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