HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL INTERMOUNTAIN BLOCK 10 LOT 14 LEGALoI
Ftt t cuPy
Department of Corwnunity Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
September 16,1999
Tom Braun
PO Box 776
Minturn, CO 81645
Re:Annexation of Lot 14, Block 10, Vail Intermountain
Dear Tom:
The Town Attomey and I have reviewed your letter dated June 25,1999 in regard to the potential
annexation ofthe above referenced parcel.
You raised four issues in your letter to which we respond as follows:
1. Contiguity/FederalLands
We agree with your opinion on the issue of leaping over federal lands to establish contiguity. It
appears from the materials provided that there is a small sfiip of federal land between this lot and
the Town of Vail boundarv.
2. Three Mile Plan
There is cunently no plan to move forward with a town-wide three mile plan. However, we
believe a three mile plan specific to this proposal can be completed. The plan needs to be
provided along with any annexation proposal but may be modified by staff during the review
proccss. An example of a site specific plan which was recently completcd has been attached and
can be used as a template for this potential annexation.
3. Vesting of Development zughts
The most expeditious route for processing of this application would be to concunently process
the annexation request and the proposed zoning. We also believe that having a complete
understanding of density proposed and impacts to the site would be necessary in order to give you
{g**"uoror*
I
assurances about development intensity after danexation and zoning. I would recommend that a
conceptual plan and an analysis of Eagle Couty development limitations as compared to
proposed Town of Vail zoning be submitted with the proposal.
4. ReviewProcedures
I believe it would be a good idea to present yoru ideas for the project at a worksession witr the
Town Council in order to get its geneml iryressions of the proposal. You realize, of coursg that
any conceptual proposal can not bind the PEC or the Town Council in the zonrng approval
process.
If yor have any questiong please call me il479-2148.
Chief of Planning
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
I
Plan for Arosa/Garmish Annexation
An area within 3 miles of the Town of Veil boundary.
This plan is intended to generally describe the proposed location, character, and extent ofthe proposed land
uses for this annexation (see attached map). The area is intended to be utilized as a public neighborhood
park with playground paths and trails, open spaces, and other related public amenities. In ad&essing the
state statutes, the following general use analysis is provided:
. Steets
No streets are planned for annexed area.
r Subwa)a
No subways are planned for annexed area.
r Bridees
No vehicular bridges are poposed for the annexed area. Some minor pedestrian bridges may be
constructed in conjunction with potential park/playground development.
Waterways
No waterways are planned for annexed area.
Waterfronts
No waterfronts are planned for annexed area.
Partcwap
No parlavays are planned for annexed area.
Playgrounds
A playground is planned for the a portion of the area being amexed. The area is intended to be
developed as a neighborhood oriented park and playground with other ancillary uses.
o Squares
No squares are planned for annexed area.
r Parks
This area is intended to serve as a neighborhood park.
Aviation fields
No aviation fields are planned for annexed area.
Other public ways
The area may include pedestrian walkways, paths, and trails.
Grounds and Open Spaccs
The area is intended to be utilized as public land and includes some areas of open space.
Public Utilities
The area is intended to be served by utilities and may contain easements and the like to serve uses
on the site.
Terminals for water, light sanitation, transportation and power
No such terminals are planned for annexed area.
F..\EV ERYON E1DO M\3MILE. DOC
Jun-25-99 Ol:59P e7Y7s 24os P.Ol
I oAt
-f^*e ate-- (1zg^4 @r?v,k-
Junc 25, 1999
Mr. Tom Moorehead
Town Attornsy
Town of Vail
75 South Fronlage Road
Vail, CO 8t657
R-E: I.ot t4, Block 10 Vail Intermountain
Dear Tom:
I want to thank you and Dominic for your time in meeting with mc a couplc rf months ago
regarding thc abovc rcfcrcnccd parcel in Inlerrnountain. The property is currcntly locatcd in
unincorporatod Eagte County. My clicnt is intercstod in pursuing annexatron with the Town in
order lo facilitate the dwelopment of a mixed "free markct" and onployec housing project.
During our meeting, we covored a variety oftopics rcgarding thc property an.l the arurer<ation
prccerss. Prior to my clients moving forward with this projcct, I would appreciate your
confimration and/or rcsponso to lhe following questions.
Contiguity/Fcdcral l,ands ;
I havc attached a vicinity map which depicts the.subject properly in nlation to the
Town's existing boundaries. Lt is my undcrstanding of state statutcs trat within ccdain
parmeters federal lands do not affect contrguity, i.c. annexations can 'Jump across"
fcdcral lande to establish contiguity. Assuming my undcrstanding is correct, it appcars
thrt contiguity can bc cstablitlred. I would appreciate your opinion on lhis matter.
2) Thrrx Mile Plan
, During our mccting you mentioned thc possibitity of thc Tovrn needirrg to havc a tlucc-q'L mile plan on filc prior to considering an annexation pctition. Coutd you pleasc advisc ont/' who nccds to do the plan, what elcmcots are needed in the plan, can ilrc plan bc writtenl,N. spccific to this anneiation proposal (i.e. a limrrcd plan), anil when thc plan nccds to bc
ryf- dons in rclationship to the rpview proccss tbr this annexation proposa.t.
Vcslirrg r:f Developmcnt Righls
Plsasc advisc as to the most expcditious prucess for obtaining approvtd/vested propcrty
rigltts. Will the town considcr cstablishing zoning concurrcnt with upproval of atr
annexalion or do wc need to come back through a znning pn,cess allc: anncxation? lf
thc latcr is the case, will the town cnter into an arucxation/developrnent agregl[glrt giving
us very strong assurances of the zoning wc will ultimately he 6(rantcd. As you can
r)
(
3)
**//
Mirrltrrrr ! rrrwrrr ks Sr.rrlrJrng
701 Marn ltreel. lnd iLxr:
[1^t Of f h r' ltor / /i,
l'ltrrlrrrrl. ('r rlr '|,rrlrJ 8la'4'l
Pnr,tt;9lO.$)/.:tllI
[,x - )X).8)7',.'"17
r'v.,w ln'i,rn.ltt'.lf rilif..5 tOm
BAI/ BITAUN ASSO( IATIS. IN(..
PLANNING dNC COMI"IT,,NI'I Y I )FVhLC)PI4INT
Jun-25-99 ol:59P 97 rt^J79 ?4()9
imagine, my cqngern is anncxing the parcol with tro indication or ass\trancc of how thc
propcrty wiU be zoned. Itinally, what lovel of dosigrr information do you suspcct will be
rcquircd to facilitate thc rcvis$, of this proprsal- My sensc is a ctrnceptual sitc plan will
bc adcquate, but I am intcrcsted in whal you think nray be neccssary.
4) Rcview Procedures
Pleasc advisc as to how you think wc should procccd with the Town'.r revicw, I would
r L ,
1 like a general indication of the Town's attitude about thc proposal prior to spcnding a
Dt&'"r1tr,,/n\g..eat deal of my clicnt's time and moncy. On the othcr hand, I rmderstand the'l'own's
p* | ;n nced to know muc about thc projcct bcfore thcy can rcndcr any kind of opinion. My
' tt'F i;ns.ufigestion is that once we havc workcd through the issues in this lcttcr wc havc a work
U"' | fuldt'" scssion with the Town Council to get thcir imprcssions on lhe projccl. I would bc
td'' intcrcstcd in your thoughts.
Thanlc you again for your time. Your input on thesc issucs will be helpful in ordcr for us to
dctcrminc if and how wc move forward with the project. I look tbnrard to n'orking with you and
the staffon this project.
Sinccrcly,
Thomas r1" Braun, AICP
Stwe King
Pat Dauphinais
Dominic Marrriello
P.O2
P-03e7u7e ?4osJun-25-99 oz : oOP
E
E$i$s(s.
t<tET->r o.(:\x ("",
Q+
o
R','. s$
=
?o-
it
.s.
rI,rooT
It
s\q
d
z
l,rDi-lrrl()
iilt
\'. arr.
.87oGrqaq
,z/
trf""?-
::li\ I
. sol'15
t50.oo'
aJz6'
{o€z
O1r
r
€cz0Da
v,6o'l
=_o|-(nu!
5
tg
ar :3
cD -{!o
.l€rn=oEFt :'
a
o7
=
rt
D-
..{
ru{o
Nat-N
.|'l
75 south honlage road
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 476'7000
April 22, 1988
oftlce ot communlty develoPment
Ms. Susie Webber
viir v.rreY Real.Estate
22a Bridge Street
viif, colorado 8l-657
Re: Lot L4, Block 10' Vail Intermountain
Dear Susie:
The above property is zoned Prinary/secondary'which allows two
units. Accordl"i' to our recorat''l'ttiI-pt"ptitv contains 67' 084
square feet'
r r a .
prop "':{ ::li:*'33::t,t3 rll"*llii:.i:;.niil til'!tti{;}"would trave to rc
amongother.n',,i."l".t!-ii"tttrat.Et!*IJl.-''''t-containatreast 1s,ooo tqti:;! i"!t-"i u"iliuiit uitu' (are1-which does not
incrude flood prain' hazard-artu-li-it"ut i" :Tt9== of 4ot
slope) ' ltith u tiiiiottt of street ;;";;;; "1 19-1""t' Each rot
shall be of a size and shape--t"puir- of-encloslts t square
area' 80 feet oi-eacfr side' within its boundarres'
The procedure.is to have a.registered surveyor s-urvey the
ii"p'"iiv_ :t::i"fl ff":'$:j':H;?;;*+i:l+ily?1":lt:l?[" ".an apPointmenE
a very pretrtrnliv'"t"g" before-P;;;;;i"s fYt!l"t' Further
submftralr"qori!i"ii='.r". ri"t"5'Ii-[il"- 6""r333a suuaivision
reqularions. *'"itEii-"iir-in.r"i! ii"""i"g comrnission and
p.3=iUry Town council'
Please caII lf you have any further questions'
SincerelYt
Betsy Rosolack.
Planning Techniclan
Enclosed: Subdivision Regulations
ePPlication form
,t/ K8
N',T ro / !
box 100
Yail, colorado 81657
13031 47e56r3
department of community development
Novenber 1, 1982
Gene Kennedy
33 Eurlington Drive
Longmont, Colorado 80501
Dear Gene:
This letter is to confirm that Lot 14, Block 10, Vail Intermountain
Subdivision is zoned to allow 6 dwelling units. Should you w.ish to
subdivide this property you would need to go through a minor subdivision
procedure as outlined in the attached informatjon which is proposed to
be adopted by the Town Council within the next few weeks. The provision
in the Primary/Secondary zoning which is attached that is applicableis Section 18.13.050 which designates the necessary 'lot area and site
dimensions. "Buildable area" is defined as any site area with a slope'less than 40%.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Town Planner
PJ:df
Encl .