478.15 24,690.40 15,511.75 9,019.75 52079.25 54,301.15. 8,730.12 square feet 29 spaces ORDINANCE NO. Series of 1977 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 8 AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP. WHEREAS, Article 1, Section 1.201, of the Zoning Ordinance Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail,, Colorado, as amended, established thirteen zoning districts for the municipality, one of which is the Special Development District; WHEREAS, Vail Associates, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, submitted an application requesting that the Town establish Special Development District 8, hereinafter referred to as "SDD 81$, for the redevelopment on its parcel of land comprising 1.831 acres in the Lionshead area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more completely described on attached Exhibit "A"; WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 8, will ensure unified and coordinated development and use of a critical site as a whole and in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated. WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish said SDD 8. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: 00 Section 1. Title This ordinance shall be known as the "Ordinance Establishing Special Development District 8." Section 2. Amendment procedures Fulfilled; Planning Commission Report. .The amendment procedures prescribed in Section 18.66.130 of the Municipal Code of the Town of-- "vaii' lave h eir -f °a fide ; with the report of the Planning Commission recommending the enactment of this ordinance. Section 3. Special Development District S Established; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and Offical Zoning Maps. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 8 of the Municipal Code, of the Town of. Vail, Colorado, as amended, Special Development District 8 (SDD 8), a special development zoning district, is hereby established for the development on a certain parcel of land comprising 1.831 acres in the Lionshead area of the Town of Vail, and Title 18 of the Municipal Code and the Official Zoning Map are hereby amended by the addition of the following provisions which shall become Chapter of the Municipal Code which shall be "Special Development District 8" and a map which shall become an addition to the Official Zoning Map. Section 4. Purpose of Special Development District. A special development district is.established to assure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vaal, Colorado, provide adequate open space, and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town; a special district will be created only when the development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council, Planning Commission, and Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning. Section 5. Approval of Development Plan. A. The Development Plan for the redevelopment of Gondola 2 which is part of its said application shall be incorporated by reference, and made a part of Special .Development District 8 and constitutes a general plan and guide for development within the Special District. (2) • B. Amendments.to the Approved Development Plan which do not change its substance and which are fully recommended in a report of the Planning Commission may be approved by the Town Council by resolution. C. The development shall require the prior approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.54 hereof. (1) The Development Plan shall be amended to reflect Architectural detail. Section 6. Content of Proposed Development Plan. The proposed development plan shall include but is not limited to the following data. A. A site plan, at a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet or larger, showing the locations and dimensions of all buildings and structures, uses therein, and all principal site development features such as landscaped areas, pedestrain plazas and walkways, service areas, driveways, and off- street parking and loading areas. B. A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet or larger, showing existing landscape features to be retained or removed, and showing proposed landscaping and landscaped site development features such as pedestrian plazas and walkways, and other elements. C. Schematic building elevations, sections and floor plans, at appropriate scales, in sufficient detail to determine floor area, general circulation and use location, and general scale and bulk of the proposed redevelopment. Specific detail for these items and the appearance shall be submitted prior to approval of a building permit. D. A volumetric model, of the site and the.proposed development documented by photographs, at a scale of 1 inch equals 20 feet or larger, portraying the scale and relationship of the development to the site, and illustrating the form and mass of structures in development. (3) Section 7. Permitted Uses in the Special Districts. • A. All permitted uses with the exception of dwelling units and accommodation units as defined in the Commercial Core 2 District, Chapter 18.26 of the Municipal Code with floor areas not to exceed the following limitations: Permitted Use Floor Area Vail Associates Mountain related operations 24,690 Vail Associates Corporate Offices 17,450 Retail 9,020 Section 8. Conditional Uses in the Special District. A. All conditional uses as defined in the Commercial Core 2 District, Chapter 18.26 of the. Municipal Code, and subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit it accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Municipal Code. Section 9. Accessory Uses in the Special Districts. A. All accessory uses as defined in the Commercial Code 2 District, Chapter 18.26 of the Municipal Code. Section 10. Development Standards. The following development standards are minimum development standards in the Special District; A. Lot area and site dimensions. The Special District shall consist of an area totaling 1.831 acres as specified in Section 3 hereof. B. Setbacks. The required setbacks shall vary as indicated in the Development Plan, providing space for planting and an acceptable relationship to adjacent pedestrian mall. C. Distances between buildings. The minium distance between buildings on adjacent sites shall be as indicated in the Development Plan. D. Height shall be as indicated in the Development Plan. E. Density Control There shall be no gross residential floor area (GRFA) permitted in the Special District. (4) F. Building Bulk Control. Building Bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions for building elements, requirements for wall offset and vertical stepping of roof lanes shall be indicated on the approved Development Plan. G. Site Coverage. The site area to be covered by buildings shall be as generally indicated on the Development Plan, but in no case shall exceed 457o of the total site area. H. Useable Open Space. Not Applicable. T. Landscaping and Site Development. 00 At least 40 of the total site area shall be landscape and plaza area. Landscaping and other site development shall observe the landscaping concept as indicated in the approved Development Plan. J. Parking and Loading. (1) Parking and loading shall be provided for new commercial floor area consistent with provisions of Chapter 18.52 hereof with the exception that such parking may be offsite in a location acceptable to the Town of Vail. The Development Plan shall be amended prior to the issuance of a building permit to reflect the parking plan. (2) Loading, delivery, and garbage facilities shall be I off - street and beneath the structures covering the service yard as indicated on the Development Plan. Section 11. Conservation Controls. A. Developer shall include in the building construction energy and water conservation controls as general technology exists at the time of construction. Section 12. Recreational Amenities Tax. The recreational amenities tax due torthe new floor area with SDD 8 under Chapter 3.36 of the Municipal Code, shall be assessed at a rate not to exceed $0.75 per square feet of additional (5) floor area and shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 13. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five days after publication following the final passage hereof. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 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 at 7:30 P.M, in the Municipal Building of the Town of Vail. TOWN OF VAIL LA N TOWN CLERK TOWN CLERK (11 i • MEMORANDUM- TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUMITY.DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1977 RE: PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF GONDOLA I SITE The following is.a summary of the proposal submitted by Vail Associates for the subject site: ZONING SUMMARY CCI compared with proposed SDD CCI Required/Allowable Proposed Lot area 5,000 -sq. ft 22,205 Setbacks none required W - 0' E - approximately 24' Distance between buildings none required Height, 35' Density control Building Bulk .8 GRFA 17,764 maximum length 125' maximum diagonal 160'' walls offset 7' for each 5' of length N -0' S_0' 24' Minimum Plans not detailed enough to calculate /3 stories will'fit within height limit. 13,649 Maximum wall length - 132' Maximum diagonal - 148' Worst case - 132' With No offset ■ M Floor Area by proposed use and location (continued) Shop 493 Commercial 2,845 Restrooms .450 Total PI aza Level 8,282 SiEMAD LEVEL 5 Condominium Units 7,942 Total Second Level 7,942 TMIRD LEVEL 4 Condominium Units 5,707 Total Third Level 5,707 TOTAL mOSS S UARE FDOTAGGE 35,478 Total Vail Associates use .(excluding storage, locker rnwis and public restrooms) 3,3D9 Cafeteria 2,570 Cowerc-i al 4,777 Condominiums 13,64.9 TOTAL NET SQUARE FOOTAGE 24,305 10 I to Page 2 Proposed redevelopment of Gondola I Site ZONING SUMMARY CCI compared with ro osed SDO (continued) CCI Required/Allowable Proposed Site coverage 80% _ 38% 17,764 sq. ft. Approximately 8,500 Landscaping ZO% 68% 4,441 sq. ft. Approximately 15,000 sq. ft. plaza (no detailed landscape plan submitted) Parking V.A.I. use 11'.03 Cafeteria 17.1 Commercial 15.QLJ - Condomi ni.um 18.00 62.00 -0- Floor area by proposed use and location: BASEMENT First Aid, Ski Patrol 902 Vail Associates Locker Rooms 1,757 - Storage 8,556 Commercial 1,932 Total Basement 13 ;147 sq. ft. PLAZA LEVEL Cafeteria 2,570 Ski.School 1,168 'picket Sales 746 • September 8, 1977 Mr. Terrell J. Mi.nger Town Manager Town of Vail P.O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Gondola One Dear Terry: On September 7, 1977 Professor von Moltke and I Ordway of Vail Associates to review the Gondola handwritten comments with Diana for use with th e discussions with Mr. Ordway on September 8. My reactions were these: Royston Hanamoto Beck & Abey met with Gordon Pierce and Phil One analysis drawings. I left Planning Board in their 1. The drawings were for economic analysis rather than physical planning and simply do not provide adequate information for design reaction. Gordon qualified them totally and agrees that design must proceed. 2. The analysis fails to assign adequate priority to the primary function of the site which is the quality of service to the skier. Physical planning must be preceded by a thorough analysis of skier needs - things such as space for waiting lines at ticket windows, shelter at waiting areas, wind direction, snow and ice buildup, logical circulation with minimum congestion, the visibility of destination and mountains from the ticket area, the total quality of experience. The space provided for these functions and the location of that space should dominate both the economic and physical planning decisions. The primary direction of the analysis at this time appears to be the development of high return condominiums rather than skier or community service. Landscape Architects: Land Planning Urban Design Park Planning Environmental Planning Principals: Robert Royston FASLA Asa Hanamoto ASLA Eldon Beck ASLA Kazuo Abey ASLA Louis G. Alley AIA Patricia Carlisle ASLA Associates: Harold N. Kobayashi ASLA Robert T, Batterton ASLA George W. Girvin ASLA Robert S. Sena ASLA 225 Miller Avenue Mill Valley California 94941 415 383-7900 Mr. Terrell J. Minger - 2 - September 8, 1977 3. Gordon stated that a model of the area was being built to aid everyone in understanding the impact on the space. This will be an invaluable tool. I suggest also that the site be photographed from all key viewpoints and that ballons or some device be used to simulate the probable bulk of design proposals. At this time it semis that the desire for economic return will exceed the holding capacity of the site. 4. The representation of landscaping on the basement structure is not realistic. The absence of any perimeter planting on the north, west and sough sides because of zero lot line construction is not respectful of the neighbors or conmmity Gordon was aware of these problems also. All of these concerns were expressed in the meeting. The meeting schedule established applies tremendous pressure to the architect and I am quite concerned that he will not be given the time to fully research design options and to reach a solution sensitive to all concerns. The project is too important to the Town to rush through. I hope to review the progress of the project on my next trip. • s cc: Mr. Allen Gerstenbe7rger Ms. Diana Toughill e a • Royston Hanamoto Beek & Abey October 17, 1977 Mr. Terrell J. Minger Thwn Manager Town of Vail P.O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Gondola One : Design Review Dear Terry: on Tuosday, October 11, 1977, Gordon Pierce flew out to review with me his progress drawings on Gondola One. 1 was pleased with the direction. My comments are: 1. The deletion of the lowest condominium unit, labeled No. 1 on the drawing, frees the total lower space of the large building for skier activities. This permits better arrange- ment of eating, viewing and ticket sales spaces and has the potential of extending a plaza like design throughout the total ground floor. The design possibilities are excellent and it seems that there is room for things such as a great fireplace, skier lockers, relaxing space, colorful banners . and posters, and a true center of the skier environment. 2. There is adequate space for a central storage and delivery room below-grade. Apparently; other merchants on Bridge Street are more receptive to sharing the use of such.an area. The quality of Bridge Street would improve if delivery vehicles are eliminated 3, The mass of the two buildings is still large. Gordon has many thoughts in revision of roof form and wall alignment to reduce the apparent scale of the structure. The best architectural solution may require the deletion of the equivalent of the floor space of one condominium to achieve an acceptable design. The presence of the 20 foot easement on the west side allows freedom in the architecture and permits tree planting. This solves one of my serious concerns. T andscape Architects: Land Planning Urban Design Park Planning Environmental Planning Principals: Robert Royston FASLA Asa Hanamoto ASLA Eldon Beck ASLA . Kazuo Abey ASLA Louis G. Alley AIA Patricia Carlisle ASLA Associates: Harold N. Kobayashi ASLA Robert T. Batterton ASLA George W. Girvin ASLA Robert S. Sena ASLA 225 Miller Avenue Mill Valley California 94941 415 383 -7900 r CJ Mr. Terrell J. Minger -- 2 -- October 17, 1977 4. The mass of the structures is more solvable if two additional condominiums were deleted, one from the north, one from the south building. However, if skier facilities are superbly resolved, if the central storage facility can work, and if the scale and bulk of the building can be successfully resolved without loss of units, T would be inclined to respond more favorably. The architect should be given every opportunity to solve the design problem before we require building size reduction. 5. The location of the central plaza, design of grade changes, and overall circulation is improved from our last meeting. I'll keep in touch as design progresses. Sincerely ROYSTON, HANAHM, BECK & ABBY Eldon Beck bh cc: Mr. Allen Gerstenberger Mr. Gordon pierce Mr. Charles Langhoff Ms. Diana Toughill Mr. W. Allan Macrossie 3030 Booth Creek Drive Vail, Colorado !( 81657 October 4, 1977 Dear Mr. Macrossie, 6, You have requested that I put in writing some of my is thoughts pertaining to the proposed redevelopment of the Gondola I building as presented to Plaza Lodge, Inc. by •' Vail Associates, Inc. and its architects. Consequently, I would like to make the following observations and suggestions. First, and perhaps the most significant deterrent to the project from Plaza's viewpoint, is the fact that the ' building site was originally chosen because of its pro - ;s ximity to Gondola I; adjacent to a plaza where the skiing public necessarily gathered and from which the building derived its name of Plaza. In 1967 when Mrs. Hill acquired the property from its original owners the most important ii consideration taken into account by both interests was } its location. Since.the open plaza had been in use since it the inception of Vail Village (an obvious point of orientation in the building of neighboring structures) there was no reason to doubt that the plaza in question would always form the skiers entranceway to the mountain by means of the Gondola -- and where else in the North American continent was there a gondola like Gondola I! Now we have learned that there will never again be a Gondola I (which conclusion we are not fully ready to swallow and digest) and that a large part of our plaza may be covered by a building which would be quite harmful to our northwest lodging facilities and ground floor tenants. ,y The above is not to say that Plaza Lodge, Inc. will refuse to cooperate with V.A. in the profit development of its property. We will in every way help and encourage the development of their land providing that it is not at the expense of losing the equities we possess in the plaza itself or most of the view, light, space and air we thought to have secured by purchase of the Plaza building in its location with respect to the Gondola (I) and its approaches. In that connection the following suggestions are offered. No one, to my knowledge, questions or plans to question V.A.'s title to the land comprising the Gondola I site or 50 feet to the Plaza building. the plaza constituting its approaches. However Plaza _ Lodge, Inc. wants all to know that it claims equitable C. easement rights in the said plaza and in the existence of buildings should compete with tenants presently Gondola I, although the latter is not a question before us now. promise should be binding on the assigns of V.A. The above is not to say that Plaza Lodge, Inc. will refuse to cooperate with V.A. in the profit development of its property. We will in every way help and encourage the development of their land providing that it is not at the expense of losing the equities we possess in the plaza itself or most of the view, light, space and air we thought to have secured by purchase of the Plaza building in its location with respect to the Gondola (I) and its approaches. In that connection the following suggestions are offered. F. All construction materials should be of good quality, designed and calculated to complement the surrounding buildings. There may be other suggestions that will come to mind in which case F will send them on to you immediately. . Sincerely, Plaza Lodge, Inc. r Counsel and Director A. The northernmost building should be.only one storey above basement level and no closer than 50 feet to the Plaza building. e B. Above ground level there should be no connecting i walkway between the two proposed buildings. C. None of the commercial tenants of the proposed buildings should compete with tenants presently leasing space in the Plaza building and such promise should be binding on the assigns of V.A. D. Construction dates should be agreed upon and no construction should continue during the official ski season. F. All construction equipment, material and labor force should enter the construction site from the southwest side of the property and should not be housed on the east side of the proposed building site. F. All construction materials should be of good quality, designed and calculated to complement the surrounding buildings. There may be other suggestions that will come to mind in which case F will send them on to you immediately. . Sincerely, Plaza Lodge, Inc. r Counsel and Director Pi,eas a ac3V i Se rrve LJhGn, l' P ftoo),eNq Con+^"'%'''"`" ''"+Vi ''' MR9. JOHN L. TYLER Schecovkot -� 4$25 SOUTH $'AIRFAX T,AN� 1. %1 virtli . T,S7TLETON, COLORADO 80121 )1 � Wov .2 'o 1�0►na ken LAaV "j TrCA e� r�cli i�or � adaP� pa per.) Vi a Ve ttnt' 3a ve iG. +tbpCd m W agtx� W,,+C, Cn ?iy o V-- tiocs $riGl nrurolp* oe � ro ,� Ole Va I Tea Q r+ P Pi0 IC - bOLJSU-'�4 ,..e0 r CA C)Lj r �plA� Ykjo a. 15 T ovember 12, 1977 Dear Editor: In the Novemhor 4th issue of the Vail Trail you reported on the preliminary plans for the Gondola I building remodelling and the additional building to the north of it. I am dismayed to think that Vail Associates plans to build 3z and 4Z story buildings in such a limited area. I know they would not consider leaving an open space in the village if they can make ;Honey instead, but I think they are shortsighted to compact so much in so little. The model is available for viewing at Briner, Pierce and Scott in the Crossroads Building. The modern design is not in character with the alpine flavor of the village. The glass walkways connecting the upper levels of the two buildings remind me of downtown Denver. The parking situation is unrealistic. What condo- minium owner is going to use a push cart to load and unload from the Christiania parking lot? One space per unit is inadequate. I hone the Fire Dopt. will be able to stop this . project. In fact I dontt even see how the construction trucks could enter the area. Hopefully the Forest Service will not give permission to encroach on their land for the access to the buildings. M-iy should Vail Associates expect an easement onto public land ? It will be unsafe for skiers and hikers to have traffic in that area. Your editorial itTherets a limit !t' published in the same editionspeaks for many people. We certainly must urge VA to "temper their capitalistic eagerness with a little common sense.It How can they, in good conscience, propose adding so significantly to the density of the village ? It:ls unthinkable and I plan to notify as many people as time permits to fight this project. Anyone wishing to assist, may reach me at Box 457, Vail, or 303 -771- -0275. 1 feel . justified in taking this stand because I am an Eagle County taxpayer. Sincerely, .S c am. ' • TZ i i e r 0 Janet W. Tyler • u • w Please read the enclosed article concerning the proposed plans for the Gondola I building; and the additional building;. If you feel as I do, that you wish to take a stand against this project, please do any or all of the following: t:ri:te the Planning Commission Write the Vail Trail and Villager Write the Town Council or individual members thereof. Attend meetings concerning this development If it gets to Design Review, fight it there. lie specific in your objections; Density - height - design -- use of space - esthetics Do' we want more condominiums ? Can the mountain support more beds in town-? We need light and air in the core village de need «`,Eking space for daytime tourists This is one of the last open spaces in the vilage Time is a factor. Please act quickly. Identify yourself as a taxpayer, homeowner or whatever. The Editorial frorn the Vail Trail might interest you also. Thanks for your support. November 8, 1977 Janet W. Tyler 4825 So. Fairfax Lane Littleton, Colo. 80121 303 -771- -0725 385 Forest Rd. Vail 303 -476 -5590 s November 1, 1977 - s Town of Vail Planni..ng Commission Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: I would urge this Town Planning Commission.to review plans regarding. the.. "Development. of the.'Gondola I Building i.n V01 Village" with consi dera'bl.e care, taking into account the serious mistake's made in Lion's Head,,now necessitating redesign of that center. I do not doubt that redesign of Lion's Head is econo- mically Justified. The reasons propounded to me are over - concentration and sterile atmosphere. These facts (if they are facts)., are best expressed by" two friends, each eminently qualified to assess the future of Vail Village. The first said, "The difference between Vai 1. Vi l 1 age, and Lion's Head i`s that" the former was built by people, and the latter by architects " He is an architec't." The second said, "What" we have in Vail Vi 11 aig "e i s our - - Ransel and Gretal Schma'1 t1 %` He is a busi-nessma-n -w7 tYF- considerable acumen and .a 'Tong history of success in our village. These observations were made. to me well over a year. ago, without -foreknowledge of the present "Vail Associates project. I repeal them because they seem to apply: parti- cularly to today's problems. With regard to our "Hansel and Greta'l Schmaltz," nothing was more ,mourned by our tourists -- or.more 'photographed" than the little belfry atop the Rucksack. It was. very, very good business. Plaza Lobae Box 6S, Vail,:ColoRzaao. 816S7- (3a3) 476 -41S0 We who make our living in Vail are in the entertainment business, whether we like it or not. We are not self constituted arbiters of public taste, but eager public servants serving recreational needs as best.we can with varying sensitivity and varying success.. Surely someone should.learn a lesson from Lion's }lead sufficient to prevent the same mistakes, retroactively, in a successful Vail Village! People are different, of course, and it is to this variabi- lity that my architect friend ascribes the unique char- acter of our village as opposed to Lion's Headt Never- theless, Vail Village does have an alpine.character. What then are we doing with a 'gun barrel' tower in a . projected new center of Vail? The design and shape are. all too familiar to those acquainted with refineries and their surrounding tank forms. In the barrel oil is separated from sludge - a smelly affair: Whoever envisioned glassed -in walkways in an Alpine village, however beautiful that may be in Manhattan or Houston? My lodge is very small. But I think a.thousand tourists during a ski season is perhaps a fair sampling.of village trade and I can substantiate the ,fact that our visitors pay dearly to escape the 'gun barrels' and between building walkways of the city for a fairy tale vacation in fantasy land. The original theme of Vail Vfllage works very well on upper Bridge Street. It would seem most unwise to unsettle a stable community by approving an incongrpo-us additton, without examining very, very carefully the faults requiring redesign in Lion's Head Sincerely, THE PLAZA LODGE S Joanne Hill President - ® Vail Planning Commission Vail, Col ora`do 81657 November 16, 197`7 Gentlemen: I would like to point out certain facts relative to the redevel- gpment of the Gondola I building and its former appro.a,ches before a decision is made by tne.Town Planning. Commission which will probably prove.irrevocable.. Many agree with me that we in. the core of Vail Village,. are rapidly approaching a point of no return with respect to defense of the life s,tyl.e we. chose in a compatibIll e atmosphere we helped to create. For some of us l..oss.of property values and economic hardship are of real concern as well. Having always supposed that a Town Planning - Commission came into existence as an objective body beyond tie influence of special interests, and therefore capable of long,ra.nge thinking in the area of varied public needs, I hope that you are taking into': "" consideration the implementation of the Mall Act in conjunction with the proposed Vail Associates project. As a practical matter, omitting 'a.little' more than 9.;000 9tgg,are feet for food services, storage and offices (as' well as th<.;ir very. large delivery.and garbage disposal re:qutrgments) the Plaza Building and the projected Vail Associates buildings are very close equivalents: You will want to think In terms of an additional. 264,7411 Items per year for.retail sale` alone am.ountin:g to more than 44,.700 extra manl -oads when normal maintenance trips in a trouble -%Free year are added. The Plaza lodging facility (open only 2.0 weeks yearly) might approximate. the larger residential area in.the proposed Vail Associates building in •delivery and maintenance reg4 rements to a normally trouble -free year. 5,600 man- Toads:should be added, making a total of over 50,300 in exces's:of what-we have today. Plaza Lobge, Box G$,1/oil, Colorzaao S1GS7- (303) 476-4-150 In hand -cart loads, I project more than 25,000 "extras" which must still be unloaded by two men -- or one man in two trips. One must consider not only additional congestion on Bridge Street (particularly should the Forest Service deny permission for commercial and condominium deliveries and services from the southern end of the complex) but the adequacy of existing and projected passageways for pedestrian and barrow or golf cart traffic. Last, but not least, the hand labor involved would put many a good citizen out of business in favor of the corporate shelter - seekers or individual fortune - hunters who beseige me weekly. It seems to me poor planning not to take these would -be ravagers of our up- swinging stable community into realistic view. Progress is a `great thing as long as one has a careful defini- tion of the word. If ;there must be an interim of inquiry it is a good maxim not to knock what works. The core of Vail Village works at.present' and tt is a quite possible that the Plaza building is a good barometer in forecasting the future health of upper Bridge Street. Even with a shift of Village Center, I cannot see a focus on Wall Street and only deterioration at the.Eastern boundary where there would be no.motivation for improvement of outlook on a dark icy alley inaccessible to emergency or public servicei vehicles. I doubt if there is anyone on the Vail Planning Commission today who has read the Protective Covenants of Vail Village, First Filing, as of August 10, 1962. My purchase of Plaza was predicated on the validty of that docu- ment not quite ten years ago. Ten years seems a very short time in which to peremptorily negate an important part of a contract of sale. It is my hope that your Commission will indeed live up to.expecta- tions for wise and practical future planning, providing in your thinking for what is demonstrably and economically workable (and what is not) in our Vail Village. No one, to my knowledge, envies you your decision. It might not only change the character of the life we knew, but pose questions as to derivation of legal authority for changing same. • IZOEERT S. ENGEI.MAN 2 N. RIVERSIDE PLAZA CHICAGO. ILL.. 60606 TEL.: 2633393 November 21, 1977 Vail. Planning Commission Vail Town Council Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Sirs: As an owner of a house on Forest Road, a resident of Vail. for 13years and an owner of approximately 33,000 square feet on Forest Road, I wish to voice my objection to the planned redevelopment in con- nection with the old Gondola building in the Village. I believe Vail is over -- developed for the recreational facilities available; that we are fast dissipating the open spaces which was our original attraction for Vail; that the parking congestion is presently a large problem in the Village without more buildings and beds and that the low profile of the Village has been damaged enough without adding to the injury. I want to register my protest against the present plan. 53 nce Y, ' Robes S. 'Engel n I RSE/msh I 4 Taw 17 November 1977 Town of Vail Planning Commission Vail., Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: I note with concern the proposed redevelopment project by Vail Associates on the site of the former terminal for Gondola I. My personal opinion of the proposed structures is that they are excessive and fundamentally inappropriate for the area. This is a purely subjective observation, however, and not the point that I would like to address in this letter. . Although I well realize that philosophical considerations rarely assume much influence in business decisions, I feel that there are some basic concepts concerning Vail and its future which merit serious consideration prior to granting approval for this project. The most serious problem in Vail currently is overdevelopment of base facitlities in relation to the skiier capacity of Vaal mountain. It is only necessary to recall the truly intolerable lift lines which developed in March of 1976 to verify this fact. The steps taken to alleviate this situation, which include lift capacity increases and blocking out the Payless pass for a week in March, will certainly help. Although last season no major lift line problems occured, it was hardly a year that can be deemed typical. In brief, the changes to date are insufficient to prevent a recurrence of intolerable lift lines. if t office box 1805 • zip 81657 we elves reside in ra a post p • 0 • The Vail visitor deserves a first class quality ski experience in exchange for a $ 14.00 per day lift ticket. If all the beds serving Vail mountain are filled (as they again will be during a busy season), Vail mountain will be so saturated with skiiers that lift lines will exceed an hour every- where on the mountain. Anyone who does not believe that this can and probably will occur again is simply naive. In sum, what Vail needs most at this point in time is less development of condominiums, and more development of the mountain. I am not questioning the overall fine quality of mountain management that is the cornerstone of Vail Associates' policy. i am asserting thatL the largest corporation in Vail, and the only one with the ability to do anything at all to increase skiier capacity on Vail mountain, should not be setting an example for the community of continuing development in Vail's most overdeveloped area -- condominiums. Vail needs more lifts. Vail needs more long term employee oriented housing. Vail does not need more high rise buildings, more very expensive condominiums for short term rental, or morecommercial space in the Village core. It is not the responsibility of corporate officers trying to devise ways to maximize profits to ascertain and deal with the needs of Vail. It is unequivocally the responsibility of the Planning commission to ascertain and deal with these needs. Sincerely, Da kd Dasse (Mana r, Der Ski ister) 4 • Mr. Edmund Drager Chatrman 11at1 Pi anning Commission P.O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 - Dear Ed: T would 1 i ke- to_.address .mysel.f.. to some of the potential problems wKtch have to be resolved , before any redevelopment of the Gondola T site shout a be ; approved; even at the Planning Commission level.. Aesthetically, t feel that Vail cannot afford tkts project, espectally as there 1s.no shortage of luxury condominiums _ nor of retail space. What there is a shortage of is open space in..the CCI area`. However, this is personal opinion, so I will. point out a few considerations of which you may be. unaware. First, you may not know that Plaza Lodge and Cortlandt. Hill own all of the alley which currentl -y serves as access for the Gondola T site. Plaza Lodge owns the majority of the land, 10.9 feet to be exact. Hatt Associates states that they have a 20' easement through this alley., but Plaza Lodge is not.aware of any easement across their land, and none is recorded, in Eagle, although it is'possiole that such an.ease� ment does exist. It is important for the Commission to determine any easement rights, as the V.A. property is otherwise 'Tandlocked. I feel safe in saying that -no member of the Pl.arning Commission is really aware of the boundaries of the various abutting owners and that an on::=Is i to inspe.cti on with a survey should be made by the Commission. For examnpl e, are you aware that Plaza Lodge owns a 19.6 foot strip d-"r ctly to the west 'of the south- west corner of the Plaza Building? This strip`.runs that distance from the Plaza Building tow ar.d the ticket office it is my further understanding that no survey of the abutting property, 'owners has been undertaken to determine f Laza LoNe, Box M, l/ait, Colorzaao .816_17 (303.) 476 -4SS0 • Page Two their own redevelopment plans, if any. In light of 11atl's zero set -back requirement for CCi -, this is Hof great importance, particularly with respect to the Lodge at Vail.. Thts should. be done before C.ommi ssi on approval is granted. The Commission should also undertake a study. of ti fe legal consequences of continually granting parking variances for new construction, especially as Vail. Associates may apply for a 100% variance. The Planning Commis,si.on sh.oul d also .b.e aware that. there is.a possibility that the Vail Institute would like to bt'd on the property in ques�t;i on, and` that it has substantial ftnanc al backing to do so. And finally, the Commission should be aware that there is a serious question .as to' the 1 egal i ty of grantT ng approval for any new projects, as long as the Town of Vail is not in compliance with all federal and state water quality standards. For the above reasons, I respectfully suggest that the Planning Commission delay any, approval of.this project. Sincerely yours, Brian Q'Rei17y Manager B0' R /ks Fj • Ll AGENDA VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1977 1. Landmark - Request for setback variance and parking variance for the addition of commercial space to the existing building. 2. Discussion of proposed employee housing in the Vail Club 3. Jen Wright McAllister property - parking proposal for tennis club. 1 CI • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1977 3:00 P.M. Board Members Present: Staff Members Present: Board Members Absent: Ron Todd Scott Hopman Pam Garton Ed Drager Sandy Mills Gerry White (arrived late) Diana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger Dudley Abbott Landmark - Request for Setback Variance and Parking Variance or t e Addition o Commercia Space to t e xist�ng Burl ing Application has been made by Jay Peterson, representing Land- mark Commercial Development Company, for a 26 car parking variance and a setback variance in order to permit a 7,093 square foot addition to the existing Landmark commercial space. A memo dated December 13, 1977 to the Planning Commission from the Department of Community Development summarizes the proposed additions and parking requirements. Jeff Selby of Landmark made an oral summary to the Commissioners. After a discussion, Ron Todd made a motion that approval be granted for the setback variance. The motion was seconded by Scott Hopman and passed by a vote of 4 to 1 (Sandy Mills voted against it). Gerry White did not vote as he was absent at the time of the voting. Ron Todd made a motion and it was seconded by Pam Garton that the parking variance be granted with the condition that the Landmark Commercial Development Company provide 26 parking spaces if parking survey statistics indicate they are neces- sary at any time in the future (as outlined in the memo from the Department of Community Development to the Planning Com- mission dated December 13, 1977). MINUTES Page 2 Discussion of Proposed Employeo Housing in the Vail Club Jay Peterson, Attorney, presented to the Commissioners his pro- posed employee housing in the Vail Club consisting of four studio units of 1,166 square feet. He requested that the ex- isting variance be amended to include three more parking spaces (from 16 to 19). Jay Peterson feels that the Vail Club needs this housing for the employees who will be working at the Club, as housing is so difficult to find in Vail. Sandy Malls felt that this request should be republished before amending this variance. However, according to Larry Rider the Town Attorney, the variance does not have to be republished. Ron Todd made a motion to amend the parking variance for the Vail Club from 16 spaces to 19 parking spaces subject to the fact that those spaces (the three additional spaces) may be used only for the employee housing useage and cannot be applied to other useages and subject to a written contract with the Town that the four units in question will be used only for em- ployee housing. Scott Hopman seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of four to one.(Sandy Mills opposed. it.) Jen Wright - McAllister Property harking Proposal for Tennis lu Jennings Wright of Vail Resort Development, Ltd., asked for approval of a parking plan in conjunction with a conditional use permit, previously granted, to allow a private club on the "McCallister Property." His memorandum to the Department of Community Development and Planning Commission outlined his pro- posed development. At this meeeting, Jon presented his site plan to the Planning Commission and what he feels are conser- vative parking requirements for the tennis club. The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit last fall subject to review of the site plan and parking requirements for the tennis club. Ron Todd made a motion and Pam Garton seconded it for the ac- ceptance of 47 spaces as being satisfactory for the private club on the "McCallister Property" knowing that if the parking is inadequate, that more space would be provided. All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion and it was carried. Scott Hopman made the first motion to approve the November 29, 1977 Planning Commission Minutes. Sandy Mills seconded it, and the motion was carried with a unanimous vote. MINUTES Page 3 Scot Hopman made a motion to approve the November 29, 1977 Planning Commission minutes. Sandy Mills seconded it, and the motion carried with a unanimous vote. Pam Garton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Ron Todd and voted on unanimously by the rest of the members of the Commission. • 0 • • TO: Department of Community Development Planning Commission Town of Vail FROM: Jennings Wright, Vail Resort Development, Ltd. SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit k Vail Resort Development, Ltd., is asking for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a private club on the "McCallister Property -" Project Demographics • Developer and Owner Property Vail Resort Development, Ltd. Jennings Wright _ General Partners Fitz Scott "McCallister Site" - Located adjacent to Sandstone and Potato Patch area e Zoning Residential Cluster - 6 units /acre e Site Approximately 11 acres • Access Sandstone Road Pro osed Develo ment It is proposed that the property be developed as an exclusive residential complex with a tennis and swimming facility. The proposed development will consist of the following: e 41 - Homes (Duplex Design) Approximately 2000 SF /unit - Parking Requirement - 2 cars /unit Compliance - 1 car garage 1 space adjacent to garage 0 - 3 phases (3/4 years) • I• Ll w N) -� n Q Q a a T 3E p j0 7 X J. a pi :E o 0 09 rD Z a r+ ro .O C) rD c r n to CL Lr co J a I CL a Ull cr r+ c o ro M x -+1 fi `. `� -� N n o ro 0 a ro a c -w a an O• CD N C C (D �-'•�� i, a 0. ro tin Di a N -}fin+. (n R+ J or . a O I �G O < 7 CD a • n c • r% c -h rrDD O a ca. a �+ r+ rD U v (D o 9n r0) 0 zyr ..-1. cr M TJ Lo IA :M � I a a CL L4 �L n ro Q co N N W \ CD 0 co <D N C, c 40 a r+ m a- a �. N < CD LA r. CA C+ V co .a Q 0o W ro rD ., a a � n Ln gill J rn N A L" W i+ .. J p N M LA tD cr La ro m J � � O N a A W `� X 7 CO c0 co Cp N -0 '•-� (A CD CL 'a n n O fU C17 a S ID C: w N) -� n Q Q a a T 3E p j0 7 X J. a pi :E o 0 09 rD Z a r+ ro .O C) rD c r n to CL Lr co J a I CL a Ull cr r+ c o ro M x -+1 fi `. `� -� N n o ro 0 a ro a c -w a an O• CD N C C (D �-'•�� i, a 0. ro tin Di a N -}fin+. (n R+ J or . a O I �G O < 7 CD a • n c • r% c -h rrDD O a ca. a �+ r+ rD U v (D o 9n r0) 0 zyr ..-1. cr M TJ Lo IA :M � I a a CL L4 �L M r•� Z C7 -G `O CO --1 S rn U) M -r1 n r I� Q co N N W \ CD 0 co <D N C, CD 40 O N M r•� Z C7 -G `O CO --1 S rn U) M -r1 n r I� O CD 40 O CD V proms .a Q 0o W n a Ln rn N A L" W i+ p N M LA tD cr La ro m � � a ro I I I (A (A CL 'a n n I fU C17 a ro ro y rD (D ao CA M r•� Z C7 -G `O CO --1 S rn U) M -r1 n r I� 0 Jennings Wright, Vail Resort Devolopment, 1. td. Page 2 0 t3 - Tennis courts 0 l - 25' meter swimming pool, diving pool, kids wading pool 0 Club (louse - 4000 SF includes: - Men's and Women's Lockers - Childrens Lockers - Restaurant and Bar - 50 seats - Pro Shop The Club will be owned by the Condominium /Homeowner Association (undivided interest) and leased to the Vail Athletic Club for operations. The Vail Athletic Club membership will use the facility. All hoiiw Owner's will be members of the Vail Athletic Club. Parking for Club Facility The site is large enough to accommodate sufficient parking for the proposed facility. in order to meet the parking use of the facility, the applicant • proposed the following: 1. Review "maximum and hypothetical use of facility." 2. Site plan includes 45 cars for parking with additional area to the west of interior road for potential increase, if use requires. 3. Developer realizes that the home vs. club facility may cause conflicts with use of parking. Developer may ask for additional parking if use requi res. 4. Developer observes that Town tennis courts (Golden Peak) have very few cars parked for summer use except for special occasions. Other Planning Considerations 1. Realignment and landscaping of Sandstone Road 2. Pedestrian /Bicycle access to Pedestrian Overpass 3. Landscaping of USFS lands n MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1977 RE: LANDMARK BUILDING REQUEST FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SETBACK VARIANCE. Application has been made by Jay Peterson, representing Landmark Commercial. Development Company, for a 26 car parking variance and a setback variance in order to permit a 7093 square foot addition to the existing Landmark commercial space. Following is a summary of proposed additions and parking requirements: Kostas Taverena Le Cadeau Colorado Insight Cabbage & Kings New Shop General Store Square Feet Parking Required 754.0 5.03 1,308.0 4.36 2,262.5 7.54. 541.5 1.80 380.0 1.27 11847.5 6.16 7,093.5 26.16 or 26 The applicant can provide the required parking on site and the 507o covered parking requirement can be met by existing underground parking in excess of that required by ordinance (85% of parking is covered) . Parking utilization statistics indicate that an average of only 5270 of the existing parking is being used; this leaves approximately 43 spaces which have not been needed to serve the existing building. Based on these statistics, we recommend that the applicant not be required to provide the 26 spaces, but that the Town reserve the right to require the construction of the 26 spaces in the future if it is determined by the Planning Commission they are necessary based on parking surveys conducted by the Town. We feel it would be better to retain existing landscaping rather than require unneccessary asphalt. The applicant has also requested a setback variance on the south, west, and east sides of the proposed building. Required setbacks are 28' which is due to the height of the existing building (approximately 701). Existing setbacks are West -30', East -231, and South -491; proposed setbacks . are West -21', East -10', and South -15'. PAGE 2 Landmark Parking Variance All other zoning requirements have been met. The addition makes o g re q the building more conforming in that it provides offsets in a 120' long, unbroken wall. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS (SECTION 18.62.060) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. After a thorough review of the Lionshead area, it is our conclusion that a comparable addition is not possible on any other building. The Department of Community Development is preparing legislation which will recommend that pedestrian scale additions be allowed in CC2 to enable retail shops to expand toward the pedestrian mall. The proposed addition is surrounded on three sides by pedestrian mall. We then feel we can justify removal of parking for aesthetic reasons to obtain more landscaping. There have been no parking variances granted in the Lionshead area except those removed to allow more landscaping. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. Strict interpretation of the ordinance would not allow the proposed building addition on the site. A number of parking variances have been granted in Lionshead (Vail International, Sunbird, Montaneros, Lodge at Lionshead, Studio in the Rockies) to allow for more landscaping. In every case, the parking could be provided but landscaping was more desirable in meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Every building in Lionshead developed prior to 1974 is within 15' of their property line. The Sunbird Lodge, located directly south of the proposed addition received a variance for zero setbacks on the north, east and west property lines and Montaneros on the west was also granted a zero setback on the north side. There appears to be no adverse impact created by the proposed addition as it is approximately 50' from its nearest neighbor. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. A positive impact could be created pertaining to distribution of Ispopulation. The Lionshead area is in critical need of commercial activity to draw people through the mall system and create interest in the area. We foresee no adverse impacts on other factors. �I LJ • • PAGE 3 Landmark Parking Variance FINDINGS- The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. SEE ITEMS I AND 2 UNDER CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS. Grant of the parking, and setback variance request is consistent with treatment of other sites in the area. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. We feel the project would have a very positive impact on the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to any other properties in the vicinity. It begins to create pedestrian scale retail space which we feel is badly needed to make Lionshead work better. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordiance. The setback regulations are designed to guarantee adequate separation between buildings and adequate open space - both of these intents have been met. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. SEE ITEMS 1 AND 2 UNDER CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variances with the condition that the 26 parking spaces be provided if parking survey statistics indicate they are necessary at any time in the future. i MEMO TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 19, 1977 RE: VAIL CLUB REQUEST TO AMEND PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW ADDITION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING. The Vail Club has requested that their parking variance for 16 cars granted in December 1976 be amended by the addition of 3 additional parking spaces or a total of a 19 parking space variance to allow the addition of 4 employee housing units consisting of 1,166 square feet of GRFA. Parking required could theoritically be provided on site, but the variance amendment is being requested on the basis of substituting landscaping. Planning Commission felt that the Vail Club must enter into a contract with the Town to restrict the use of the 4 units • to employees only for as long as the facility exists and that any additional parking which could be provided on the site not be used for the purpose of justifying any additional parking variances. The Planning Commission further requested that actual employee parking be provided on the McAllister site on a long term basis, which has been agreed upon by both parties. • is 10 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DECEMBER 20, 1977 1. Hazard Zoning - Discussion of proposed ordinance relating to building and hazard areas. 2. Glen Lyon - Consideration of final subdivision plat. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS COMMERCIAL CORE 1 (CC1) DISTRICT SECTION 18.24.060 Conditional Uses - Generally The following uses and building additions shall be permitted, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.24.070 and Chapter 18.60: E. Any building addition which adds 150 square feet or more of floor area. 18.24.130 Density Not more than 150 square feet of floor area shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area. 18.24.180 Parking and Loading Off - street parking shall not be required. Off- street �. loading shll be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. COMMERCIAL CORE 2 (CC2) DISTRICT 18.26.070 Setbacks The minimum front setback shall be 10 feet, the minimum side setback shall be 10 feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be 10 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional front, side, and rear setback shall be required for each 3 feet of building height over 15 feet. A maximum of 50 percent of the length of any wall fronting an established pedestrian mall may encroach into a required front or side setback provided that the portion of the structure encroaching on the setback is no more than 15 feet in height. 18.26.150 Parking and Loading Off- street parking shall be provided in accord with Chapter 18.52 for accommodation units, dwelling units, professional and business offices, theaters, and any use listed as a conditional use. Page 2 Proposed Amendments 0 18,52.110 Parking Schedule Applicability Where fractional requirements result from application of the schedule, the fraction shall be rounded to the next higher whole number. • L -1 140. MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: DECEMBER 20, 1977 RE: PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS TO CCl AND CC2 The proposed amendments for CCI attempt to address the goals which have been expressed by the Planning Commission, the Council and the staff. The primary objectives seem to be retaining the existing character of the Village through control of expansion and pedestrian- ization in so far as possible. A combination of existing regulations and proposed amendments should achieve the desired control. Existing controls include: 16 1. Horizontal zoning which requires a conditional use permit for changing an accomodation unit or dwelling unit to any other use. 2. Building bulk control which limits size and shape of buildings. 3. Height limit of 35 feet Proposed amendments add further controls as follows: 1. Floor area ratio of 1.5 to l - a study of existing buildings in CCI indicates that the average F.A.R. is 1.9 to 1 and that only five buildings are below 1.5 to 1 (A & I Building 1.4, Gondola Ski Shop .96, Red Lion ,77, Slifer Building 1.0, Hill Building .74) A total of 24,375 square feet could theoretically be added to these five buildings; however, given other development criteria (Section 18.24.070) provided for review of conditional use permits in CCI, we have Page 2 Proposed Zoning Amendments to CC1 and CC2 0 the flexibility to approve or disapprove building additions based on their own merit. 2. Building additions in CC1 in excess of 150 square feet of floor area require a Conditional Use Permit to be reviewed in accord with the following factors; 1. Effects of vehicular traffic on commercial core 1 district; 2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in commercial core 1 district; 3. Reduction of nonessential off - street parking; 4. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles; 5. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians; 6. Continuanace of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in commercial core 1 district so as to maintain the existing character of the area; 7. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in commercial core 1 district so as to maintain the existing character of the area; S. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment of commercial core 1 district. (Ord. 16(1975) 4.) 3. We have proposed that the parking requirement in CC1 be eliminated. . The proposed CC2 amendments are attempting to accomplish two goals - encourage pedestrian scale commercial additions adjacent to the mall to increase interest in the Lionshead area. The parking Page 3 Proposed Zoning Amendments to CCl and CC2 �J requirement was altered in an attempt to reflect the actual parking demand based on our utilization studies. The Planning Commission may want to consider limiting total building area by an F.A.R. as is being proposed in CC1. Other development controls are similar to those outlined above. • LI S fkUILDING A & I BUILDING CASINO COVERED BRIDGE ST GALLERY GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE GONDOLA SKI SHOP LAZIER ARCADE LODGE AT VAIL MCBRIDE BLDG. MILL CREEK COURT PLAZA BLDG. &ED LION GORE CREEK PLAZA CREEKSIDE BLDG. RUCKSACK SCHWER BLDG. SITZMARK SLIFER & CO. VAIL BLANCHE GASTHOFF GRAMMSHAMMER AVERAGE F.A.R. FLOOR AREA RATIOS IN CCl LOT AREA 6,113 7,692 4,674 3,186 6,928 4,653 7,059 132,521 8,881 9,955 12,837 13,147 7,555 10,194 4,202 4,880 20,000 3,016 13,232 14,269 BLDG AREA 8,572 11,965 11,354 5,600 19,098 4,444 20,600 42,863 15,500 21,104 22,639 7,200 18,000 14,980 5,351 17,500 33,800 1 ,250 4,180 37,609 1970 F.A.R. POSSIBLE CURRENT EXPANSION ADDITION F.A,R �.d5... F A.R 1.4/1 - 1.4/1 597 1.6/1 972 1.7/1 -- 2.4/1 2,364 2.9/1 - 1.8/1 - 1.8/1 2.8/1 - 2.8/1 - •96/1 2,535 .96/1 INCLUDES ADDN. 1150 2.9/1 116 3.1/1 - .32/1 165,302 1.5/1 -- 1.75/1 - 1.8/1 - 2.12/1 - 2.1/1 - 1.9/1 1,509 1.9/1 - .54/1 3,015 .77/1 9,655 2.4/1 1,220 2.5/1 - 1.5/1 800 1.5/1 - 1.3/1 820 1.5/1 - 3.59/1 400 3.7/1 - 261 1.7/1 - 1.7/1 - .4/1 1,800 1.0/1 1,474 .32 153 .74/1 10,115 2.63/1 - 2.6/1 - 1 1.9/1 24,376 f U • PARKING MONITORING PROGRAM (1977 -78) In conjunction with Vail Associates on the mountain survey, the Town staff will be compiling information on the occupancy characteristics of the public and private parking lots in the Vail Village /Lionshead areas. On the eleven days listed below, a complete count will be done of all the public and private lots in the Village and Lionshead areas. The dates for this count are: December 28; January 8, 16, 28; February 11, 19, 24; March 9, 21, 26; and April 1. (These days are also the days when Vail Associates will be conducting their on the mountain surveys). Another part of the parking monitoring program for this year will be the conducting of interviews in Town. These interviews will try to define the characteristics of those people not skiing. The information from this survey will be combined with information from Vail Associates mountain surveys. This will hopefully give us a better understanding of the skier to non -skier ratio and parking characteristics for both the visitors and locals on the mountain and in Town. Enclosed is a copy of the Vail Associates mountain for this winter. The questionnaire form for the in -Town be similar to this. It will be a random survey, using a point of reference in both the Village and Lionshead and people as they pass this point. survey form survey will certain interviewing MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 1977 3:00 P.M. Board Members Present: Staff Members Present: Ron Todd Scott Hopman Dudley Abbott Ed Drager Sandy Mills Gerry White Pam Garton Diana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger Glen Lyon - Consideration of Final Subdivision Plat At the request of the applicant, a motion was made to postpone this item on the agenda until December 27, 1977 by Gerry White. The motion was seconded by Ron Todd and voted on unanimously by.the rest of the members of the Commission. a r� \J • MEMO TO: PARKING FILE FROM: ALLEN G DATE: 16 DECEMBER 1977 RE: MEETING WITH VA, USES, AND TOWN In attendance: Terry Minger Kent Rose Harry Ziegler Allen Gerstenberger Diana Toughill Jack Marshall Jack Barr Phil Ordway Jim Clark Ernie Nunn Dubois It was agreed that the Town, Vail Associates, and the Forest Service should work together to develop a long -range parking program. This should be done as quickly as possible to begin implementation next summer. It was agreed that the best process would be to develop a set of goals, have them reviewed by the Board of Directors of Va and the Town Council, and develop a work program based on common goals statement. ! The following goals were identified and discussed and generally reed to. (These are directly from my notes and will be re-- drafted review by all parties.) Goals: 1. All parking public parking in the Town should be managed and operated by one entity. 2. Public parking should not discriminate against users based upon why the person is using it. 3. An overall parking program needs to reflect parking requirements of all elements of the community. (Such as day skiers, lodges, restaurants, commercial spaces, etc.) 4. Parking and transportation programs must be coordinated. • • • Page 2 Meeting with VA, USFS, and Town 5. We should seek maximum utilization of all existing parking spaces before building new facilities. 6. We should promote maximum use of public transit.to minimize the need for parking in the core. 7. Those who benefit or use the lots should pay a portion of the expense of constructing and operating the facilities. 8. Parking should be centralized rather than developed as many small scattered lots. 9. The amount of land and area devoted to permanent parking should be minimized. 10. The Town, Vail Associates, the Forest Service and all interested citizens should work together to seek long -range parking solutions. 11. A long -range parking program .(draft) should be completed by March 15th, 1978. The following time schedule was tentatively adopted: 1. Goals statement drafted and sent to each 28 Dec 177 member of the committee 2. Response to goals submitted 6 Jan 178 3. Goals presented to Vail Town Council 17 Jan 178 4. Goals submitted to VA Board of Directors mid Jan '78 5. Committee re- convene 1 Feb '78 6. Draft of 5 year parking demand report prepared by Town staff and submitted 25 Jan 178 to committee members Page 3 Meeting with VA, USFS, and Town • At the February meeting, the committee will develop a work agenda an make task assignments. The work program will depend on the adopted goals and objectives and the projected demand for parking in the future. is • s 10 • I AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION December 27, 1977 1. Resubdivision and Rezoning of Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing - Vail Associates. 2. Request for final plat approval Glen Lyon Subdivision -- Andy Norris I• MEMO TO Planning Commission FROM Department of Community Development DATE December 27, 1977 RE: Proposed Resubdivision and rezoning of Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing Vail Associates has applied for a resubdivision and rezoning of the subject Lot consisting of 3.06 acres. The property is currently zoned LDMF which would allow a maximum of 27 multi - family units; proposed resubdivision and rezoning is two, two- family residential lots (Lot 1 - 62,818 sq. ft., Lot 2 - 70,896 sq. ft.) which would allow a maximum total of four residential units. All technical requirements of the Subdivision Regulations for Minor Subdivisions have been met and the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested resubdivision and rezoning. • 0 MEMO TO Planning Commission FROM Department of Community Development DATE December 27, 1977 RE: Glen Lyon Subdivision Request for Approval of Final Plat Andrew Norris, representing Gore Creek Associates, has requested approval of the Final Plat for the Glen Lyon Subdivision. Both Planning Commission and Town Council approved the Preliminary Plat and the Amendments to SDD4. The final plat is substantially the same as the preliminary plat. Kent Rose has reviewed detailed road profiles and drainage plans, and has requested amendment of road profile as outlined in red on the plans; amended profiles fall within the proposed road right-of-way as platted. Detailed drainage plans are approved as submitted. Bridge plans meet technical requirements of Town of Vail and are in accordance with the flood plain report as outlined in the Environmental Impact report which was previously approved as a part of the approved Development Plan for SDD4. The architectural design . for the bridge must be approved by the Design Review Board. All utilities and other improvements as indicated on the final plat must be installed or constructed prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential or multi- family lot. Access is indicated across the Mansfield Corp. parcel; however, the road must be approved and dedicated prior to issuance of a building permit within Glen Lyon for any residential or multi- family lot. 0 SECTION 3. FINAL PLAT AND SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL The Final Plat and Supplementary Material shall contain the following information: 1, Final Plat. The Final Plat shall be drawn in . India ink or other substantial solution on a. reproducible medium with outer dimension of 24 inches by 36 inches, and shall be at a scale of ornp bundrod feet to one (1) inch or larger. The Plat uluY <.orautitute only that portion of the approv0d Prelirninary Plat proposed for immediate recording. The Final Plat shall show the following: Sa. Descriptions of primary control points to which all dimensions, anjles, bearings, and similar data shall be referred. -17- • 10 I• 10 b. Tract boundary lines, right -of -way lines of streets, easements and other rights -of- way, and. property lines of residential lots and other sites; with accurate dimensions, bearings, or deflection angles, and radii, arcs or chords, and central angles of all curves. c. Name and right -of -way width of each street or other rights -of -way. d. Locations, dimensions and pi.trposcs of any easements. e. Numbers to identify each lot or site, and each block. f. Location and description of monuments. g. Legal description of the property, together with a complbte reference to the book and page of county records . h. Certification of title showing that the sub- divider is the landowner. i. Certification by civil engineer or surveyor certifying to accuracy of survey and plat. j. A siijriature line for Planning k. Name of tic pi-o ponod si&- division or -lII- • I* 1. Title, scale, north arrow, and date. m. Titles: present tract designation according to official records in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder; title under which proposed development is to be recorded, with names and addresses of owners. n. Certificate of the civil engineer or surveyor, who shall be licensed by the Colorado State Board of Examiners for Fngineors and T.�nd Surveyors. o. Other data: notation stating total acreage, scale, north arrow, datum, benchmarks, date of survey. 2, Supplementary Material a. Perpetual drainage easements and protective covenants in form for recording. b. Other data, certificates, affidavits, or ciocuments as may be required by the Planning Commission in the enforcement of these regulations. on PROTECTIVE COVENANTS OF GLEN LYON TOWN OF VAIL EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Gore Creek Associates,_a Rhode Island Limited Partnership is the owner of Glen Lyon, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Land "), more particu- larly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, Gore Creek Associates (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Owner "), desires to place certain restrictions on the use of the Glen Lyon subdivision for the benefit of the owner and its respective grantees, successors or assigns in order to establish and maintain the character and value of real estate in the vicinity of the Town of Vail. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, Gore Creek Associates for itself and its grantees, successors and assigns does hereby impose, establish, publish, acknowledge, declare and agree with, to and for the benefit of all persons who may acquire an interest in any of the tracts or lots in Glen Lyon, whether platted or unplatted, that it owns and holds in Glen Lyon subject to the following restric- tions, covenants,and conditions, all of which shall be deemed to run with the land and to inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the owner, its respective grantees, successors and assigns: • 1. LAND USE The lands in Glen Lyon shall be used for the following purposes: 1.1 Lots 1 through 52 shall be used only for private residences, each to include not more than two primary /secondary dwelling units, as described in the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance, within a single structure as well as an adequate off- street parking area. 1.2 Lot 53 shall be used for multi - family residential purposes and shall have adequate.off- street parking. 1.3 Lot 54 shall be used for business and professional office purposes. 1.4 Tract A shall be used for emergency vehicles, pedes- trian, bicycle and skier access. 1.5 Tracts B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, and the unplatted stream tract may be landscaped and used as a picnic area upon which there may be constructed and maintained picnic tables and benches, park benches, fireplaces, barbecue pits and trash containers. No structure, either temporary or permanent, shall be erected, constructed or permitted to remain on the Subject Tracts, except decorative items consistent with use of the Subject Tracts as a picnic area and except as herein provided; and No part of the Subject Land shall be used for camping; or overnight stays by any person or persons, nor shall there be permitted, within or upon the Subject Tracts, any informal or organized public or private gathering nor any other act by any -2- • person or persons (except as hereinafter.expressly permitted), which in the judgment of any property owner or of the appro- priate officials of the Town, may deface, alter, destroy or damage the natural condition of the vegetation or the aesthetic value of the natural environmental quality of the Subject Land; Improvements necessary, desirable or convenient for the provision and maintenance of utility services may be constructed and maintained through or under the Subject Lands; provided that such improvements shall not cause permanent disruption or alteration to the surface of the Subject Land. Hikers, pedestrians, skiers and bicycles are expressly permitted to travel hereon provided the surface of Subject Land is not unreasonably damaged by said activities. -3- 2. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board as created by Ordinance No. 8, Series 1973, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado (herein called "Design Review Board ") shall approve or reject proposed improvements within the area described in the Map of Glen Lyon of which these restrictive covenants are made a part. 3. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS --OF -WAY 3.1 Easements and rights -of -way for lighting, heating, electricity, gas, telephone, water and sewerage facili- ties, bridal paths, and any other kind of public or quasi - public utility service are reserved as shown on the plat of Glen Lyon. No fence, wall, hedge, barrier, or other improvement shall be erected or maintained on, across or within the areas reserved for easements and rights -of -way, nor in such close proximity thereto -3- as to impair the access to or use thereof. An ease- 0 went for pedestrian use shall exist and is hereby reserved on, over and across those portions of the plat of Glen Lyon, reserved herein for utility service and facilities. 3.2 Easements for drainage purposes are reserved as shown on the plat of Glen Lyon. 3.3 Easements for drainage purposes reserved in these covenants and on the Glen Lyon plat shall be perpetual. 3.4 Easements ad3acent to a lot but outside the boundaries thereof may be appropriately landscaped, subject to the provisions of these covenants, by the owner of the lot, but in the event such landscaping is disturbed by use of the easement, the cost and expense of restoring such landscaping shall be solely that of the owner of the lot. 4. SIGNS No signs, billboards, poster boards or advertising structure of any kind shall be erected or maintained on any lot or structure for any purpose whatsoever, except such signs as have been approved by the Design Review Board as reasonably necessary for the identification of residences and places of business. 5. WATER AND SEWAGE Each structure designed for occupancy or use by human beings shall connect with the water facilities of the Vail 0 Water and Sanitation District and the sewage facilities of the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District. No private well shall -4- be used as a source of water for human consumption or irri- gation in Glen Lyon nor shall any facility other than those provided by the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District be used for the disposal of sewage. Mechanical garbage disposal facilities shall be provided in each kitchen or food preparing area. 6. TRASH AND GARBAGE 6.1 No trash, ashes or other refuse may be thrown or dumped on any land within Glen Lyon. The burning of refuse out of doors shall not be permitted in Glen Lyon. No incinerator or other device for the burning of refuse indoors shall be constructed, in- stalled or used by any person. Each property owner shall provide suitable receptacles for the collection of refuse. Such receptacles shall be screened from public view and protected from dis- turbance. 6.2 As used in this Section 6, "trash, garbage or rubbish" shall include waste, rejected, valueless or worthless matter, materials and debris, useless, unused, un- wanted, or discarded articles from an ordinary house- hold, waste from the preparation, cooking, and con- sumption of food, market refuse, waste from the handling, storage, preparation or sale of produce, tree branches, twigs, grass, shrub clippings, weeds, leaves, and other general yard and garden waste materials; but shall not include food or food products to be prepared over out - door open fires nor wood or other materials used for fuel in fireplaces. -5- 7. LIVESTOCK No animals, livestock,, horses or poultry or any kind shall be kept, raised or bred in Glen Lyon, except that dogs, cats and other household animals may be kept only as pets. 8. TRADE NAMES No work name, symbol, or combination thereof shall be used to identify for commercial purposes a house, structure, busi- ness or service in Glen Lyon, unless the same shah have been first approved in writing by the Design Review Board. 9. SECONDARY STRUCTURES No secondary detached structures shall be. permitted except for garages and other out buildings as approved the the Design Review Board. 10. TEMPORARY STRUCTURES No temporary structure, excavation, basement, trailer, or tent shall be permitted in Glen Lyon, except as may be necessary during construction and authorized by the Town of Vail. 11. CONTINUITY OF CONSTRUCTION All structures commenced in Glen Lyon shall be pursued diligently to completion and shall be completed within 12 months of commencement, except with written consent of the Town of Vail. 12. NUISANCE No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on nor shall anything be done or permitted which shall constitute a public nuisance in Glen Lyon. co 13. TREES No trees of a diameter of four(4) inches or greater shall be cut down or removed in Glen Lyon except with the prior written approval of the Design Review Board. 14. HAZARDS Any building, structure or improvement in certain low hazard areas of Glen Lyon, more particularly described in the Environmental Impact Report dated September, 1977 shall have foundations designed in accord with the Arthur I. Mears' hazard study on file at the Town of Vail. 15. PARKING 15.1 No parking shall be permitted along the public roadways. 15.2 A covered parking space shall be provided for at least one automobile for each living unit on the site for Lots l through 52. 0 15.3 All campers, trailers, boats and similar -type recrea- tional vehicles must be kept in a fully enclosed garage area. 16. EFFECT AND DURATION OF COVENANTS The conditions, restrictions, stipulations, agreements and covenants contained herein shall be for the benefit of and be binding upon each lot and tract in Glen Lyon, and each owner os property therein, his successors, representatives and assigns and shall continue in full force and effect until January 1, 2027, at which time they shall be automatically extended five successive terms of ten years each. 17. AMENDMENT The conditions, restrictions, stipulations, agreements, and covenants contained herein shall not be waived, abandoned, terminated, or amended except by written consent of the owners 7►C of 75% of the property owners of the privately -owned land 9 included within the boundaried of Glen Lyon and the same may be then shown by the plat on file in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado upon the filing of such amendment with the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado. 18, ENFORCEMENT Enforcement of these special conditions, stipulations and protective covenants shall rest with the Town of Vail and the property owners. If any person shall violate or threaten to violate any of the provisions of this instrument, the Town of Vail or any property owner may enforce the provisions of this instrument by instituting such proceedings at law or in equity as may be appropriate to enforce the provisions of this instru- ment, including a demand for injunctive relief to prevent or remedy the threatened or existing violation of these covenants and for damages. 19. DEFINITION OF PROPERTY OWNER As used in this instrument, the phrases "real property owner" , "property owner ", or "owner of real property" shall mean any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other business entity or relationship which shall own an estate as a co-- tenant or otherwise in fee simple or for a term of not less than forty -nine (49) years in any portion of the lands included within the boundaries of Glen Lyon. Such phrases shall not include within their meaning the holder or owner of any lien or secured interest in lands or improvements thereon within the subdivision, nor any person claiming an easement or right -of -way for utility, transportation or other + r lu purpose through, over or across any such lands. 20: SEVERABTLITY Invalidation of any one of the provisions of this instru- ment by judgment or court order or decree shall in no wise affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. EXECUTED this day of , 19 Attest: STATE OF ss. COUNTY OF GORE CREEK ASSOCIATES, a Rhode Island Limited Partnership By Henry E. Kates, General Partner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 19� by IV MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 27, 1977 3:00 P.M. Present: Ron Todd Scott Hopman Sandy Mills Dudley Abbott Ed Drager Staff Present: Diana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger Request for Final Plat Approval of Glen Lyon Subdivision Andy Norris, representing Gore Creek Associates, has requested approval of the final plat for the Glen Lyon Subdivision. The Town Council and Planning Commission approved the prelim - 10 inary plat and the amendments to SDD4. After a discussion, the Commissioners were ready for a motion. The first motion was made by Ron Todd. He moved for approval of the Glen Lyon Subdivision final plat and covenants to the clause which will set a maximum GRFA limitation on any struc- ture (4,200 square feet), the exact language to be approved by the staff. This motion also includes detailed road profiles as amended by Kent Rose, drainage plans as submitted, bridge plans which meet technical requirements of the Town and other requirements as outlined in a memo from the Department of Com- munity Development to the Planning Commission dated December 27, 1977. Scott Hopman seconded the motion, and it was unani- mously approved by the rest of the members of the Planning Commission. Re subdivision and Rezoning of Lot' 2', Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing Vail Associates As outlined in a memo from the Department of Community Develop- ment to the Planning Commission dated December. 27, 197, Vail Associates has applied for a re subdivision into tw9 residen- tial lots and a rezoning from LDD4F to ?R of the subject lot consisting of 3.06 acres. r] • • Minutes -2- December 27, 1977 After a discussion, the Commissioners were ready for a motion; the first being made by Dudley Abbott to approve the proposed resubdivision and rezoning of Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Village 12th filing. Ron Todd seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved by the rest of the members of the Planning Commission. Ron Todd made the first motion to adjourn the meeting; it was seconded by Scot Hopman and unanimously approved by the rest of the members of the Commission. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. C7 I * n PROTECTIVE COVENANTS OF GLEN LYON TOWN OF VAIL EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO W11EREAS, Gore Creek Associates, a Rhode Island Limited Partnership is the owner of Glen Lyon, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Land ") , more particu- larly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, Gore Creek Associates (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Owner ") , desires to place certain restrictions on the use of the Glen Lyon subdivision for the benefit of the owner and its respective grantees, successors or assigns in order to establish and maintain the character and value of real estate in the vicinity of the Town -of Vail. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, Gore Creek Associates for itself and its grantees, successors and assigns does hereby impose, establish, publish, acknowledge, declare and agree with, to and for the benefit of all persons who may acquire an interest in any of the tracts or lots in Glen Lyon, whether platted or unplatted, that it owns and holds in Glen Lyon subject to the following restric- tions, covenants, and conditions, all of which shall be deemed to run with the land and to inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the owner, its respective grantees, successors and assigns: 1. LAND USE The lands in Glen Lyon shall be used for the following purposes: 1.1 Lots 1 through 52 shall be used only for private residences, each to include not more than two primary /secondary dwelling units, as described in the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance, within a single structure as well as an adequate off - street parking area. 1.2 Lot 53 shall be used for multi -- family residential purposes and shall have adequate off- street parking. 1.3 Lot 54 shall be used for business and professional office purposes. 1.4 Tract A shall be used for emergency vehicles, pedes- trian, bicycle and skier access. 1.5 Tracts B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, and the unplatted stream tract may be landscaped and used as a picnic area upon which there may be constructed and maintained picnic tables and benches, park benches, fireplaces, barbecue pats and trash containers. No structure, either temporary or permanent, shall be erected, constructed or permitted to remain on the Subject Tracts, except decorative items consistent with use of the Subject Tracts as a picnic area and except as herein provided; and No part of the Subject Land shall be used for camping or overnight stays by any person or persons, nor shall there be permitted, within or upon the Subject Tracts, any informal or organized public or private gathering nor any other act by any -2- I• U] person or persons (except as hereinafter expressly permitted), which in the judgment of any property owner or of the appro- priate officials of the Town, may deface, alter, destroy or damage the natural condition of the vegetation or the aesthetic value of the natural environmental quality of the Subject Land; Improvements necessary, desirable or convenient for the provision and maintenance of utility services may be constructed and maintained through or under the Subject Lands; provided that such improvements shall not cause permanent disruption or alteration to the surface of the Subject Land. Hikers, pedestrians, skiers and bicycles are expressly permitted to travel hereon provided the surface of Subject Land is not unreasonably damaged by said activities. 2. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board as created by Ordinance No. 8, Series 1973, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado (herein called "Design Review Board ") shall approve or reject proposed improvements within the area described in the Map of Glen Lyon of which these restrictive covenants are made a part. 3. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY 3.1 Easements and rights -of -way for lighting, heating, electricity, gas, telephone, water and sewerage facili- ties, bridal paths, and any other kind of public or quasi - public utility service are reserved as shown on the plat of Glen Lyon. No fence, wail, hedge, barrier, or other improvement shall be erected or maintained on, across or within the areas reserved for easements and rights -of -way, nor in such close proximity thereto -3- as to impair the access to or use thereof. An ease- . ment for pedestrian use shall exist and is hereby reserved on, over and across those portions of the plat of Glen Lyon, reserved herein for utility service and facilities. 3.2 Easements for drainage purposes are reserved as shown on the plat of Glen Lyon. 3.3 Easements for drainage purposes reserved in these covenants and on the Glen Lyon plat shall be perpetual. 3.4 Easements adjacent to a lot but outside the boundaries thereof may be appropriately landscaped, subject to the provisions of these covenants, by the owner of the lot, but in the event such landscaping is disturbed by use of the easement, the cost and expense of restoring such landscaping shall be solely that of the owner of the lot. 4. SIGNS No signs, billboards, poster boards or advertising structure of any kind shall be erected or maintained on any lot or structure for any purpose whatsoever, except such signs as have been approved by the Design Review Board as reasonably necessary for the identification of residences and places of business. 5. WATER AND SEWAGE Each structure designed for occupancy or use by human beings shall connect with the water facilities of the Vail . Water and Sanitation District and the sewage facilities of the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District. No private well shall -4- be used as a source of water for human consumption or irri- gation in Glen Lyon nor shall any facility other than those provided by the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District be used for the disposal of sewage. Mechanical garbage disposal facilities shall be provided in each kitchen or food preparing area. 6. TRASH AND GARBAGE 6.1 No trash, ashes or other refuse may be thrown or dumped on any land within Glen Lyon. The burning of refuse out of doors shall not be permitted in Glen Lyon. No incinerator or other device for the burning of refuse indoors shall be constructed, in- stalled or used by any person. Each property owner shall provide suitable receptacles for the collection of refuse. Such receptacles shall be screened from public view and protected from dis- turbance. 6.2 As used in this Section 6, "trash, garbage or rubbish" shall include waste, rejected, valueless or worthless matter, materials and debris, useless, unused, un- wanted, or discarded articles from an ordinary house- hold, waste from the preparation, cooking, and con- sumption of food, market refuse, waste from the handling storage, preparation or sale of produce, tree branches, twigs, grass, shrub clippings, weeds, leaves, and other general yard and garden waste materials; but shall not include food or food products to be prepared over out- door open fires nor wood or other materials used for fuel in fireplaces. WI I• • 7. LIVESTOCK No animals, livestock, horses or poultry or any kind shall be kept, raised or bred in Glen Lyon, except that dogs, cats and other household animals may be kept only as pets. 8. TRADE NAMES No work name, symbol, or combination thereof shall be used to identify for commercial purposes a house, structure, busi- ness or service in Glen Lyon, unless the same shall have been first approved in writing by the Design Review Board. 9. SECONDARY STRUCTURES No secondary detached structures shall be permitted except for garages and other out buildings as approved the the Design Review Board. 10. TEI- TORARY STRUCTURES No temporary structure, excavation, basement, trailer, or tent shall be permitted in Glen Lyon, except as may be necessary during construction and authorized by the Town of Vail. 11. CONTINUITY OF CONSTRUCTION All structures commenced in Glen Lyon shall be pursued diligently to completion and shall be completed within 12 months of commencement, except with written consent of the Town of Vail. 12. NUISANCE No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on nor shall anything be done or permitted which shall constitute a public nuisance in Glen Lyon. 13. TREES No trees of a diameter of four(4) inches or greater shall be cut down or removed in Glen Lyon except with the prior ME written approval of the Design Review Board. 14. HAZARDS Any building, structure or improvement in certain low hazard areas of Glen Lyon, more particularly described in the Environmental Impact Report dated September, 1977 shall have foundations designed in accord with the Arthur I. Mears' hazard study on file at the Town of Vail. 15. PARKING 15.1 No parking shall be permitted along the public roadways. 15.2 A covered parking space shall be provided for at least one automobile for each living unit on the site for Lots 1 through 52. 15.3 All campers, trailers, boats and similar -type recrea- tional vehicles must be kept in a fully enclosed garage area. 16. EFFECT AND DURATION OF COVENANTS The conditions, restrictions, stipulations, agreements and covenants contained herein shall be for the benefit of and be binding upon each lot and tract in Glen Lyon, and each owner(os property therein, his successors, representatives and assigns and shall continue in full force and effect until January 1, 2027, at which time they shall be automatically extended five successive terms of ten years each. 17. DWELLING UNITS No dwelling containing either one or two living units shall be permitted or created on any site with gross residen- tial floor area (GRFA) exclusive of open porches, patios, terraces, carport and garage of less than 1,500 square feet nor greater than 4,200 square feet. -7- B. AMENDMENT The conditions, restrictions, stipulations, agreements, and covenants contained herein shall not be waived, abandoned, terminated, or amended except by written consent of the owners of 75% of the property owners of the privately -owned land included within the boundaries of Glen Lyon and the same may be then shown by the plat on file in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado upon the filing of such amendment with the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado. 19. ENFORCEMENT Enforcement of these special conditions, stipulations and protective covenants shall rest with the 'town of Vail and the Property owners. If any person shall violate or threaten to violate any of the provisions of this instrument, the Town of Vail or any property owner may enforce the provisions of this instrument by instituting such proceedings at law or in equity as may be appropriate to enforce the provisions of this instru- ment, including a demand for injunctive relief to prevent or remedy the threatened or existing violation of these covenants and for damages. 20. DEFINITION OF PROPERTY OWNER As used in this instrument, the phrases "real property owner" , "property owner ", or "owner of real property" shall mean any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other business entity or relationship which shall own an estate as a co- tenant or otherwise in fee simple or for a term of not less than forty -nine (49) years in any portion of the lands included within, the boundaries of Glen Lyon. Such 5M GLEN LYON,.. D.. �. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND BEING ALL THAT PART OF THE NORTH 1/2 NE 1/4 OF SECTION 12 LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 6 AND NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTH 1/2 NE 1/4, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE EAGLE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AS DOCUMENT NO. 97489, AND ALL THAT PART OF THE SW 1/4 NE 1/4 OF SECTION 12 LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTER OF GORE CREEK, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE EAGLE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AS DOCUMENT NO. 97489, AND THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 12, AND ALL THAT PART OF THE SE 1/4 NW 1/4 OF SECTION 12 LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 6 AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE EAGLE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AS DOCUMENT NO. 97489, EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING PARCELS; 1. THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN BOOK 203 AT PAGE 231 2. THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN BOOK 181 AT PAGE 49 ALL IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST, 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, SAID PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS_ BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY NO. 6 AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID N 1/2 NE 1/4, WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12 BEARS NORTH 0 05'24" WEST 634.785 FEET; *THENS_ 73 °32'13" W., 986.57 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY,RIGHT --OF -WAY LINE CE F SAID HIGHWAY; THENCE S. 46 019'45" W., 229.2 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY; THENCE S. 52 048'05" W., 200.0 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY; THENCE S. 64 006'43" W., 102.0 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY; THENCE S. 52 °48'05" W., 300.0 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY; THENCE S. 73 °37'52" W_, 54.2 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT- OF --WAY OF SAID HIGHWAY -TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE SAID N -1/2 NE 1/4; - THENCE 88 045'57" E., 138..93 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE SAID N 1/2 NE 1/4, SECTION 12; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF GORE CREEK S. 40 045'14" W. 94.32 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S. 18 °18'36" W., 54.08 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S. 1 021'36" W., 205'.02 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S. 12 007'36" W., 110.25 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S. 28 038'36" W., 372.96 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S. 5 026155" E_, 104.50 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S. 49 °26'36" W., 95.5 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S. 22 031'36" W., 124.47 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S. 53 057136" W., 119.34 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S. 65 031'35" W., 109_62 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S. 69 001136" W., 186.13 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S. 85 022136" W., 68.88 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N. 77 038123" W., 26.96 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N. 50 034'25" W., 199.19 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N. 38 042124" W., 239.09 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S. 78 °10'32" W., 01.11 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF NE 1/4, SECTION 12, THENCE DRTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE N. 0 038156" E., 29.76 FEET TO THE ORTHERLY HIGH WATER LINE OF GORE CREEK; THENCE ALONG SAID HIGH WATER LINE r r. OF GORE CREEK S. 75 034103" W., 138.98 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID IGH WATER LINE S. 54 °40153" W., 192.76 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID IGH WATER LINE S. 45 053123" W., 87.97 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID HIGH WATER LINE S. 34 040'47" W., 80.29 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID HIGH WATER LINE S. 4 °4495111 W., 108.86 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID HIGH WATER LINE S. 16 044110" W., 102.85 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID HIGH WATER LINE S. 41 003'28" W., 22.71 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF NW 1/4, SECTION 12; THENCE N. 89 015'28" E., 448.74 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SE 1/4 S. 0 °35116" W_, 1384.382 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 SAID SECTION 12; THENCE S. 89 056'32" E., 1401.288 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE SAID NW 1/4 SE 1/4 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 SE 1/4; THENCE N. 0 °15'52" E., 1400.275 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE SAID NW 1/4, SE 1/4 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 SE 1/4; THENCE N. 0 °16'49" E., 1383.809 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SW 1/4 NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 12 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SW 1/4 NE 1/4; THENCE N. 88 045'57" E., 1384.930 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NE 1/4 NE 1/4, SECTION 12 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NE 1/4 NE 1/4; THENCE N. O °05'24" W., 764.30 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE SAID NE 1/4 NE 1/4 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING TWO PARCELS: 1. THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN BOOK 188 AT PAGE 545 2. THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN BOOK 192 AT PAGE 123; CONTAINING 80 -977 0 • ACRES, MORE OR LESS. -. ■ � 1