The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVAIL INTERMOUNTAIN BLOCK 6 LOT 1 LEGAL FILE.pdf.- TOI4/N C,TI/AILT Project Name: Project Description: I Design Review Board ACTION FORM Departrnent of C-ommunity Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.48.2L39 fax: 97 0.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us \^C)l 3 D\F.Q Participants: OWNER KOLECKI, URSULA 10/022003 Phone: PO BOX 642 VAIL CO 81658 License: APPUCANT GREAT DIVIDE CONSTRUCnON LO | 07 12003 Phone: 970-47 6-2072 P O BOX 1292 GYPSUM, CO 81537 License: CONTMCTOR GREAT DIVIDE CONSTRUfiON 10/022003 Phone: P O BOX 1292 GYPSUM, CO 81637 License: 124-A Project Address: 2933 BELLFLOWER DR VAIL LocaUon: 2923 bell flower Legal DescripUon: loh 1 Block: 6 SuMivision: BELLFLOWER CONDO Parcel Number: 210314309001 Comments: tL-.\ Ln-\,-.^-^la L\\b DRB Number: DRB03(X46 COMMON ELEMENT -installtion of soil nails with cocoa colored shotcrete facing over aristing BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: APPROVED Second By:Vote: DateofApprovaa. L0l22l2OO3 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 0 (PLAN): DRB approval does not constitute a permit for building. Please consult with Town of Vail Building personnel prior to construction activities. Planner: Matt Gennett DRB Fee Paid: $250.00 r ll,4[ N tr D tr Application for Design Review Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 teli 970.479.7L39 fax: 97Q.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us General Information: All projects requiring design review must receive approval prior to submifting a building permit application. Please refer to the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. An application for Design Review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Departrnent. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Planning and Environmental Commission. Design review approval lapses unless a building permit is issued and construction commences within one year of the approval. Description of the Request:,72 Locataon of the Proposal:Lot: ?C subdivision: Physical Address: parcel No.: ?l03lL13d o}l Name(s) of Owner(s):/c/tFi *r. fit.ldr,b;uzt /a-4.- Mailing Address: Owner(s) Signature(s): Name of Applicant:6re-f-/>;/. (,*r7-7. Mailing Address:/z 'a 7,dv v?a /?,/) E-mail Address:€,,{a,/ 2At Z_ $50 Plus $1.00 per square foot of total sign area. No Fee $650 For construction of a new building or demo/rebuild. $300 For an addition where square footage is added to any residential or commercial building (includes 250 additions & interior conversions). $250 For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as, reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and retaining walls, etc. $20 For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as, reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and retaining walls, etc. $20 For revisions to plans Design Review Board. No Fee already approved by Planning Staff or the Type of Review and Feel ! Signs E Conceptual Review - New Construction tr Addition Minor Alteration (multi-family/commercial) Minor Alteration (single-family/duplex) Changes to Approved Plans Separation Request For Office Use Only: Fee Paid: 25O epplication Oate: --TZ Dr<"goa- s{t{tr I 'I I, (print name)t Ut\flA Ul f.f ftiru !, a joint owner of property tocated at (address/lesal JOINT PROPERTY OWNER WRITTEN APPROVAL LETTER provide this letter as written approval of the plans dated which have been submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the proposed improvements to be completed at the address noted above. I understand that the proposed improvements include: I further understand that minor modifications may be made to the plans over the course of the review process to ensure compliance with the Town's applicable codes and regulations. t't 3t c3 (Date) Page 2 of 72l0ZlO7l02 *^"\ i't-' -;t ^' ,,:+: I tb #iaF',_.'T;'a ' -G o Belltlower Condominiam Associdioq Inc. 2923 Bel$owerDfive Vail, CO 81657 Septernb€r 24,2003 To whom it may concern: Our Board of Directors has apprwed lhe repair of our retaining wall using soil nails with concrete, rathe lhm building anew wall, as per the oiher engineer option. Our first color choice for the concrete wall is 'tocoa". Please feel free to contact me with questions or con@rns. F€gf,rds, SmdraNorikmg CPA Treasurer/Board Member (970) 331-30s3 (c) 97M79-M74(h) KR M"o*"r,-rlb, ,*. P.O. BOX 4572 vAtL, coLoMoo 81658 (970) 949-9391 (FAX) 949-1577 DATE: PROJECT: RECORD 9t18t2003 2923 Bellflower Drive Retaining Wall nna f, ueznue/vorEs X nesporuse I I CLARIFICANON/CHANGE This is in response to a requested change in design of the new retaining wall from a re-built timber system to a reinforced concrete wall with soil nails. Attached is a plan view showing the layout of the wall and the areas where soil nails are to be used. The following is our recommended specification for the soil nails and concrete wall reinforcing: Soil Nails "A": 1 l14" diameter hollow steel rods, 8' long, drilled approximately horizontally into the grade behind the existing timber wall, grouted solid along the length of the rod and with a solid mass of concrete pumped out the end of the rod. There shall be a total of 4 rods, spaced at approximately 4' to 5' on center horizontally, two each at approximately 113 and 213 of the height of the wall. Soil Nails "8": These shall be similar to '4", except they shall be 10' long and there shall be a total of I rods, spaced at approximately 4'to 5' on center horizontally, four each at approximately 1/3 and 2l/3 of the height of the wall. Soil Nails "C": These shall be 1 1/4" diameter hollow steel rods, 20' long, drilled vertically approximately 10' into the earth below the base of the retaining wall and spaced at 16" on center. These shall be fully grouted along their embedded length. The new concrete wall to be placed against the face of the existing timber retaining wall shall be a Shotcreted wall a minimum of 10" thick and shall be reinforced with #5 bars at 12" on center vertically and horizontally. The reinforcing mat shall be centered in the 10" wall thickness. The reinforcing steel shall be continuous around the corner of ihe wall. or corner bars shall be added. The new wall shall be placed with a vertical or slightly battered face for aeslhetic purposes, and shall not follow the deflected shape of the existing failing timber wall ,Concrete shall have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3000 psi, and reinforcing steel shall be grade 60. Details for anchorage of the steel rods into the concrete wall shall be submitted for approval prior to construction. COPYTO: Great Divide Construction JOB NUMBER,. 0206-18 A_ c) ' 2123 Beuu FLoN ER, DR{VEI tsRM CoN9UuTANTS, lNc' : + ozou -lb 1f to/o3,s, --1 t2' v5-3)fJ \-- -/" ar! . lo'.9 o .o et rro 3 ..$f a o .as a o l1 Nshl lo THlcJ( s&urce'ETE NAU ry +Ets @ tz,, o,c-. ?f..Tlv, ceNTERED--"'lN p{At,t- .--"-'.'- --{o ftt --- 'ttt- \. ,',f ;.:-8 t,-\. / ./ to o\ -,-A- q .t'/e,--- ;h7---.// \-=i- 1 t // -;'->-/ 'il> --/ '- r< - ---- :1.***'N.** ******************+++******** * * * * *,| * * * * * * * * + * + * {. * * * * * * * * * + * * * * * ** 'F*****++{t**** *'l***** TOWNOFVAIL, COLORADO Statement * * * {. * * * + !i * + * {. !t * * * ******** *********** * * * ** * * + l.:t * * * * tt 't + '1. * * * * * * ** * + * * * + * *,1. * ***{. ***+ **++{.** ** * ** SUatements Nudber : R03 0004850 Amount: $250.0010/07 / 2OO3A6:.50 AIU Pal,'ment Method: Check Inits: DF Notation: CHECK # L8110 Permit No: DRB03 0445 T14)e: DRB -Minor A1t, Comm/Multi Parcel No : 210314309001 Site Address : 2 93 3 BEII.,FI.,OWER DR VAII-, Location: 2923 bell fLower Totsal Fees: 9250.00 This Palment: $250.ooTotal AJ,L Pmts: $250.00 Balance : $0.00 * * * * * 'l * * t* * * * * * * * * * * * * * + * * * * * * * * * * * * * * '* + {. *ti* * * * * * * * * + + * ** * * * * + + + * *:* * ** * * *r. * * * * * * + {. 't t} {. * *****'N. ACCOI]NT ITEM LIST: Account Code Descri pti on Current Pmts DR 00100003112200 DESTGN REVIEI^/ FEES 2s0.00 I'# ( (lLV tn O (/at I Ua'rc, /u4y\ DEPARI'IVIENT OF COMMT]NITY DEVELOPMENT ON JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES Permit #: 898 -0L44 TOWN OF VAIL 75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD vArL, co 81657 970 -479 -2L38 NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ADD/ALT SFR BUILD PERMIT Job Address: Location. . . : Parcel No. -:Project No.: 29]-3 BELLFLOWER 2103 -143 -O7 -002 Status. . Applied. Issued.. Expires. ISSUED 06/04/1998 06/04/1,998 L2/Or/!998 #of !,tood/Pa11er: DR APPLICANT OGILBY T CTIARLBS & MEREDITH W 2938 S FRONTAGE RD W, VAIL CO 8L657 OWNER OGILBY T CHARLES & MEREDITH W 2938 S FRONTAGE RD W, VAIL CO 8L557 TOV/Comm. Dev. Clean,up Depo it Refund Description: REROOF SAME FOR SAME Occupancy: R3 Type Construction: V N Valuation: 4,000 Fireplace InfornlaLion: Re6tsricced: approved amount Single Family aesiAenceddt€ Type V Non-Rated Add Sq Ft: #of eae Appl iances:#of eas Logo: FEE SUMMARY Building-----> 85.oo PIan Check-- - > 55 25 Investigat ion> . O0 wi1l call- --> Restuarant Plan Revi€e- - > DRB Fee--------- RecreaEicn Fee ---__-_-_> h--^.ir--------- TOTAL FEES- .oo ToLaI Calculaled Fees---> Additional Feee- ---- - - - - > .o0 ToLal Per'mit Fee -------> 100. OO Payhenlo-------- 24f .25 ,0t} 243.25 243.25 BAT.ANCE DUg----- .00 Item: 05100 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 06/04/a998 CHARLIE Action: APPR ITEM: O54OO PLANNING DEPART'IVIENT 06/04/1-998 CHARLIE Action: APPR Item: 05500 FIRE DEPARTMENT 06/04/1998 CHARLIE ACTiON: APPR Itern: 05500 PIJBLIC WORKS 06/04/a998 cHARr-,rE Action: APPR CIIARLIE N/A N/A N/A Dept: DAVIS Dept: Dept: Dept: BUILDING PI,ANNING FIRE PUB WORK Diwision: Diwision: Diwision: Diwision: See Page 2 of this Document for any condi-tions bhat may apply to this permit. DECI,ARATIONS I hereby acknowledge thats I have read this applicaEion, filled ouE in fuII the information required, conPleled an accul_ate ploE plan, and sLate uhat alI the infor-naiion pr:ovj.ded as::equired is correc!. 1 agree tso co$ply lrith Ehe informaLion and ploL plalr, Lo c,rtl,Dly lrith all Totrn oldinances and state la'"{s, and Eo bui].d this sEl:uccure accordj"ng to the Toen's z and 6ubdivisi:'n c,),las, .:e6ign l:evie!^' approved, Unifolm Building code and other: or.dinances of lhe Toltn applicable ther ?EQUE5TS FoR INSPIICTIo^-S sttALL BE MAD; TVIENTY-FOUR HOURS IN AIVAIJCE BY 'IELEIIID+18-1I|- Send clean-Up DepoclL To: CHUCK OLGIAY OF OWNER OR CONTRA I!]SELF AND OWIiEF] **************************************************************** TOhtN OF VAIL, COLORADO ********************************** Staternnt Number: REC-0418 Amount: Palrment MeLhod: CHECK Notation: StaLemnt *******************Jr* 243.25 06/23/98 L4:54 Init: CD A-BUILD ADD,/ALT SFR BUTLD PE 29L3 ********************* Account Code BP 00100003111100 PF 00r_000031-1_2300 AD 001000024031_00 wc 00100003112800 DR Total Fees: otal ALL PmLs: Balance:****************************************** Permit No: ParceL No: Sit.e Address: This Pa)rment E}98 - 0l-44 Tlpe : 2LO3-L43-07 -O02 243.25 243.25 .00 Description BUILDING PERMIT FEES PI,AN CHECK FEES CLEANUP DEPOSITS WILL CALL INSPECTION FEE Amount 85.00 55.25 100 .00 3.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jr Jr * ti on 'o rF,oz .o o: ; ; t ,z FU Flr o(tI zo EI =o E{ (, & rt a. FI o' F oo Ur{ . U F o = FI o F, g| .i E. ul e F 4 Cl F.zz ho EIE d FI E{ €iF 22 EO trE AV ro F= ETF HZ s'5 oo A= q tr ?< z ql c :to 291 B1 Eql o (9H F fiA o 40 F F F z E F F f ; :> El E 't{ ao B trO ! o :onracc Eaglc Councy Assessors 0fflce rr 970-328-8640 for Parcel 0. TOWN OF VAIL CONSTRUCTTON \Datrl tl' ,'\ ^ APPLICATION MUST BE FILTED OUT COMPLETELY OR IT }'AY NOT BE ACCEPTED I t * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r, * * * PERMIT fNFORMATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * :|. * * * b t/l-nuifainS [ ]-Plumbing [ ]-EIectricaI [ ]-Mechani'cal [ ]-other /t- tl ",..!,.iilt,, !, 1..^i,.,r,-..,.,.,,, xr./ /t/rob Name: (.'Q/,: '"1 /fr :'.'- Job Address: .l'I _..... Legal Description : Lot r Block---> Fil ing susotvrstoi{ : I '. - tL './- z,'.t ,< '. ;,, 1 Ht c'r i t7,r,l:-t>r r.t lwners Name: (( 7,'i,;c \rchitect: tLr)'le_ Address: -- ph. ;eneraL DescriPtion:? /7o ,'- . f*" - 4;', >1 V .4 , ,-,de-,{cr,' lork Class: [ ]-New [ ]-Alteration [ ]-Additional t\'l-Renair t l-other PERMIT APPLICATION FORM EI,ECTRICAL: $ MECFIANICA Number of Accohrnodation Units: PER.\IIT /] 'fmber and Type of Fireplaces: cas Appliances Gas Logs_ Wood/Pellet i * * * * * * * * * ,( * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VALUATIONS * * * * * * * * * 'k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ,r * x * * lumber of DweLling Units: :--. \iur"or*", +'J(<(,'L ?LUMBING: $ t- 6 * * * rk * Jc r * * * * * * * * * * * * * )k *'* * :r * * CONTRACTOR INFORI'{.AAION tt * * .* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * x * 'k * * * leneral Contractor: .<, EL F Town of Vail Reg. No._\ddress: Phone Number: : * J< rtr* :tr:k* * ** **** ** * x** * ** *** ***** ]UILDING PERMIT FEE: )LUMBING PERMI'.T FEE: fECHANICAL PERMIT FEE: ;LECTRTCAL FEE! )THER TYPE OF FEE: ]DEI FF'E . OTHER: $ TOTAL:1 4( t'(', ( ( Town of VaiI Phone Nunber: Town of Vail Phone Number: Town of Vail Phone Nunrber: Reg. NO. Reg. NO. Reg. No. FOR OFFf CE USE * * * * * ** * :t * * * * ** * * * *'t,'t * * * * * * * x = rt BUILDING PI,AN CHECK FEE: PLI.IMBING PIAN CHECK TEE: MECHANICAL PI,AN CHECK FEE: 'llectrical contractor : iddress: )Iumbing contractor: rddress: lechanicaL Contractor: \ddress: T)FT'PFAfFTr\N IIF]T. CLEAN-UP DEPOSIT: TOTAL PERMIT FEES: BUTLDING: STGNATURE: ZONING: SIGNATURE: rl c)tE GROUP lomments: VALUATION CLEA-}I UP DEPOSIT REFTIND TO: tc { ORDINANCE No. 20 Series of 1983 f\ AN 0RDINANCE REZONING LOT '1, BLOCK 6, VAIL n- \J- INTERMOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION FROM RESIDENTIAL'-DC\* PRIMARY/SECONDARY (RP/S) TO HIGH OENSITY .. ,I pRiMARiTsiCorionnv-inpTSl T0 HIGH oENSITi ,,.ffi MULTI-FAMILY (HDMF) wlTH C0NDITIONS; FOR ( t-1 THE PURP0SE 0F AN EMPLOYEE H0USING C0ND0MINIUM "-V PROJECT. WHEREAS, the Town CounciI be] ieves that there continues to be a need in the community for owner-occupied, local resident affordable housing of a simi'l ar nature to the Pitkin Creek Park Condomiums project; and WHEREAS, the specific proposal referred to in this ordinance would provide such needed housing at a below-market affordable price; and . WHEREAS, the rezoning of the property foruse as employee housjng would not cause negative'impacts upon the neighborhood with relationship to use .and dens'ity; and }JHEREAS, the P'l anning and Environmental Conrnission has recommended such rezoning; NOl^l, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOI./N OF VAIL THAT: SECTION I. The official zoning map of the Town of Vai'l is hereby amended as follows: Lot'l , Block 6, Vail Ir,termountain Subdivjsion: current zone: Residential Primary,/Secondary new zone: High Density'Mu1ti-Family SECTION 2. The following are conditions of approval attached to the rezoning: 'l . The applicant be allowed to construct not more than 3250 square feet of GRFA and that the sale price average not more than $85 per square foot. 2. ii pul] -off 'l ane for vehic'l es shall be provided on the north side of the building for use for owners and tenants on1y. Thjs pull-off/drop- . off space sha11 be general 1y limited to l0 nrinutes per vehicle stop, and this shall be generally reflected in the condominium by-laws and/or declarations. 3. The existjng footprint of the building on the site sha'll not be expanded exccpt for appurtenant dccks and balconies. I -2-oc The open space on the south side of the building reritain' use of the tennis courts and parking maintenance services for the project shall be provided initially for $1Q/month per condominiuttt for the first year after certificate of occupancy for each condominium' subject to reasonable rate increases in subsequent years' Parking is provided as noted below in the variance section of this memo. The basic stipulaiions and restrictions concerning'l easing, maximum resa'l e prices, purchaser qua'l ifications' etc. that are found currently in the pitkin creek park condominium declarations, are formulated' adopted and enforced for ten years from the date of the fi'l ing of said covenants. This declaration must be filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The site plan, floor pl an and elevations subm'itted to the community Development Department with this application, as designated on such p1ans, are hereby adopted as conceptual development plans and major changes to these will require an amendment approved by the Planning and Env'ironmental commission. The determination of whether a change is major or not wj]l be made by the Department of Community Development. Section 2 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shail not affect the validityofthe remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Counci'l hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, sect'ion, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases by dec'l ared 'inval id. 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. *ry W f.0r Section 3 The Town Coucjl herebY finds' necessary and ProPer for the the inhabitants thereof. Section 4 -3- determi nes and health, safetY oc declares that this ordinance is and welfare of the Tolvn of Vail and The repeat or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as prov'ided in this ordinance shall not affect any right rvhich has accrued' any duty inrposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof' any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the prov'i sion repealed or repealed or reenacted' The repeal of any provision hereby sha'l I not revive any provision or any ordjnance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein' INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of ,1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the (ay of 1983, at 7:30 P.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail Col orado. Ordered published in full this ATTEST: Town Clerk day of ,'1983. I[INUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 21,1983 7:30 P.[I. On Tuesday, June held in the Vail 21, 1983 ,Municipal PRESENT: the Vail Town Mayor Pro-Tem Council was MEIIBEES a regula.r meeting of Building. Rodney E. Slifer,Bill lfilto, Mayor Chuck Anderson Paul Johnston Ron Todd Hermann Staufer Gail Wahrlich OTHERS PRESENT:Richard Caplan, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney The first item of business was to wish Paul Johnston a Happy both Birthday from the llayor and Town Council. The next item of business was the second reading of Ordinance #13, Series of 1983, an ordinance amending the Vail Vitlage Urban Desisn Guide Pian - design considerations relating to view he ordinance to the Council along with photographs of the related view corridors. There was much discussion following relating to the establishment of these view corri.dors.Staufer stated that he could not vote for the ordinance as it was if it wasfor rezoning purposes. There were cornments made regarding the need for guidelines and working relati-onships between developers and Town for the betterment of the coinmunity. Bill Wilto expressed his support for the establishment of the view corri-dors as did Rod Slifer. A motion rryas made by Ron Todd to approve Ordinance #13 on second rea.ding with the deletion of view corridors 3,-4 and ?and focaL point #1 . Chuck Anderson seconded the motion. A vote rvas taken and the motion passed 5 - 2 - IYitto and Slifer opposing. The ordinance was ordered published in fu1l on second reading. The next item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordina.nce #14, Series of 1983,anordinancerepea1ingtoftheTownofVai1. CurtUfkespresentedtheordinaomehistoryonthe ordinance and stating the advantages to the Police Department in repealing it.There were several citizens j-n attendance expressing concern over the police department not being involved in tows from private property. Curt Ufkes felt it should be glven a try and if it didn't work out the ordinance could be re-instated. Sonny Caster, o-v/ner of Vail Towing Co., stated that he felt the Town had a system that was working at the present time and felt it could be refined without completely pulling out of the private property towj-ng. Chuck Anderson stated that maybe the towing companies should be licensed to provide 24 hour service and tra.nsportation to the towed vehicles 24 hours a Aai- A moti.on was made by Herrnann Staufer to approve Ordinance #14 on second reading for a trial period during the summer months and to take another look at it November 1; 1983. Bj.11 Wilto seeonded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published by title only on second rea.ding. The next itern on the agenda. was.;?tie f irst reading of Ordina\ge #2O ,ri es 1983, an ordinance rezoning Lot'1, Block 6, Vail Inter-mouriiiin subdivlsion residential primary/seconda urpose anemp1oyeehousingproject.WedthattheCounciIhadtoured of from of the project site that afternoon. Chuck Anderson stated that he had a conflict of i,nterest and would not be pa,rticipating in this discussion. Peter Patten presented the ordinance to the Council. He stated that the ordinance had been tabled from the previous meeting due to lack of members of the Couneil present at the meeting. Peter stated that some of the concerns from the last meeting were the financing of the project, the parking area and the lighting of the neighborhood. Several citizens were in attendance expressing their opposition to the project. Gail lltahrlich stated she felt i.t was a good idea but on the wrong lot. BilI Wilto felt that density and parki.ng were a concern. Paul Johnston was in favor of the project because it was employee housi.ng. Hermann Staufer stated that if they did approve it what would they say to the next request that came to them. After some discussion, Bill ltiilto made a motion to defeat Ordinance #20. Gail lYahrlich seconded the moti.on. The motion passed 4-1 - PauI Johnston opposing, Todd and Anderson abstaining. t vl }IINUTES VAIL TOIfN COUNCIL MEETING TUIISDAY, JUNE 7, 1983 7:30 P.lf . On Tuesday, June held in the Vail MEIIBERS 7 , 1983, Munic j.pa1 PRESENT: a regular meeting of the VaiI Town Council was Building. Rodney E. S1ifer, Mayor Paul Johnston Ron Todd Gail Wahrlich Chuck Anderson Hermann Staufer Bill Wilto ABSEM: OTHERS PRESENT:Richard Caplan, Town Manager Larry Eskwi.th, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was the second read.ing of ordinance #13,Series of 1983, an ordinance amending the Vail Village Urban Guide PIan - Design considerat j-ons relati or Slifer stated that it had been requested that bec,ause of the importance of the issue and the absence of three Councilmembers that this ordina.nce be tabred until the June 21st meeting. Ron Todd made a, motion to that affect and Paul Johnston seconded it.passed unanimously.A vote was taken and the motion The next item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordina.rLce #L7,Series of 1983, an ordinance amending the insura,nce - general liability and workmenrs cgmpensation aqg r-egistra,!.ieg:fee schedule of the licensing s atterson presented the ordinance to the council, statj.ng that there had been no changes to the ordinance from first rea.ding. Pa.tterson also stated that he had conta"cted the'Homebuilders r Associations and they were in agreement with the ordi-nance. Ron Todd-stated that he wourd vote agai,nst the ordina.nce as written, and if the coverage was reduced to $500,000. he would be in favor of it. After some discussi-on, Paul Johnston made a motion to a,pprove Ordinance #L7 on second reading and GaiI Wa.hrlich seconded it. A vote wa.s ta.ken a,nd the motion passed 3 - 1, Todd opposing. The ordina,nce wa.s ordered published by title on1y. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinanee #L4,Series of 1983, an ordj-nance repealing the private parkj.ng ordinance.of the Va.i1 Municipal Code. Russ Motta,.C tne ordinance to the Council, stating that he had taken this ordinance back to his staff and reviewed it. He had also done a survey of several cities and towns in Colorado to see what they were doing as far as private tows were involved. He stated that after checking with eight cities, he found Silverthorne the only town to be towing off priva.te land by. the police department. He felt that the ordi.na.nce should be given a try, as it could always be reversed it it did not work. Ile stated that the loss in revenue to the police department was not substantial and this would free up time of his officers for more important ma.tters. There was some discussion following from the audience Tom Hunt, co-owner of Vail Towing Co., suggested the Town enter into a.n agreement with the contracted towing company to use the Town impound yard to store these vehicles. Richard. Caplan stated that this was undesirable to the Town to open up the rot to anyone but rown employees a.nd would increa.se insurance ra.tes considera"bly. Ron Todd made a motion to approve ordinance #14 on first reeading and paul Johnston seconded it. A vote was taken a.nd the motion passed. unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published in fu11 on first reading. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #2O, Series of 1983, an ordinance rezo -division from residential mif'for the purpose of an rbmployee housing project. Peter Jama.r presented the ordinance to the Council. Ron Todd stated that he had. a conflict of interest with this ordinance and would, therefore, abstain. MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL L1EETING TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1983 Page 2 There was much discussion regarding the project. some of the major concerns with allowing the rezoning was the parking problem with a unit of this size and the fact that there was no finlncial package stated in the request for affordable employee housing. Theie were several adjacent property owners in attendance voicing their objection to the high density zoning. Jay Peterson, represent the applicint Ctruck ogilby, gave a presentation as to why the'request was being-asked for.After much discussion, Mr. Petterson request6d that this issue be tabled until the June 21st meeting when more of the Council would. be in attendance Paul Johnston made d, motion to that affect and Gail lYahrlich seconded it.A vote was taken and the motion passed g - o with rodd abstaining.It was requested that the staff get with the applicant before the June 21st meeting to clarify a few items on the request. The next item on the agenda was Resolqtion #10. Series of 198-3, a resolutio:authorizing the Town to transfer oiado Housing Finance Authority. Mr. Cap1an stated that this was an annual request and that the funds were available back to the Town should they be requested.After some discussion, Paul Johnston made a motion to approve Resolution #1,and Ron Todd seconded it. A vote was taken and the noti-on passed unanimous The next item on the agenda was Citizen Participa.tion. A question was aske,of the council as to the status of the ordenburg sculpture. ur. caplan stated tha"t a citizen's committee ha.d made a proposal to the Council that afternoon, stating that they (the committed) teft tnis was important enough to raise all the funds needed privately and that the Council would be takinl this under advisement and reporting back to the committee soon. Mr. Ca.plan stated that a petition with approximately 400 signitures opposing the sculpture was presented to the Council by Jan Strauch. Marka Moser thanked the Council for their work on the bike path in West Vail' She sta.ted that lighting was stil1 needed in the arei. The Council asked Russ Motta to check i-nto the matter. The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the DRB decision relating 19=Beclett-l_slorefront expansion. Chuck Boetcher, represented Crossroads Ltd; FreEEnTA-'his plan to the Council f or the expansibn. TtlreiTianGJ to eliminate the drlps of water onto the sidewalk. Boetsher stated that several proposals had been considered and this was the best one in his estima.tion. After some discussion, ron Todd. ma.de a motion to overturn the DRB decision and'grant. the a-pplicant permission for his remodel and Paul Johnston seconded it. A vote was taken and, the motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the approval of aband.onment of easemenr gn.Lot 7, Block 9. Vail fntermountain. Mr. Caplan stated that the staff had agreed that this easement was no longer needed by the Town and that it was interferring with negotlations on that property. paul Johnston made a motion to approve the abandonment and Gail Wahili-ch seconded it.A vote was ta.ken and the motion pa.ssed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the appointment of the Liquor Licensing Authority members. Jack Curtin and Robert Buterbaugh were reappointed to these vacancies. The next item on the a"genda was an approval request from KRW Radio to use the Townrs antenna at Ford Park. John Dobson, owner of KRW, presented the request to the council, stating that he would like to attach a 1o-1s foot antenna to the existing one at Ford Park to intensify their reception.He stated that the work they were doing on their reception wourd also improve the Town's reception quality as we1l. Ir{r. Caplan stated that the Town has not made a firm commitment to continue this radio station and that should the Town not continue its use, then the pole would not remain for KRVV's use as welL, and that this item would be comi-ng before the DRB soon for discussion. Mr. Caplan stated that a nominal fee would also be charged for this use. He also stated that should any other radio stations come to the Torvn and ask for the same privilege the Town wourd have to make it available to them as welI. Ron Tod.d made a motion to grant permj.ssion to I(RVV for the use of the pole with the stipulation that the rlntal be kept to a minimum- Paul Johnston seconded ttre motion. A zvot€ was taken and the motion passed unanimouirvl--lti. capran'--isfi"d'tnat John Dobson get ,?ttl o( Jure 3, 1983 I\'lr. Rich Caplan Ttovn of Vail Post Office Eox 100 Vail, Colorado 81658 .l Dear Rich: As adjacent property ovrners to tlre defwrct Inte:aor:ntajrr Swjm Club; ve reccnrrend strongly .tlat this property not be rezoned tc rTlulti- fandly high density arid shculd rerrain as it is currently zoned: prinrary/secondarlz residential. As one of Vai-I's ol-der neighborhoods, Interncr:ntain already suffers frcrn a nurber of high-delsity related problems which pre-date West Vail's annexation - Appropriate areas tuere zoned pritarlz,/secondarlz residential- in an effort to alleviate traditionally attendant problems such as lack of adequate parking, poor construction, faulty s\lrveying, etc. and v;e feel upzon5ng to a higher derrsity is a step backwards. A look at sonE of the conditions the Plaruring and hlvironnrental Conrnission reccrmends ildicates tJ.at large errough issues exist to warrarrt closer ilspection by tle Council: o no on-site parkirg o lot size which barely neets requirenents for P/S zoni-nq o covenants resernbling PitJ<irt Creek's restricting resale tim.ilg, maxj-nn-un price of writs, r:nit size, etc. of erployee housing Parkjlg is to be provided off-site, across tle Y-sha@ jntersestion of Bellf1o^rer arrd Kirrnickirrnick. Thris solution is inappropriate for a nunber of reasons. First, the jntersection is guite dangerous and tras been tle scene of mjrrerous traffic accidents. Ihe irnage of 8-12 pedestrians crossirg tJ.at j:ntersestion on a regnrlar basis is frightening. A "pull-off 1-ane " has been suggested for 10-15 nuhute restricted use for pick-r:p and drop-off. Brforcirrg tli-s would be difficu1t, if not irrpossiJ:le. Pertraps the three spaces regui-red for a duple-x could be incorporated into a P,/S design. lhit residents whc attsrqlt to park in other property crulnersr lots nray e)<pect tle usual, negative reaction. Multj"-fernily high density zonirg also requires that 75t of parking.be covered- llas ti-is reguirerrent been addressed? Jtrne 3, 1983 Page 1\,ro :. o( Ttre negative inpact on tlrc neighborhood of a four-unit buildi-ng on a srrall lot shoutd be considered. Four nore f5replaces (r*trich will emit sroke at a leight. level w"ith neigliborsr windcors) is at least tt'o fireplaces too IrBny. The lot gualifies for its current status of P/S by roughly 100 square feet on1y. adding trrc units nore w-ith 6-8 nrore residents can only crebte a nn:ch h-igher level of noise and qroud disturbance. l{e appreciate the ltnrnrs cicncerrr with enforcing erployee bousiag restrictive @verants sirnilar to PitJcin fteek's, but do not believe ti,at rezonilg frcrn prinrary/secondary to mdti-fanily high density serves Vail and Internpurtain re1l il tlds location. , In conclusion, altlnugh v€ supFort enq:loyee trcusilg in the Vail Valley, !"e believe that tle size and configr:ration of tlr-is lot renders it a poor site for rezon-ing. Use of a slmpatletic issue, srrch as enployee tousilg, stpuld not enter into a rezonilg decision. Thank you for yor:r consideration of this matter and please do not tresitate to contact us at 476-5459 or 949-4922. Sincerely, e Reid c.^,---.--- 6:l Carson Reid Post Office Box 3055 Vai1, Colorado 81658 Ic Peter Patten Jim Sayre Betsy Rosolack The vote was ?. Appointment of PEC member to DRB. ------.-\Duane Piper was appointed to represent the PEC at the p-meetings for Junb\u1y and August. ,/' \ 3.uest for rezoni from R P exist structure to 4 S to HDI'IF on lo l. Block 6 Intermounta in e untts.p l icants :rle convert the yan Peter Patten showed a site plan and explained the infcrmation jn the memo. Jay Peterson, representing the appljcants, stated that the project could not use a tax exempt bond process, and did not want to get locked in to a specific interest rate. He explained that interest rates fluctuate. He added that the GRFA was approximate, that it could be 200 square feet nrore, and would like the flexibility of approvai of up to 3500 square feet. A'l so the appf icant wanted the $8S/square foot to be the ayerajg price because studios cost more per square foot than larger units. He added-ThET-units A & D were nicer un'its so cbuld iornmand more money. Peterson stressed that the total selling price would not change. Peterson stated that the membership to the -tennis courti would be mandatory, ind in three years the fee would increase to $l 5.00 and after that would be deterntined by the CPI. Chuck 0gi'l by discussed a possib.le financjng arrangement whereby the mortgaga payments gradually increase for five years, and then level off. Patten explained that the staff had done research on prices in Vail and $85lsq ft vlas below the market rates now. He added that only Matterhorn was less. Morgan asked if the applicant rvanted to change the proposed GRFA to 3500 sq ft, and Jay answered that thaf would be very cl6se, and wi'ren the plans were finalized, they could fluctuate t 200 sq ft, but would be 3500 sq feet rnaximum. 0gilby agreed. Patten suggested that if the total GRFA were to be 3500, the maximum sales price would be $297,500. o( PLANNING AND ENVIRONI4ENTAL COMMISSION May 23, 1983 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Dan Corcoran Diana Donovan Jim Morgan Duane Piper l,lil I Trout Jim Viele ABSENT Gordon Pierce The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by the chairman, Dan Corcoran, fo'l lowing site inspections. l. Approva'l of minutes of meeting of May 9. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes as written. 5 in favor, none against, with Piper abstaining. Ic PEC U ,r -2- Peterson suggested restricting the number of units allowed when rezoning. .Morgan wanted to make the maximum GRFA 3500, and was concerned with the large parcel across the road. He felt that with this precedent, they would want more density which would affect the neighborhood. Corcoran pointed out that there was no one there from the neighborhood to oppose the propos.al , but that a larger project may have more respondents. Patten said that he did meet with owners who represented the Bel'l flower Condominiums who did have coicerns about increased activity, and that he.encouraged them to put their concerns in letter form (which they djd not do), and also from one Westridge condo owner who also was not at the meeting Viele wondered if there were any way to prevent these condos from becoming rental units, and Jay answered that it would be best for the developer to build and sell,but if the units did not se11, the developer would like to be ab'le to rent long term. Patten reminded the board that the proposa'l being considered concerned sales only. To-Viele's questions concerning financing, Peterson replied that they would use normal financing, possibly with a graduating rate such as'used at Pitkiil Creek Park. Piper quest'ioned zonjng change to HDMF rather than SDD, and Patten lepligd that with an SDD there stili traO to be an under'lying distriit, which would be HDMF P,iper was concerned about taking a zone and changing it. He was also concerned about the design of the structuie. Patten stated tFat the site coverage and the height would remain the sarne if approved, but the design would be handied in DR8.Piper wondered if on-site parking had been studjed, and Peterson replied that to do so the structure would have to be torn down and construction staited again from the beginning. Piper did not like the idea of having to walk down a stre6t to get to the off-s'ite parking, and wondered jf there was room for a sidewa'l k. Peterson replied that it would have to be along the right-of-way next to the road. Djscussion continued about financing. Peterson explained that interest rates were not tied to the amount of down payment, and also explained that the points wouid probably be 2A to 3.points total, Oonovan asked if Ogilby had to pass on the interest rate that he received. Peterson explained ttrai tnb construttion loan floated with the prime, but that the long term financing did not. Donovan was also concerned with the sidewalk or pedestrian way, and wondered if there was a bike path in the area. Patten said that there wain,t. Ogilby stated that since the new bridge had been built to the east, there was less irafiic on this end of Intermountain, and he felt that traffic was not going to be a problem, Donovan fe1t that the numben of condos should definitely-be limited to 4 units and the GRFA should be limited to 3500 sq ft. She also stressed that whoever from PEC was to be on the DRB should make sure that the design was improved. Discussion then the units and it as stated in the concerned which restrictions to use concerninq who cou]d purcnase was finally decided that the buyers would follow the samb restrictions Pitkin Creek Park declarations. Trout expressed qualms about granting the variances since others in the neiqhborhood during the past year had wanted variances to have empioyee housing, and wer6 turned down because of increase in density. He pointed out th;t the denaity would be doubled on this site. Jay repljed that in this case the units were-restricted to employee housing, Oc .( corcoran pointed out that since the memo_stated.in #1 I that the basic stipulations and restrictions concerning reasing wourd be the'lur"'ui pitHn cieei F;;i;;i"owners would not be able to rent out ttreir units for mo.e ihan a cerfain u,iorni plus their costs. Corcoran.repeated the concern for a pedestrian way, and felt that somethinq should be worked out with the Town. Jay saiu the appriiinti ;"uidG";irii'ni"iJ"iloiii"with the Town. " ' 'r!r l4organ stated that he would rather have seen this proposal as an SDD. peterson answered that there could be restrictions in the aLctbriiions, and that the declarations would have to be approygd.by the Town. patten siitea ttat rie rrJa-Jr-soo-tvi"of statement which would be- #12 in the list or ionoiiionil' "ttu site piin,iioo,"plans, and all approved plans as Jubmitted ll" liialv'aevelopment plans, and any.major changes to these must be approved by the pEC.u" a' That-the applicant be allowed to construct not more than 3250 square feet . of GRFA and that the sate price average geslsqujre-fobt. b. That #5 be stricken c. That #12 be added as stated by patten above. d' That the word "parking" be inserted before the word ,'maintenance', in item #9- DFT s/23/83 -3- The motion was seconded b an rou Donoygn moved and Vie'l e seconded to a The vote was in favor,2 aqains uulruvd.r rt'veo ano v'rere seconded to aDDrcl9_lh_g_leg_qqst for parkinq variances o s s i5l-e .--ThE-I6E-wa,condit ion that a wat kwav vote was 4.{uest for historical bui'ldin for the "Bal dauf Cabin" at 3160 Katsos Ranch ao, part Of the Va unta I n oo camDus.pp I tcant: Char es ub l tby for Vail MountaJnTEIool Peter Patten explained that the Town had.recently_passed an ordinance providino for historical bujlding status ana lrril il,oi" uuitiindi"tJ"a.rignated were exeipt from following the uniform Euiiding code for "oir, ooni-ti-pr"r."u. the bui.ldinqs.He gave the historv on the Baldauf"cibin and reri irrii il 5i;-;;;;;i;; il;;;;;;necessary for the designation.. Piper was concerned about the safety. OgjfUy answered that the local bui.ldinq department would have jurisdiction 'ou."- ihe ;o;ai;;;;i.;." "slsyq pili";;;;;'l,iiroing orficiar, stated that lhe Nountain iinooi wui-;;;il;ii;";eruiroins the buirdjnq lc PEC 5/23/83 -4-o( and bringing the footings, floor, electricity, a'l arm system, etc. up to code. He added that the only thing not bejng changed was the front door which opened in rather than out. Corcoran asked if the Mountain Schooi had been given their first conditional use approva'l based on a certain amount of square footage, and Patten explained that it nas based on the number of students, but that the Mountain School had Come back and asked for an open ended number of students and received permission for an un] 'imited number of students. 0onovan moved and Trout seconded to app 5. Request for a side setback variance in a Residentja'l zone district in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot l. Block 1. Vail Villaqe 8th Jim Sayre showed site pl ans and explained that the staff was reconmending denial because there were other alternatives available to the applicant. Al Abplanalp, representing the applicant, repeated the reasons stated jn the memo for requesting the variance, He added that the two lots,'l of I and lot 2, were developed in conjunction with one another and the easement was to ensure each a view of the Gore Range. He gave other examples of variances granted. John Rai'l ton, of Trout Creek Co1 'l aborative, architects for the project, stated that his office had gone through the options l jsted in the memo, He discussed each al ternative. Viele stated that the purpose of the sjde setback ordinance was to insure a mini- mum setback, and that he was in favor of this request because of the extraordinary circumstances. Piper agreed with the staff's philosophy and felt that the alterna-tives should be explored. He added, however, that with the nonbuildable area there seemed to be adequate separation and low impact, and he was in favor of the variance. Donovan felt that as long as there were alternative places where the addition could be constructed, and the fact that the easement was not necessarily perrnanent, she was against the varjance, Morgan wondered if the setback could be -reiuced if the addition were placed where requested, and Sayre answered that jt would .have to be a long narrow room. Morgan said he could not see any benefit to placing the addition anywhere else. Corcoran pointed out that the board had turned down a side setback request in Bighorn which would have allowed a l0 foot airlock, and the board accepted it after the size was reduced to an 8 foot airlock, showing that the board was concerned with degree of varjance Donovan pointed out that there was the possib'i1ity that the lot with the easement would be sold and the use of the area where there-was an easement changed as had occured elsewhere in the same neighborhood. Abplanalp answered that in the deed no building "whatsoever" could be built'jn the easement. Larry Eskwith, Town attorney, stated that the easement could be abandoned because the easenrent holder or his successor has control because it goes with the land. Ic PEC 5/23/83 -5-o( Morgan asked which other variances had been grante9 jn 1lg inrnediate area, and Savie answered that there had been two others which he did not research, but tnit tne staff had tried to be consistent with the Bighorn airlock referred to by Corcoran. Morqan mentioned Seibert'shouse remodel , and Patten repeated that part of the garlge could be made into a bedroom,.and a new garage built in front of it. Viele moved and Morqan seconded to approve the setback varjance regggqt stating l ege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties c'l assified in the same distr'ict, that the granting ofthe variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or weJfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and that the variance was waffanted because there were except'ions or extraordinaiy circumstances app)icable to the site that did'not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The vote was 3 in favor, 2 against (Donovan and Corcoran) and Trout abstained. The variance was granted. 6.uest for renewal of an existin ar conditional rmit for the onofama or arca ronta canE: Jim Sayre explained the memo and read the conditions under which the renewal could 6e grahted. Shockley, one of the owners stated that he felt th.e Town supported the arcade, that-he probably had 75% local customers, and wished to remiin in Vail . He was questioned concerning the percentage of customers who were adults, to which he repl ied, "75%." PiOer moved and Corcoran seconded t9 approve thelenewa'l subject tq-!he four iri 7.est for a side setback variance to construct a raqe for a residence on lot 7 oc ntermounta in.so a reouest lor variances rom Sections ow DarK 1n Idcated Dartial I wi th i n Town of Va'i l -ot-wav an to construct one ess off-s eet parkin space tnan requ arles barnes a uer Jim Sayre explained the memo and showed site plans and elevatjons. .Corcoran read a-'letter from Mike McGee of the VaiI Fire Department in which'he'stated that the Fire Department was notin favor of this variance. - : Dave Irwin, designer for the applicants, showed a rendered perspective which revealed the steepness of the lot. He explained how he arrived at the design which would have the:l east impact, in his mind, on the property. !e added that since the Barnes' only owned one car, four parking spaces would be more than adequate. Sayre explained that any approva'l would be contingent upon the Town of Vajl abandoning the easement, and that Irwin did have the approva'l of the util ity companies. . '{.fc PEc srzsr) (s- Trout was concerned with the method of construction, and Irwin explained the reasons he wanted to build as presented, Donovan felt the building did not be1 ong on a steep lot, and lrwin said that he had kept the addition as small as possible, that he was using less GRFA than was allowable. Donovan felt that it would be too imposing to the neighbors. Irwin answered that that it was surrounded heavily with woods, and that the addition was an improvement to the property. Piper ment'ioned that they could not deny the number of units allowed jn the zone district, but that the number would be partially determined by the parking limitations. He added that there may have to be a setback variance, but there should not be a parking variance. Viele agreed with Piper. Patten reminded the members that non-conforming parking could remain, but parking for the new addit'ion must be satisfied, He said that there were two questions,'l . Are there three non-conforming parking spaces? and 2. what are the merits of the overall program3 Corcoran asked that assuming that there are three spaces, if the wall were rebujlt, would the three spaces still be legal non-conforming? Sayre answered that the non-conformfng spaces could be repaired or improved, so long as the discrepancy not increased, Viele stated that the burden of proof 1ay with the applicant. Dave Terrell, representing the Andersons who own'l of 8, stated that there would be v'i sual blockage, and from lot I it appeared to be a massive structure because of the proximity of the project to lot 8. He was protesting especially the setback variance whjch was close to the more level and most logical part of lot 8 upon which to build. He added that any variance would set a precedent for further variances on that street, and that it wou'ld prevent the minimum setbacks the Town was trying to maintain. He added that it was the board's responsibility to protect absentee property owners, and that there would be a problem with snow remova'l . Irwin stated that he had considered all of these th'ings, but that this was the worst (most steep) lot he had ever seen, Discussion continued trying to.find alternative methods of parking. Piper moved and Donovan seconded to denv the request for a side setback variance prlvr Iege lncons rstenr wrtn tne l rm'rtarrons on otner propert'les class'ltied ln the same di'strict. The vote was 5 in favor, 0 aqainst, with Corcoran abstaini 8. A request to amend Chapter ,|8.54, Design Review, of the Vail Municipal Code.ffi Peter Patten stated that item. It was decided to this item. Viele moved Jamar had asked him special meeting on to request to table June 20 at 2:00 pm Peter have a this for only vote was The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm. as reouested,The and Pio r seconded to table 6-0'in'favor. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: OC MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Conmission Department of Conmunity Development Itlay I9, I983 Rezoning request from R P/S to HDMF and park'ing for-sale employee housing units on Lot l, Block Applicants: Chuck 0gilby and Tim Garton variances to al'l ow four 6, Intermountain. PART I: REZONING ' A. THE REQUEST Lower Upper Upper Upper Requested is a rezoning-of the parcel on which currently sits the Intermountain swim and rennis club's indoor swiffning pool build'ing. itre uuilaing has not been used for any purpose for severa'l-ybars. This fiarcel -wis zoned Residential Primary/Secondary upon hlest Vail annexation. P1og9;gd are four emp'loyee housing units ranging from 47g to 1060 square feet 9l GR|A, and they-woutd be sold ai a proposed miximum price of-$85-pa; iq -- ft. (see the following chart). LEVEL UNiT BEDROOMS APPROX. GRFA APPROX. PRICE D A B c studio 2 2 2 Total 478 sq ft 830 881 1060 $40,630 70,550 74,885 90,'100 3249 sq ft $276,1 65 Il9-.9:t"]gtions.proposed-are the same as the pitkin creek park project.lhat is' the maximum resale price is tied to the increase in the'coisumer price index, purchasers_must be employed residents with a maximum annual lncome celllng (currently about $42,000/yr. at Pitkin Creek) and lease holders must be local residents as well with leaies no more than mo;th]v.orii. -riniicing would be the going market rate at the time of sale. lilgq il," existing structure crowds the site (it covers over a third of the buildable area),.it'is not possible to provide on-site pur[ing for the residences.The proposed parking is about 300 feet to the east in a'i6'sqiare roi-oeiisreJ-for the sole use of the.patrons of the swim and tennis club-(now-d"i;r;;j:'-- lg*:yg.: lgr loading and untoading convenience there would be a pull-off iane :l^!ll" northeast corner of the property, just south of the bridgb over Gore LreeK. 'C Intermountatlzo( -2- silg/e3 This parking situation requires a variance from section .|8.20.140 Parking and Loading in HDMF which requires 757" of the required parking be within the main building and hidden from public or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. Also needed is a variance from Section 18.52.060 Parking - off-site and joint facilities-- to a'l low an off-site parking agreement for parking which is required to be covered. For $'|0lmonth the owners and their guests would receive use of the tennis courts owned by the Intermountain Swim and Tennis condominiums as well as grounds maintenance and snowploywing services Be1 ow are some statistics relevant to the proposal: Zone: Gross Lot Size: Buildable Area: Number of Units GRFA: Parki ng : Site Coverage: Height: UNDER EXISTING DISTRICT R P/S 12,440 sq ft NA plus I empl. apt. 3ll0 sq ft 4 - 2 covered 20% nax, 26% ex. 33'maxr 20'ex. IJNDER HDMF HDMF 12,440 sq ft 9,040 sq ft 5 5,424 sq ft - 6 covered 50% max 48' max PROPOSED HDMF 12,440 sq ft 9,040 sq ft 4 3,249 sq ft 8+, off-site,0 covered 26% 20, B. VAIL'S EMPLOYEE HOUSING SITUATION Due to the state of the national and regiona'l economy in the past two years, our empio.yee housing situation has changed significantly from the .|970 climate. Four years ago, when Valli-Hi and Pitkin Creek were just beginning to come on line, |re were experiencing almost a crisis in the provision of affordable housing for both seasonal and permanent residents. The early-mid seventies saw such a boom in developnent and an associated state of sky-rocketing prices tht there was very little which cou] d be termed affordable for locals, either in rentals or for sale. This created an environment of dire need wh'ich resulted in the public and private sectors cooperating to produce the Va1 li-Hi rentai and Pitkin Creek for-sale projects. The Valli-Hi project is now completed and has been serving its purpose, for the most part, as providing affordable, weil located units for rent. These units have helped meet the very important needs of the nlore seasonal population in Vajl . However, due to the glut of rental units and the price of rentals over the past year or so, ValIi-Hi has experienced less than full occupancies in that time period (expecially low are the sunmer months). O(Intermour7^n ( one -3- 5/19/83 The Pitkin Creek Project (averaging $90/sq ft price) has been, from the very beginning, an overwhelming success in meet.ing the needs of the more permanent residents with steady, moderate-level incomes. t.lith 156 units total , the number of people who signed up for a unit was about 650. Granted, some of these might not have qualified for the mortgages, but there suddenly was a realization in the community of the tremendous demand for employee (affordable) condorninium units. Just as the rental units provide the role of housing seasonal employees, the condominiums actually make it possible for entry-Ievel professionals and others holding important growth-oriented jobs to remain in Vail via "buying into" the corffnunity. If the opportunity to do so did not exist, chances are that many of these peop'l e would leave town for destinations where they could continue their careers and have the ability to purchase a home. This would not be beneficial to the individual businesses which lost these employees or to the corrnunity as a whole. Currently, we find ourselves in a "renters market," much unlike the 1979 scenario. The causes behind the current situation are varied, but the 91 ut of units for sale and the sheer number of second homes in town (many of which depend on rental income of off-set mortgage payments in today's tight economy) are a major contributor. Currently, there have been a very large number of quite affordable rental unjts advertised in the local papers This large number of units for sale has lowered real estate prices valley-wide. However, it is evident with the interest shown in the affordable hous'ing project."The Homestead" (at-cost units in Edwards) that there remains a large market (high demand) for condominjums at "affordable" prices. It appears there remain a large number of families and individuals jn the local market who still (even with prices slight'ly falling recently) cannot afford the open market unit, but would qual ify for a slightly less expensive unit. C. SURROUNDING USES AND DENSITIES The sumound'ing land uses are either residential or vacant parcels. The area contains densities which are general ly similar to that proposed. Across Bell- flower Drive to the southeast is a 1arge, vacant parcel zoned Residential Primary/Secondary which is likely to be subdivided into a number of duplex lots when developed. Across the same street to the south are the Westi^idge Condominiums--4 units on a parce'l a'l so about the same as the subject 1ot. Direct'ly to the west are the Bel'l flower Condomin'iums, a deve'lopment of four units on a parcel a'lso about the same as'lot 1, around 12,500 square feet. These residents will _definitely be those most affected by the fncreased activity on lot l. Patios and decks of these units are actually touching the common property 1ine, and these unjts' "front yard" is the area to the south of the existing structure. There is an existing agreement between 0gilby and Garton, owners of the pool building and the Bel'l lflower Condominiurn Associatjon which calls for retaining this area as open space, certain landscaping requirernents,(to be done by Bellflower in exchange for use of the pool)and a fence to be maintained by 0gi)bylGarton. It is obvious this area is of great benefit to both parties as open space and, thus, parking should not be located on it. li I TC O tf-,n -4- s/1e/83 hfl Directly qcfg:s_the creek to the northwest is;ltsingle family residenc6occupied by chuck 0gi1by's family, but the house is suriounded to the-north and west'by the Inter'lochen condominium project. Interlochen contains 39 units on 1.77 acres resulting in a density of zz dwell'ing units per acre. To the north and -east, across Kinnickinnick Road are the Int6rmountain Swim and Tennis Club condominiums. This.complex contains 24 units on about 5 acres for a aeniiiy--of 4.8 units/acre with two tennis courts. Thus, the area genera'l ly-contains similar densities to that proposed in the various condominium developments.. The request is to upzone by iwo units, but at the same time nearly meeting the maximdm allowabte bRrR in'the piimiiv/--- *!ol9lry !i:trlgl. The propeity is fai.rty well buffered from parcets aiross r'ne creeK and will relate to a greater degree to developments tb the west and south. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 0ver the past several years.only_a_proposed use of employee housing has received upzoning for additional units. This, bf course, js dbne due to th6 overall 99mmu1ilV benefit of.such a housing_provision anO only if the proposal is compati-b'le with its sumounginsl. ^The reil questions to ansiler in thbse'past casei -- and, in the case in front of use now,'is: l. Is this truly "affordable,' housing which will serve 2. If the answer to question number I is yes, then: Is increase appropriate for the neighborhoodi its intended purpose? the requested density The staff answer to both questions, in this case is yes. A consultation with two knowledgeable real estate agents has resulted in their agreeing that gg5 per square foot is a quite_reasonable-price for these units iith rispect to :!IlIg,I99t prices.in the Town of vait in general, !'lith the exceptibn of the Matterhorn area, all other neighborhoods in vail are.in a $90-100'pe" sqrar"-foot range. Moreover, the size of the upper 1eve1 two uedioom unils with ilreir associated prices mgke them quite.viab'le'ind desirable living units-witn reipect to the existing Vait market dccording to the reit eitite'exp6rts. ' -r-: The staff feels the.rezoning will not have adverse impacts upon the neighborhood.]l: ::I:jt{_tlof?r99 is quiie cglnpat-ibte-with. those "iJi..nt, and retaiii;s '-- rne soutn tawn as open space will allow for',breathing room,'for both the de.t.l_flower condomjnium residbnts and the owners or ine-qrfiroyil units. ilre parling off-site with provision of the drop-off space should hoiireate negative'impalis on the neighborhood (see variance bvaluation Glo;). - .In.-conclusion, we recormend approval of the proposed rezoning from R p/S to HDMF for emplovee housing purirbses with thJ toiio*ing ionJiiionr, l. Unit D be sold at a maximum p.ice of $4.| ,000 and be a minimum of 450 square feet. l(InteTI *fnu -s- 5/1e/83 . ,, ^\I square feet of GRFA.J A]\ VU" ^7\1P'-( 5, Financing of not more than '12% on a 30 year mortgage be a part of each ' -YntlX nY condominium sale.4flil\r\ha\-/ 'W\\" 6. A pull-off lane for vehicles is provided on the north side of the bu.ilding 'u \ for use for owners and tenants only. This pu11-off/drop-off space shall - be generally limited to l0 minutes per vehille stop, ani this shall be generally reflected in the condominium by-1aws and/or declarations. 7. The existing footprint of the build'ing on the site sha'll not be expanded except for appurtenant decks and balconies. 8. The open space on the south side of the building remain, 9. use of the tennis courts and maintenance services for the project are plovided initially for $10/month for the first year after terliticate of occupancy for each condominium, subject to rLasonable rate increases in subsequent years. 10. Parking is provided as noted below in the variance section of this memo. ll. The basic stipulations and restrictions concerning leasing, naximum resale pl!99s,_purchaser qualifications, etc. that are found curiently in the Pitkin Creek Park Condominium covenants are formulated, adoptei and enforced for'l 0 years from the date of the filing of said covenints. @ I!9,.?l9p?l.l requires that parking variances be obtained for atlowing a'lt required parklng to be uncovered as well as allowing such uncovered parking under an dff-site parking agreement CRIJERIA AND FINDINGS yPgn=revigw ol cli liniJrqs, section .|8.62.060 0f the Municipal code,the Department of Coli'llrly ' Consideration of Factors 2. Unit B be sold at a maximum price of $76,000 and not be Jess than 880 square feet of GRFA. 3. unit c be sold at a maximum price of $9l,969 and not be less than ]055 square feet of GRFA. 4, Unit A be so'ld at a maximum p.rice of $2t,000 and not be 'less than 830 The parking 1ot proposed to be utilized by the condominfurn owners and their guests i': OC Tt Rezone -6- s/1s/83 is a'l ot specifical'ly provided for patrons of the intermountain Swim and Tennis Club. This lot contiihs 16 parking spaces and is physica'tly separated from the other condominium owners'spaces to the west and north. Thus' the spaces are available (club memberships are now defunct) and can provide for more than adequate parking for the employee project. Some residents jn adjacent developments have indicated that there exists a parking problem in the neighborhood. We feel that this project will not add to that iroblem with the diop-off space for convenience purposes and the readily available parking within 300 feet of the units. This is not an excessive distance to walk from.one's car to the unit when compared with other multi-family projects in Vail with surface parking. As far a uncovered parking goes, there is very Iittle of it in the neighborhood' and the surface parking 1ot proposed for utilization is existing (no asphalt is being added in the area as a result of the proposal). The existing building on the lot, combined with the agreement for open.space continuation on the south side of the building, create definite physical hardships for covered, on-site parking. The bui'l ding existing was built specifically without on-sfte parking provisions in mind, and this is evident upon a site inspection. The parking proposal is not an overly onerous burden on the unit owners and is a quite woitlltb solution considering on-site parking (much less covered parking) is neigher prevalent in the neighborhood nor possible to develop on-site due to the existing physical hardships. The effect of the requested variance on l'ight alrd air, distribution of popu'lation, publ ic safety. No negative impacts upon these factors would occur as explained previously in this memorandum. Such other factcirs and criteria as the commission deems appl icable to the FINDINGS l The Planning and Env'ironmental Commission shal'l make the fo!plv!ng_Jjnljnls Detore grantr nq a vartance: That the granting of the variance wil'l not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same di stri ct. The de ree to which relief from the strict or literal inte retation and enforcement at'ion s necessar ati 'l l rE ormi t ttre nt e vlctn or to at in the St out qfant o spec ra I pr tr I .t Or Intermtfezq--7- sl\9/83 That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health' safety, oi wel faie, or material 1y iniurjous to properties or impnovements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one.or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation wou'ld resu'l t in practical difficuity or unnecessary physica'l hardship jnconsis- tent with the objectives of this title' There are exceptions or extraordinary circunstances or conditions applicable to the site of'the variance that do not apply general 1y to other properties in the same zone. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified.regulation uould deprive the app'l icant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other proper- ties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Conrnunity Development reconrnends approval of the two requested parking variances. tlle feel these are reasonable variance requests of-mjnor impact-which are dictated by the physical hardships existing on the site. Utiljzation of the buiiding- for empioyee housing and utilizing the parking ]ot to the east for its paiking are beneficial proposals for the Town. Neither the Val'l i-Hi project nor the Pitkin Creek project provide any covered park'ing for their residents or tenants, and both of these projects require, in certain cases, similar distances between parking and unit location as the one proposed. lJhile covered parking'i s encouraged'in the West Vai'l area, when it is generally lacking, we feel in this case that the parking faci'l ity. is.exist'ing' and using it for-ihis purpose wilt not adversely affect the neighborhood. Thus, no special privilege would result from the grant'ing of these variances. o o G/, @f3'h%raa t/f, ;-"dz " X*riex- sa, fuffi-/"/':M U-LL*4^ / Z/*,-2, 7zr//3 ,74 ' 37 'M//'7rf !, z((etu '6fo '//-/ u,/a<r.' /O y'n, .t7f 'S*g.*f Lr(,n g/ *"9 l,t d,u f ^,,- il.l;& -L/H /,*A g( zh,,l**" n* // /'U1*r*C'"/"h /*;t /Z gC " t' /' rl // *'*rtl** - rt,^g,e Pf FL0r{ER C0t{00illNlutl tss0c o share 30ne cotn 30ne cotnmon space for thelr irutual bcneflt and enJoyment. Thl's space ls lbcated lnnedfatdlf south of the pool and east of. the Condo butlding. It hrs.-bien landscaped ind sodded for-the use of ' l::t^enItttes:.lil{.,!.lt trg.n slgned agree to the followtns : . ri rr. .:\- '- ..., i :." i.,, rli terms -:.'2) vall tirtgpoun!a.fn'Swlm Club provlded the labor to tl!nn ,tl I ;'' I ) The Ailtrffo*err0ondonlniun Assoc{ation has graded the aiea, provt{ed ftll rnd b'lack dtrt, sod, fenclng and.tie..,- crib6liro for the olanters. The planters tvl'l'l be planted and fltlcd br thc'Condo Assocfatton prlor to June 'l '1979''-, .., 1 2) Vall littlrnountafn'Swlm Club provlded the labor to sireic UiCjSlqbk dl"nt, lry the sbd and erect the fenclng. 3) ln erchangq tgrl'thls the.pool obtains the use of a,^^ Ooriion'oi-giitfidrer Condoti front 'lawn, for-use bv lts memberi qld,thc poo"l agrees to mainta{n stid lawn up to the crfb pllntar. .- ': 4) Bellfliiwer Condomluniuns galn the use of pool grounds and landscrping rnd the condo association further agree3 that ill foui uitts ln the bulldlng will keep their pool membershlpb fn good standing, l 5) Bel'tfldrer. Condorniniuns agreed to maintaln the planter box on tha deck In a flrst c'lass condition sith trees' shrubs, and florers so as to enhance the aopearance and privacy of both parties. They a'lso agree to abide by the rules of the pool . i ,r .' .: . $:. s:, {. rii. :f. t'l "li the property I the gate shal Swln Cl ub. 7) All parttes understand that the fence encroaches on road right.of-ray and that at sone time it ls possible we may 6e asked- to move lt. In th'l s instance of moving fence- the Bel lflower Condominium Assoclatlon agrees to its pro.rdta share of noving the fence. 6) The fence from bu i I ding lnc'l udlng Va i'l lnternountaln i ne over. tq .-the 8el I f I ower 'l be nalntained bY the that the pay . It shal'l reasons other 8) Length of this agreenent is to be perpetua'l be disiolved by mutual agreernent only and for than paynent of pool dues. Condominlun Assoclation 't.. Vail t. i::!. i: i,$Y lir,l t,.i ,,,,rfit Bel I fl yi nta o(T0v 5/s/sO3-( Jay Peterson, representing the hospital , stated that he felt that there was no parking problem, and pointed to an area adjacent to the parking lot that was leased to the TOV Recreation Department which, if not leasedr could provide more parking spaces. Corcoran referred to a new s'i te plan showing a b1 ocking off of the existing westerly lane of the parking lot which would add l8 more spaces and asked if the entrances into the parking lot to the west woutd be pernanently blocked. Gary Swetish, representing Brfner/Scott Architects, ansr\,ered that boulders would be piaced to block the entrances. Donovan was concerned about havjng enough irarking spaces to park the hospital ambulances which were now parked'i n the area to be covered with the new bui'l ding. She also wanted to know if the classroom would have any other uses. Tim Cochran of the ambulance staff answered that CMC would also use it for their First Aid classes ahd health classes and that there would probably be 25-30 people in each class. Donovan repeated her concern about parking. Lyn Morgan of the amublance district stated that fewer peopie used the parking lot in the evenjng when the classes would be held, than in the daytime. Patten read a'l etter from the hospital board giving approvai of the new construct'ion. Donovan asked if the new construction had been approved by the State Hospital board, and Swetish answered that the board's approval wasntt needed, since the building was not attached to the hospital . Vjele expressed concern about the amount of parking, as djd Jim Morgan, who fe'l t the meeting room wou'l d generate more parking problems. Lyn Morgan stated that normally there would only be two persons on duty at any one time, ,.lim Morgan felt that asking for only 6 parking spaces was unreal istic. Peterson sugges- ted perhaps the hospital could have some type of control during the peak hours. Pierce felt that it would be djfficult to ask the hospita'l to monitor the parking, and suggested asking the applicant to come back with more study on park'i ng. Corcoran also felt that parking was an issue. Fred Green, one of the members of the board of directors of the hospital , suggested perhaps requiring hospital employees park in the parking structure. Jay fe1 t that that solution would merely clear the Iot for more skiers to park, and added that it would be expensive to patrol . Donovan stated that the'l ot was close to full when the PEe went over on their site visit. She suggested that perhaps the hospital not enter into a long term lease with the TOV for the extra parking arba near thb ice arena. Patten said that the staff wanted to review the parking'lot design with the architect,for he believed the hospital did not build the parking lot as it had been approved, and more landscaping was needed. Corcoran suggested that the DRB could request 'landscaping. Patten explained that the staff hadn't had time to review the new site plan, and that the appl'icant gave no details for the use of the classroom. He felt that the staff could work with the appl icant to get extra parking spaces: Trout moved to apDrove the re uest as submitted er the staff memo dated Ma I 983 (]5 aces su ect to review.e secon n favor, ainst uest for rezoninq from RP ts HDMF on 'l e existinq structure to four icants: rn Garton to in Jay and Peterson, representing the appl Donorian seconded to table until icants,reques ted The vote to tabl e was 6-0 May 23. favor. Donovan fel t e rease wltn f,ne luv Kecre t l, Block 6, Intermountain to con Mav 23. Viele moved P'l anning and Envjronmental Commissjon May 9, ]983 I :00 2 :00 pm pm Site Visits Publ ic Hearing Approval of the mjnutes of the meeting of April 25' A request for setback variances and for a variance to Section ia.O4.OsO, improvements to nonconforming structures jn,order to en1 arge an ex.ist.ing balcony,.construct_a bay wlndow, a.oq.an alr ioct Entry, and to constru-ct a stone.planter,..deck and stairway on-tjnli t", Viit: iiaits Chalet. Appl ii:.ants: Mr. & Mrs.J.D. Z'immerman Request for a conditional use permjt-jn a Medjum Density-Mu1ti- Fifriiy,on" djstrict to construct a facilil' Iot the Eagle County fmergLnCy Services at the Vail Va11ey Medical Center' nppriii"i, Eagle County Emergency services Hospital District Request for rezoning from Residential Primary/Secondary..(R-P/S) i;-iigh Density llutii-famity (HDMF) on Lot 1, glock.6, Vail Intermountain io Coivert the-existing str-ucture io four qmployee housing units. niro "*qu"tted is a-puif.ing varjance. Applicants: Charles ggi1by and Tim Garton A request to amend chapter .l8.54, Des'ign Review, of the vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail 2. 3. 4. 5. o MEMORAT.IDUM TO: Peter Patten Zoning Administrator FROM: Jay K. Peterson DATE: May 2' 1983 RE: Rezoning and Parking Variance for Chuck Ogilby's Intermountain ProPertY Pursuant to your reguest, the following information is being provided. 1. Financing. Financing will be at conventional rates because tax-exempt bonds are no longer available. The approximate rates today would be 12? to I2.5?, with two to two and one-half points. Rates are still going down; howeverr at a much lesser rate. we would expect rates to be lIB to 11.58 by the time our project comes on line. 2. Prices. Price will be approximately $100.00 per ssuare foot. 3. Restrictions. Restrictions will- be in substantial conformitv with Pitkin Creek Park's, which are attached. JKP c o \Ns-\ /r,t-'-t - --=-,{\ condominiuT Yni"q sanef. PUrc Bestrictions on Rgsqle. €it'thb r ! transfer or conveyanee by operation of law or other- wise of an interest of an owner t6 any olhei co-or'tners where such co-owners hold title on the date of sirch transfer aE tenants in ' ;;;;;-;; ii-joi"i ienants shall be exempt from the rown of Vall's rioht tO purcha"" -ur,O the need for the town to advertise the sale ii'iiu-Io;ffii;i.t-,itiil-uti shall not be exempt from the remainlng provisions of ParagraPh 22. . If the owner does not receive a bid in an anount equal to or greater than the Maximum Resale Price within nlnety (90) days "i itr"'f"st pubfi-.iion aaie, then the ovrner shall be allowed tso sell his condominium unit on the ;'open narket" and shall be deemed to have lati"ilJa inf" puiugripS-",-,Aer ZZ. The transferee, his grantees or "r""""=ors ln iirterest, however, shall be bound by the terms-and ;;;eiii;;" oi tr,i..-piiigruph nurnber 22 in the same manner and desree ;; ii-; trinsfer n'aa olcu-rred on the "open market." If the owner I"u"-"oL ielf nis ""na"*i"ium unie on thl open-rnarket within one ;,1n6t;e eighty (1S0) days of the last publication date and if the ;;;; "riri alsiiei'to SeII his condomlniurn unit, he must again- comply with the i"if-t.t*s and conditions of this FSlt?Iltl.number 22' nor- tlre purpose of establishing- the sales date in the preceding- sentence, tne recoraing dut" oi tne transfer deed shall be conclusive eviclence of thc datc of sale. -16- i If the owner rejects all bids srithout regard to the lar value of such bids, he shall. forfeit his deposil. rf the r sells the condorninium unit to a eualified purchaser, as A fi)- "euarified purshasers" sharl be residents of vair,l/- ^, Colorado who meet the gualiflcation, including the maximum lncolne ). ^^0rl"g:1r:I.1::9ion,.e^stablished _annually by resolurion of rhe Tom counctt. f )J'f |!:_l:Y::ion of tho suallflcatloni ehall be llrnlrea to tnosei chanees - 'J reasonabry necessary to limit the sale of che condominiurn unit to-- purchasers of low and moderate income residing in the rown-of Vail. trerelnafter defined. the Town of Vail. or an entity or comrni.ssion created !v tne Town of Vail, or an employer whose Lusiness is located withln the Town of vairr then he shall pay the Town of vair or its designee an anount gqual-to one percent (lt) of the sales price---less the amount of deposit prevlousty made. such fees faib-[o-tne Town of.Varl shall be for arl advertising and administrltive fees ln connection with the sal.e of the condominium unlt. rn no event shalr any condorninlum unit be sord unless it is sold on the open market pursuant to the criteria set out above, for an amount in excess of the totar of the foll0wing: - Purchase price + .a a ted as follows: ., current index - base index-l /pqse :.ndex + current indexrl \ (i) An amount calcula (ur.na=u price * [t.u I For the purposes of this subparagraph, the phrase .base index" shall be the index value of the eonsirmer price fndex which appeared most recently prior to the tine of purchase and the term ,,current lndei" shall be the index value of the Consurner price fndex which appeared most recently prior to the sale for which the niiimum resale price must be determined. (if) The value at the rime of sale of all capital.improvements made to the condominium unit plus the owner,s prorata share of the costs of those made to the common elements and assessed to the owner. The value of the capital improvements shall be as deternined by mutual agreement 6f the owner and Town of Vait or by an appraiser rnituatly acceptable to the owner and the Town of Vail. The cost,of such appraisal shall be pald by the owner. (iii) The cost of any public improvements for which assessments were imposed by any governmental or guasi-governrirental agency which have-b6en paid during the period of ownership. The sum of (i), (ii) and (iiil above shatl be the "Maximum Resale Price.'r rn the event a bid is received equal to or in excess of the ltaximum Resale price herein established, th6 condominium unit shalr be awarded to such bidder at said Maxlmum Resare price.rn the event two or more such bids are received, the winning bidder shall be se]ected by lottery and the condominlum unit snatl-be soid to him at no more than the Maxirnum ResaLe Price. Notwithstanaint the above, ra Qualified Purchaser shall always have preference o*r.r "i Employek as long as his bid is eguar to or gr"aler than the uaximun Resale Price or the Employerrs bid, whichever Ls less. rn the eveng two or more bids are submitted which require the owner to take a promissory note as partial paynrent and no other Maximum Resale price bids are recei.ved, then the ohrner may select the winning bidder at his sole discretion without the need of q lottery. wotfring herein,however, shall be construed to prevent, the owner- from reJe6tins all bids and retaining ownership of the condominium unit. (b) No owner shalt-permit any purchaser to assume any or all of the ohrnerrs customary closing cosls-nor accept any other consideration such as to increase the purchase priee alove tnu-uia price_or Maximum Resale Price or so as to otherwise induce the owner to seII to said purchaser. (c) The forrowing transfers of interests in the con-dominiun unit shall (unless designated to avoid the restrictions of this paragraph number 22) be exempt frorn this paragraph number 22: -'t?- ^ ,-.- '#n.J v 4fo:,r..ij .','.'iI.,. ' (i) A transfer of an LnteresE by will or In-'-,o'. .'..-r{. t r ..heritance ., , i-i: .,..(ii) A transfer of an Lnterest to a trustee foi J'.1:i the benefit of the owner or the olrner's spouse or lssue.: .,i (iifl A transfer of an interest by treasurer's aeea'.'*- ,pursuant to a sale for dellnguent taxes or by a.sheriff's or lublic or private trustee's deed gursuant to a judgmene Lxecution or f,oreclosure sale. Provided, however, anything above to the contrary notwithstanding, ln lh; ;t;;i the unit stratt bt transferred in any manner described ln subparasraphs (il through (iii), the transferee, his grantees or ;;;;;";5;s'ln interest,-shall be bound by the terms and conditions "i-if,i"-paragraph nurnber 22 in the same manner and degree as if no exempt transfer had occurred. (d) After full conpliance by an offering owner with paragraph 22, and after alt periods-of time provided- for-purchase by 9!t9 iown-Coirncil (or other entlty or comr.rission created by the Town.Council) ii'-6r-;-;;ouiririea Purchaseri have expired, then.9!9 T9tun.,cplryil ahatl zprepirel . -xecu!,e ' acknowlefsg ana g*g3T,,!-q..a...,9..*..r-!..1{.lg*s;ls*s!cp.rdable IiS;iE*fr Flrr*dwFiet{-r{-8.i*r'#i*gHf 'fi l?SWffi i+;;'., ;^-eotntr I i €al rtlBn .lnd-.tnaE, any EIgnE.05 rlgrrts Le l,,L[srtcrDG; t,I ,..=.: l(U v;li-i;; ;E[at -ntity br ior:unisstori created by the Town'Council) or bv 'F i-;""iiifi.a purchasir" have been termlnated. Such certiflcate nay be \ "ign-a-Uy uny member of the Town Council, the Town Manag€lr.the Town ;i;;k; "'r "iiitt "ihe" p.tson as designated by the Town Council, and shall U"-""..i"sive upon thl town of VaiI- (or other entity or commission ;;.;c;d-by ttte iown of vaitl and arl oualified Purchasers !n favor of all persons who ln good faith rely Ehereon. rf '- .zl. Restrictions on Leasing. (a) In the event the owner desires to lease his condomlniun unit, ln"-o"ner shall notify the-Town of Vall, attentlon io""-Cfutk, of such intention anC shall-provlde.to the Town of Vail oiio" to the date of occuPancy of the lelsee written docr.mentation ihowing the following: (f) The name of lessee and his place of enaPloyment; (ii) The term of the leasei (iii) The rnonthly charge of the lease; (iv) The security deposit amount; and (v) The owner's cost of princlpa! and interest palmentsrtaxes,propertyinsurance,condominiumdues,..."ini utilitles. (b) In no event shall the owner lease to a person who does npt meet ihe qualifications of a Qualified Purchaser and li;;;;;a"i eor such coridoninium unit shall not exceed the owner's. mont,hly expenses for the costs of principa} and.intereBt Pa]'mengs, ;;;;;'piobutty insurance. condominium dues, utilities, plus an iaaitioitul-twenty dollars (S2O.OO) and a reasonable refundable security dePosit. 24. Notwithstanding the provlsions of paragraph 15r the.. provisions in paragraphs 22 and 23 shall not be amended htithout ih. "*pt.ss wrltten consent of the Town of Vail' 25. The provisions of paragraph 22-and 23 shall be binding upon aII owners, or th"ir heirs, successors atrd assigns, and-all il",ii"-i" effeci for a period of seven years from the date of recording of thls Declaration. -I8- et fer of t from 27. rn case of a transfer to a first lienor in connection with a foreclosure of its llen or taking u J".a-in lieu thereof,such transfbr' sharl be exempt from paragraphs 22 and 23. rf the first lienor sells the cond6mi;iun ilit';;[;JqiJnt ro a forecrosure,then that rransfer shall be exernpt rrom liii;;;;i; Z2i however, such transferee' his grantee or succeisor in inteiest- shall be bound by the terms and-_conditions Jf-parugraphs 22 ana zr in the sane nanner and degree as if, no exenpt tranifer''t,ui "r"uri.i. rf the first lienor or other grantee at a forecros"ie-sii"-iii.nases such unit for an amoung creater ttran ine-;Maximum nesiie-pii.uri as computed urrder paragrapi 22, rh;; Irt"'e""t.iarion;ilii i! entirred ro arr funds in excess of the "Maximum nesite-price." 28. General. ary parasraph,,iii:.li, lii.!i":Tn:::I':1"ffi ,;: ll'inl.ll;ii:illJ't!:t"gl in ?ly circumstance be iniralidat.a, """f1 invalidiry shall not affect the validity of the remaindei-;i thi; Declaration and the applicatiorS of any sucir provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in any' other clrlumstancJs lnali nbt'ue iirected thereby. (F) The- provisions of this Decraration shall be in 1fa1tio1 and sugplementar ro rhe conaonini, -o;;;"hip Acr of rhe State of Colorado and to all other provisions of law. (c) whenever used herein, .unress the context sharr otherwise-frovlide, the singurar number snitt inciuae the plurarr the prural'the' singurar, aia tne use of "ny-gunaui sharl insrude all genders. rN wrrlrEF'qrlIHEREoF, Declaran! has dury executed this Declaration this .!E- day of ?Tl<...r"<J.,, ', l9B0 "Declarantt' PITKIN CREEK PARK, TNC.aCo es R.erson, is Declaration. rThe rundersiqned by thls Declarition holder of a deed of hereby consents to trust upon the property and ratifies th6 proviiions IONAL BANK OF DENVER sta er -19- enlor Trust Officer a. L t.J t, Cas l. :r I t ," ta \ REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM PRIMARY/ SECONDARY TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY The purpose of the rezoning is to a1low the change from the Vail Intermountain Swim Club to a four-unit residential housing project, with restrictions simi-lar to Pitkin Creek Park Condominiums. Site Data (preliminary): Total 1ot area L2,427 sq. ft. (.2853 acres) Proposed density 4 units (14 units,/acre) Site coverage 3,000 sq. ft.+ (24.I?) Proposed c.R.F.A. 3,290 sq. ft.J (26.59) See proposed site p1an, elevations and floor plans for further information. ,(OC REQUEST FOR PARKING VARIANCE In conjunction with the change of zoning from primary/ secondary to High Density Multi-Family, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 18.20.140 which reguires 75s" of the parking to be located within the main building. we are requesting a variance to allow the required eight spaces to be outside the main building. If the parking variance is granted, we would further ask that an off-site parking facility be allowed which would be located across Bellflower Drive. This is the current parking: arrangement for the Swim C1ub. Under Section I8.52.060, authority to permit off-site parking facili-ties does not extend to parking spaces required to be in the main building; however, if the variance is granted, our reguired spaces would be unenclosed and could therefore be allowed under Section 18.52.060 to be off-site. The practical difficulty is that in 1978 when the Swim and Tennis Club was approved by the County, the County required us to provide 16 parking spaces for the Club. They were subsequently buil-t and. paved. The spaces were never pranned to be covered and the location of the parking does not lend itself to be covered. The Swim CIub has since gone out of business. However, the uncovered spaces still exist. Since the parking spaces have always been open and would continue t,o be open if the pool was sti11 open, we feel that we are not changing from what was originally designed and reguired. The cost involved in covering these spaces would also make the employee housing economically unfeasibre. rn addition, since the parking is located across the street, which at the present time is already impacted by the uncovered parking, there will be no visible parking on the subject site. tc Ralph Putnam 74602 East 2nd Avenue Aurora, CO 80011 Juanita Pedotto 1336 Logan Street Denver, CO 80203 Interlochen Condominium Association Bruce Williams, Manager Box 1578 Vai1, CO 81658 BeIlf lower Condominium Association Carson Reid, I'lanager Box 3055 Vail, CO 81658 Westridge Condominium Association Bill Weswick, Manager Box 2485 VaiI, CO 81658 VaiI Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums Chuck Ogilby, Manager 2938 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Chuck Ogilby 2938 South Frontaqe Road West Vai1, CO 81657 o( r':,.j p.h. Y/,",ilr li. 'O( FOIT . 1ti:ti Lr.i:.'n Drr,,:___Agli_1__g-,_.19.9_3____- v\^ AltEi{Di-lDNT TO 'r,iiE zoNtlTc oRDlNilr.tcE OR PTiIITIO}I I'ORI.I RIiQU}ISI FOR A CI]ANGE TI,I NTSTRIC.I ROUi.JD.4,RIES I. This procedure is requireC for any anendment to the zonirig ord.inance or for a reguest for a district bounciary ch;:nge A. NAI4E OF PETITIONER Garton and Charles i1b ADDRESS 2938 S. Frontaqe Rodd West,_VaiI co 81657 PHOl.rE476-3080 B. N.aEE o!' pEl.rrroNERrs REpp,EsENljtTrvE Jay K. peterson ADDRESS P. O. Box 3149, Vai1, CO 81658 pr{CNE 476-0092 c.AUTHORIZATION OF OPERTY ObINE --i.- SIGI{ATURE I . ADII'.ESS 2938 S. Frontage est, VaiI, CO 81657 476-3080 PHOiiB LOCATTOI'I OF PROPOSAL ADDRESS 2938 Bellflower D. LEGAL DESCRIFTIOI'I lot I bloclr filin Vail Intermountain $l Er !'. l-EE s100. 00 plus an anourt eqru,-l to the trrcn curl-ent fir-st-class postage r-a.te for eacl] plopert), or,rner to be notified. Ilcreunder. A list crf the names of oryners of all pri:operty aclj;.:.cent to Lhe subject property, ancl their nail j.ng addresses, ,)',C .lication orr( Aprir 8, 1983 I.Thi.s The A. App APPLICATION FORIII FOR A VARIANCN procedure is required for any project requesting a Variance' application will not be accepted until all information is submitted. NAME OF AppLIC.At{T Tim Garton and Charles Ogilby ADDRBSS 2938 S. Fron B. c. rloNE 476-3080 NAME OF APPT,ICANT I S REPR.ESENTATIVE Jay K. Peterson ADDRESS P. O. Box 3149, Vail' CO 81658 pr{OIrE 47 6-OO92 AUTHORIZATION OF'P SIGNATURE ADDRESS g9NE 476-3080 LOCATION OF PROPOSAI ADDRESS 2938 Bellflower LEGAL DESCRIPTION lot _1_plock____1 Filing Vail Intermountain E. I'EE. $I00.00 plus an amoun-L equal to the then current first-class ?ostage . Tate for each property ol',nel- to be notified heretmder. F. . A list of the narnes of or.mers of all Property adjacent to the subject propert/ and their addresses.//*1 a";"; U; D. rl z#fu 75 south trontago road vall, colorado 81657 (3O3) 476-7000 olfice of lhe town managet VAIL1989 April 3, 1989 Mr. Charles Ogilby P. 0. Box 820 Vail, Colorado 81658 RE: Intermountain Swimming Pool Site Dear Chuck: The Vail Town Counci'l is aware of Rick Pylman's discussions with you over the past year or so concerning the possible purchase of the Intermountain swimming pool site by the Town. The Town Council is interested in this primariiy in order to get control of the site so that the unusable swimming pool and structure can be removed and the site cleaned up. The Town Council has authorized me to make the following offer for purchase by the Town of Vail of the Intermountain pool site: 1. The Town of Vail will pay you $20,000'i n cash at closing- 2. The Town of Vail wil'l cover any closing costs so there wilt Ue no closing costs to the owner. 3. Real estate transfer tax will be waived as provided under the real estate transfer tax ordinance. 4. The Town of Vail wi'l 'l pay for an appraisa'l of the property which you can use for income tax purposes. 5. The Town of VaiI wi1I be responsible for bui1ding demolition and site clean up. Mr. Charles Ogilby April 3, 1989 Page 2 6. There wi'l I be no deed restrictions on the site imposed by present owner. If these terms are acceptable to you, please let me know and Eskwith will draft a contract. }'le appreciate the opportunity with you in this matter in order to be able to accomplish the the unused facility from that site- Town Manager RVP/bsc cc: Vail Town Council Larry Eskwith Rick Pylman the Larry to deal removal of ME!{O TO: RON PHILLIPS I,ARRY ESK!{ITH FRor,r: RrcK PYLMAN ?,ar- DATE: MARCH 8, 1989 SU&]ECT: INTERMOUNTAIN SWIMIIIING POOL The following information details the offer made by Chuck oqilby regarding potential Town of VaiI purchase of the Internountain PooI: rr Purchase price $30,000 * No closing costs to olrner * To$rn of VaiI will pay for appraisal (Ogilby hoping for an 980,000 appraised value to maximize tax benefit)!t Deed restricted to fly fishing only * Infonnal park only - no play structures The estinated worst case building denolition costs are $L0,000 - $l-5,000. There may be an opportunity to trade the rnaterials on site for denolition services. I,{r. ogilby nay be reached at 476-3070. (a-d-.t-- -: RP: sm